Mr. FARRELL. Let me explain that, because I want to give the committee the value of anything I know in regard to this thing. The idea is for better citizenship and to do it in a uniform way throughout the country. That is, as I understand it, the object. Well, now, it is not a matter of denials. We stop people from filing their petitions if we think they can not get through in the Federal courts. Where we have a chance to see them beforehand we tell them what the trouble is, in each instance explaining to them what the difficulty is, so that it is up to them then as to whether they file or not. The CHAIRMAN. Do you notify a man whose citizenship you are opposing and whom you are discouraging that he has a right to go to the court? Mr. FARRELL. Absolutely in every case. I would feel I was in a very uncomfortable position if I failed to do it, and there is no reason why I should not, because I am not looking for that kind of a record and I do not think anybody is going to give me credit for having a large record in that respect. I think I would feel kind of cheap about it if it was very, very large, and that is why I feel if I can take care of it in advance there will be no great difficulty or any comeback to me. I always try to help them. The CHAIRMAN. When you have deterred a man from proceeding with his application for citizenship and have notitfied him that he has a right to go to court, do you have many cases where they go on to court? Mr. FARRELL. Very few. And in those instances I tell the judge that the petitioner was advised beforehand and was told what the trouble was. The CHAIRMAN. And in a case of that kind the judge makes a personal examination, I presunre? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. I think it is quite important for you to tell us, if you have not the figures or if you can not get them definitely, what your judgment is as to the number of applicants you have advised not to proceed and who did not; that is, during the last fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, of which you have just spoken. Mr. FARRELL. Well, I have a nonfile in the office. I keep a record of all those that come in and have been examined, and whether or not they file. I have a nonfile in the records there, but I have not the figures here. Mr. RAKER. There were 22,000 that got through? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. What is your judgment, without being definite and being subject to correction, as to the number you advised not to proceed and who did not? Mr. FARRELL. That, of course, only relates to those that we see beforehand and practically in regard to the Federal courts. The number is not so very, very large and I would say there was probably no more than one in twenty, or so. Mr. RAKER. Will you place in the record the number of courts in your jurisdiction that have naturalization jurisdiction, so that we may see how many courts could work on these 22,000? Mr. FARRELL. There are 6 Federal courts sitting in about 14 cities and 65 State courts sitting in 95 cities and towns. The CHAIRMAN. I have gathered the impression from you that there are two methods of naturalization procedure, one in the Federal courts and one in the State courts. In your opinion would it be better to have naturalization commissioners make all of these examinations and send all of the final citizenship applications to Federal courts? Mr. FARRELL. You mean traveling commissioners to go around, because if you put a commissioner in one place he might not get enough work to keep him busy or any way near it. If a commissioner were appointed at Boston to take care of the Federal court business-that is, the filings in the United States district court-and he had nothing to do except to hear naturalization petitions, I do not think he would really have enough to keep him busy. If he traveled throughout the State and held hearings and relieved the State courts from the burden of naturalization I think he would have plenty to do and he might have to have some help. The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, that is getting at the idea. To all intents and purposes you are a commissioner of the courts without the law stating so specifically? Mr. FARRELL. I suppose to an extent that is true. The CHAIRMAN. You examine these cases and the judge depends upon you; you and the judge talk it over, and the judge sets a certain standard, does he not? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir; he may make it plain to me in advance what his ideas are and what he will require. The CHAIRMAN. Exactly. So you are his arm, trying to relieve him of the necessity of individual examinations? Mr. FARRELL. I believe that is true. The CHAIRMAN. There is no reason why you should not be so designated by law and have authority to travel over a certain district holding commissioner's courts for the purpose of procuring naturalization papers, examining them, and hearing witnesses? Mr. FARRELL. Well, I think that is possible, but it would require Mr. RAKER (interposing). I know, but you would not want to go into hundreds of counties, where these parties can get to the courts with l'ttle inconvenience and little expense, and take jurisdiction from those courts whereby these people can be naturalized in a good, fine way, would you? Mr. FARRELL. I am not looking for the job at all, but I am answering