ization cases, and appear as witnesses solely for the good of their former fellow countrymen and frequently appear as witnesses?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; that may be; and it would be the natural thing to find that. I was talking the other day to my principal assistant, who does most of the work of appearing in the courts around St. Paul and Minneapolis when I do not appear, and we were discussing that very question as to how many people there were, if any, frequently appearing as witnesses, and we both arrived at the conclusion that there was very little of it; that is, one man appearing again and again.

Mr. VAILE. And I presume you arrived at the conclusion that where some man did appear frequently it was from motives of self-interest?

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I would get a little suspicious.

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned a few minutes ago that a certain number of cases, to which you had strongly objected, had been carried on to completion by the courts. What was the line of objection in those cases?

Mr. COLEMAN. I can only give you a general answer to that, Mr. Chairman. As I said awhile ago, most of these cases were cases where we differed with the court as to whether a man had brought sufficient evidence to show that he was not lacking in loyalty.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I want to get at. I do not care to have the committee, you, or the record appear as criticizing the courts, because the courts have final jurisdiction; but I concluded, while you were talking, that probably out in your part of the country the division of opinion arose over loyalty cases?

Mr. COLEMAN. Somewhat a difference of opinion; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So, without criticizing the law or the judges we would be safe in assuming that as a result of the war we developed some cases of that kind?

Mr. COLEMAN. Exactly. I had one case just a few days ago in South Dakota, on which I had done a great deal of work, and there had been two or three hearings in the case. It was first denied by the court, then reopened by the court and set for hearing, and there have been several continuances. We spent a lot of time on the case. We had some prominent people as witnesses in the case; had the United States district attorney of South Dakota as a witness, who has just gone out of office, and we differed with the court, but we did not have the evidence; really, we did not have the evidence to establish our case. It was one of those cases where you feel morally sure the man is wrong at heart, but you can not prove it.

The CHAIRMAN. In addition to the loyalty cases growing out of the war, I suppose you get some cases where there is a division of opinion with regard to the degree of revolutionary tendency on the part of the candidate?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; we have some of those; although I want to say, in justice to the courts in the St. Paul district, that as to that particular class of cases the courts are quite strong. We do not have to show very much to the judges in that part of the country, and I am not comparing them with the judges in other parts of the country. I am merely speaking for that district.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman, if any question as to a quorum should arise, please count me present, as I am obliged to go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which has an important meeting, and they have requested me to be there in order to help make a quorum.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry you can not be with us.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, in my testimony before this committee, of course, I am dealing with conditions in the St. Paul district. Every district has its own peculiarities, and no two are alike. I am telling the committee about this situation as I view it and according to my experience. I have talked with my colleagues as to their work; and while I do not know anything particularly, except from the information I get by reason of my association with them, I do not think they are in the habit of going before the courts unprepared in these

cases.

Mr. RAKER. Before you proceed to another subject, may I ask a couple of questions? On the question of general registration of aliens, is it your view that we would get better results for the aliens and for the Government-expedite matters generally and get better results as to naturalization-if we should have registration of the aliens in this country?

Mr. COLEMAN. I do feel that that would be a very good thing. I have given it some thought since the matter was first brought out several months ago and

suggested. I saw in the papers that there was a plan of that kind suggested, and I am for the registration of aliens. I think it would be a good thing. The CHAIRMAN. How would you do it?

Mr. COLEMAN. If all aliens are registered-and I think that is the best thingit would seem to me necessary that they be registered before some responsible officer, preferably of the Government; but if you are not going to register them all, and it is simply a question of registering those who desire to become citizens, and thereby indicating that desire, they might as well be registered through the public-school officers, if they are willing to perform that duty. However, I would consider that an unfortunate situation; because I realize, and we all realize, I think, that we have no authority over the public-school officers. But if you are dealing with people who are voluntarily coming forward to register, and who are taking that method of proceeding to citizenship, we accomplish just that much if they do register through the public-school officers.

The CHAIRMAN. You have expressed the belief that the general registration of aliens would be a good thing. Now, let us discuss that for two or three minutes. How would you register all aliens in the United States? What would be your first step?