the question that was put to me. Mr. VAILE. In fact, that was not involved in the question? Mr. RAKER. I did not mean it personally. Mr. VAILE. I know, but that was not involved in the question. It does not take any jurisdiction away from the courts because the final hearing is before the courts. This jurisdiction would not be taken from the courts any more than jurisdiction is taken from the courts in bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. RAKER. The discussion here this morning has developed the fact that there are a few congested cities, but that about 80 per cent of these courts outside of those congested cities are functioning in good shape. Mr. FARRELL. Mr. Chairman, in trying to give the committee the benefit of the experience I have had I want to state this: In those outside courts the matter is unwelcome, at least, in many of them, and especially where they have but very little of it, because every case that comes before a clerk is a burden on him. He is unfamiliar with the law, and in every case he has to make an inquiry almost de novo; he has to look up the requirements and he groans, and in some places he says to the petitioner-this is actually So"I will give you $4 if you will go somewhere else and file this." It is a burden in that way because you are only giving that man half the fees and because of the time it takes, especially in those country courts; he is not recompensed or compensated for the effort he makes. It is in the big centers that there is money for the clerk, and there you try to shut him off with $3,000. Mr. RAKER. The groaning of the clerk and the complaint of a judge in a congested district do not appeal to me very much, because I think a man who feels that way and does that way ought to be kicked out of office or resign. Mr. FARRELL. Well, I agree with that. Mr. SABATH. But we have no jurisdiction to kick out any county clerk or county official or even a State official, have we? Mr. FARRELL. No. Mr. SABATH. Of course not. Mr. FARRELL. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, and I would state this: The difficulty is because it is a new matter to him, he has not very much of it, and he thinks it is a Federal matter anyway, and ought to be taken care of by a Federal court. Some of the judges have pretty nearly the same opinion, and they do not fail to express it at times. Mr. CABLE. Under the present law if an alien woman marries an American citizen or if the husband is naturalized, the woman becomes naturalized, but under this law there is a provision for the separate naturalization of an alien Woman. What do you think of that? Do you think women will go into court and become naturalized when their husbands are naturalized or not? Mr. FARRELL. Well, that is a question you can answer as well as I can. Mr. CABLE. I want your opinion of it. Mr. FARRELL. Well, I know this, that we have in the Federal court at Boston every naturalization day-which is once a week-from 8 to 12 women. Of course, they are not married women, and the number is increasing slowly. Now, with regard to married women, as to whether they will come in, I think it will take a great deal of effort and education to get them. The CHAIRMAN. You can see the theory of that in the bill. We will be very frank and fair about all of those features. You must begin with the knowledge that there are in the United States a class of people who believe: "We should have all that is coming to us "-aliens who are willing to begin at the bottom and work in ditches from the foundation up. I notice that the same people, generally speaking, who want that class of labor to come in do not want them to come into the voting privilege. Now, I am firmly of the opinion that the United States can not afford to have this naturalization so hard, so tight, and so full of red tape that if that class of people are brought here or should come here with some sort of knowledge of free government, that they could not participate in the affairs of the Government by voting somewhere or somehow if they are at all competent. On the other hand, we turn right around, after making it hard for them to get citizenship, and denounce them for their connection with radical organizations. By failing to allow them to participate in our form of government we do our part in driving them into those organizations. On top of that, we have given citizenship and the voting privilege to the women of the country; and, having done that, it stands to reason that we should not naturalize women who are to be voters without any knowledge of them, and, therefore, you must of necessity have separate naturalization for them. Mr. WILSON. I read of a case a day or two ago, or a newspaper report, where a man came in to be naturalized and the judge refused to render judgment until he brought his wife in to take the oath of naturalization. They based that upon the contention that women had become full citizens. Now, under what law did he take that position? Mr. CRIST. That is only a matter of discretion with the court. There is no provision of law under which he does that. Mr. SABATH. Many judges have been doing that and refusing naturalization because the man had not brought his wife here. They claim that he can not be a good citizen if he leaves his wife behind, but they do not make allowance for the fact that we have in many cases made it impossible for her to come in. In the first place, the man is denied citizenship because he does not bring in his wife, and, on the other hand, we make it impossible for him to bring his wife in. We then say that he can not become a citizen. The CHAIRMAN. The committee is trying to do two things: We are trying to cut down the great expense of an alien in reaching a state of naturalization; we are trying to change the form of the original declaration, and we are trying to change the forms used leading up to citizenship by employing a registration process. We are trying to recognize here the authority that the naturalization examiner should have. We are trying to let all who are to be voters come in, and we are trying to determine the ones who want citizenship, whether male or female. What will probably happen is that we will find that we are on such a hair-trigger subject, and that it is so easy to split hairs on details, that after sitting here many hours discussing details we will get probably one or two amendments to the naturalization law. Mr. SABATH. You say that there were 900 or a little over 900 denials. How many cases have you that you are holding back or that you have not reported on at all? Mr. FARRELL. I could not say definitely. Mr. SABATH. I mean approximately. Approximately, how many of the 22,000 cases that you referred to are you holding back? Mr. FARRELL. There are pending in my office cases in which I can not get the people to come, after notifying them from time to time, possibly three or four thousand cases in the United States district courts and State courts. We used to clear off the dockets, but since the war started we could not tell whether applicants were absent in the military service and we hesitated lest by cleaning up we would do injury to them. Mr. SABATH. Whenever you are not satisfied in your mind that a man ought to be naturalized you are not in a great hurry to send in his name. In other words, you only send in the names of those who upon examination and investigation have satisfied you that they are entitled to citizenship. The others you dismiss or continue from time to time? Mr. FARRELL. That is true, but not for that. reason, or for the reason you would probably infer. It is true for this reason, that I want to give those who can go through within the limited period of time the first chance. I want to give them a chance, but no petitioner is kept out of court for a longer period than six months unless he specifically requests it. Mr. SABATH. Some gentlemen think that you pass upon all applicants who come in, if you find them all right, and that they are made citizens without any further investigation or examination. I know differently, of course. Mr. FARRELL. May I say one thing in regard to the bill? This registration is, of course, to some extent a new proposition. There may have been some precedent for it in years gone by, or a long time ago. It has a value that has not been spoken of, so far as I know, before, and this is something that comes to my attention because of the efforts of those various organizations to help uplift the alien. Some of them are State organizations, paid as part of the State government. I find that they can only function on those who have already taken out their first papers. That is true because those people are of record, and they can identify them. They have their names and addresses, but they can not expect in the general way of advertising or by talking patriotism to reach those who have never come in and taken out their first papers. These latter constitute the great bulk of the aliens. They can not get into direct contact with them, and a lot of that. advertising is practically valueless. It has very little result, and this registration that you provide for here will, to my mind, have a very great effect. Mr. VAILE. Your argument suggests that perhaps there should be some form of compulsion. Mr. FARRELL. I did not come to argue the compulsory part of it. I have a feeling in my mind, and I so stated to a committee from a chamber of commerce that was asked if they could not. help to swell the number of those who have taken out first papers, that that must be done through organizations like the public schools, Y. M. C. A., and other like organizations that might wish to help. Mr. Box. What percentage of aliens do not make the first. application? Mr. Box. About what is the percentage? Mr. FARRELL. I can not figure that. Mr. VAILE. I am not sure that any particular territory has been mentioned, but if you will look over the census reports you will see the percentage of citizenship from among aliens. Those reports cover those who have taken out their first papers, and the figures are accessible to us. Mr. Box. I thought he had some general idea of it. He said that the great bulk of them did not take out their first papers, and I was wondering if it was really true that more than half of them did not. Mr. FARRELL. I can give you the figures of the declarations filed in the year 1921. That number was 32,099 in the New England district. You have some idea of the alien population in New England. and that the alien can file his declaration the moment he arrives in the country. I think that compulsion as applied to registration in assisting the filing of first papers is almost a necessity. You can not reach the alien or get in contact with him until he files that declaration. The CHAIRMAN. You will notice that the provision in this bill only permits an alien who desires examination to start with registration. It does not say that he shall do so, but it is a prerequisite to applying for citizenship. Therefore, if the alien is slow or unwilling and does not get started by taking out his first papers, it is possible that he will not know how to register under the provisions of this bill. The theory of it is that societies, employers, schools, and other organizations can encourage the men or induce them to register, but it is voluntary. The reason it was made voluntary was because of the discussion in this committee and by the secretaries of the department under this administration as to the constitutionality of arbitrary registration or the enforced registration of aliens. I notice that the California alien registration law has been declared unconstitutional in the State court. Mr. RAKER. That was solely because of the fact that it only required aliens of a certain class to register, and not all of the people. If it had included them all, there would have been no question. The CHAIRMAN. The same criticism would apply to any act that would require the registration of all aliens in the United States and not the registration of all the people. If, in order to register all the aliens in the United States you would have to register all the people, you would have a job larger than the draft registration was. Mr. RAKER. You would be in favor of the registration of aliens if it could be done properly and legally? Mr. FARRELL. Yes sir. Mr. RAKER. You think that it would be a good thing for the alien as well as for the country? Mr. FARRELL. Yes, sir. If it could be done, I would make it so that it could be done by the aliens at the same time that others go to vote. I wish to present the correspondence which gave rise to the standing orders of the Federal court in Boston. STATEMENT OF MR. MERTON A. STURGES, CHIEF NATURALIZATION EXAMINER FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT, NEW YORK, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been in the service? Mr. STURGES. Ever since the act of 1906 was passed. The CHAIRMAN. You have been a chief examiner how long? Mr. STURGES. Since the 1st of July, 1909. The CHAIRMAN. You have heard this general résumé of the contents of this bill and have heard the discussion that followed it? Mr. STURGES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to start in out of the clear sky with criticisms, suggestions, and observations in regard to it? Mr. STURGES. I hardly know where to commence. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we start with registration. Mr. STURGES. I am entirely in sympathy with the requirement that all aliens should register at stated periods of time. The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the provision of the Constitution that states that aliens shall not be taxed differently from citizens? Mr. STURGES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that would have any application to the matter of registration? Mr. STURGES. I have not gone into that feature deeply enough to express an opinion upon it. The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the speeches and efforts of Secretary Davis to bring about registration? Mr. STURGES. Yes, sir; to some extent. I know his views. The CHAIRMAN. If the registration of aliens could be brought about, what size fee would you think would be about right? Mr. STURGES. That is another matter I have not given much thought. It seems to me that it would have to be determined after a careful survey was made. The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary has called for a fee of $25 a year, but, in my conversations with him, he has not been able to say whether that fee should apply to just the heads of families, or to people above 21 years of age, or to people in employment. There would be a condition, of course, in which that fee might be excessive or extreme. Mr. STURGES. It would be quite a burden, I would say, and also I would not believe offhand that any such fee as that would be necessary to cover the expense. It would seem to me that the preparation of a certificate of registration would not entail much more work than the preparation of a declaration of intention to become a citizen. The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, coming right down to registration as a part of the plan for citizenship, do you see any objection to registering a prospective citizen annually? Mr. STURGES. I see no objection and I think it would be very desirable. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that if that plan can be developed it would facilitate the work of the examining officers? Mr. STURGES. Manifestly so, in my judgment. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that annual regiseration should be accompanied by annual examination on the part of the examiners? Mr. STURGES. I doubt the wisdom of that. The CHAIRMAN. That would bring about too heavy machinery, in all probability, would it not? Mr. STURGES. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that if a man had to register as a prerequisite to citizenship, and then took out his declaration of intention and knew he had to register annually, that he would be inclined to make a voluntary effort to register? |