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, if you are going to register all aliens you must have a penalty for not registering, it seems to me. Then, after the law has been enacted, take proper steps for publicity and have the places designated. We have had that experience in the war-the registration for the selective service. The CHAIRMAN. Would you begin at a certain age or would you register them from birth up?

Mr. COLEMAN. I have not given that very detailed thought; as a matter of fact, I have not given this registration very exhaustive thought, but it seems to me it would be best to register them all, have a registration of all aliens.

I want to say to this committee that in my personal view it is very important and very necessary to have a codification of the naturalization laws, and I am mighty glad to see it is proposed to do something of that kind in this bill, although the bill as it now stands has some important defects in the matter of arrangement. There is a proposition in this bill to change the law relative to substituting witnesses in place of those who have been found incompetent or disqualified. No doubt this committee knows that at the present time, in accordance with the opinions of the courts, it is held that a petition not verified by two competent witnesses is void, and such a petition is dismissed and denied, and another petition must be filed with proper witnesses. I am in favor of this proposed change, provided it makes it mandatory on the courts to cause the posting of the names and addresses of the substituted witnesses for at least 90 days, or at least that there be a requirement that on the request of a representative of the Government the court shall do this in any particular case. Mr. VAILE. One of the gentlemen appearing here expressed the opinion that the posting of these names did not actually accomplish much. What is your opinion of that?

Mr. COLEMAN. My opinion is that to abolish that requirement is a distinct step backward. The whole theory of naturalization is publicity and giving an opportunity to the citizens of a community

Mr. VAILE (interposing). I do not think the objection was made on the ground that the witness opposed publicity, but on the ground that that kind of publicity was useless as such and that it did not accomplish the purpose.

Mr. COLEMAN. While it is very true that a great number of people, the great majority of people, pay no attention at all to these posted notices, the fact is that there are people who do pay attention to them. This posted notice is kept in a public place in the courthouse, either in the corridors of the courthouse or outside the rail in the clerk's office, and the clerk's office is accessible to the public. Inside of the clerk's office are kept these petitions for naturalization in bound volumes. Of course, any citizen who knows his business knows that he can go there and ask the clerk to look at those volumes, but the great bulk of the citizens do not realize that, and they do not feel like going in there to look over those things, although it requires very little work. I think that possibly there is a little too much now required in the posted notice, and I think it would be sufficient if the posted notices show that a petition has been filed and that it contains the name of the petitioner and his address, the names of witnesses, and shows the time of the hearing on the petition, but I do feel, and I feel it very strongly, that if we should cut out this posted notice, we would be taking a distinct step backward, and I am opposed to abolishing that requirement.

The CHAIRMAN. You probably see it from two viewpoints. One is that of a city of considerable size, as mentioned by Mr. Kleczka yesterday, where the notices are stuck up in the corridors of a large courthouse. Then you see it again from the viewpoint of an officer who covers some county, like a farthermost county in North Dakota, where there is a limited number of notices stuck up, and which are probably seen by all of the frequenters of the courthouse, and under such conditions some letters or information will get into your office or will come to your assistants concerning a certain individual if he has been a disturbing element, a criminal, or a bootlegger. Do you have cases where they tip you off?

Mr. COLEMAN. I do have cases from time to time where people write me letters; some of them do not write me letters, but happen to get in touch with the examiner and tell him about this man or that man. Frequently it happens that a man says, "I do not want to be known in this matter," for obvious

reasons.

The CHAIRMAN. Here is a thought that occurred to me in connection with this inquiry, and it came from something you said to the effect that you were inclined to think the two witnesses were the two most desirable friends that could be found for the applicant and that it was better to make a little inquiry on the outside. I presume we all know that the Civil Service Commission of the United States is assisting in the selection of postmasters by sending out questionnaires to those who have been stated by the candidates as being willing to recommend them, and it just occurred to me that a plan like that might help. Mr. VAILE. Not only as to postmasters but as to all civil-service applicants. The CHAIRMAN. Suppose a candidate for citizenship gives the names of two witnesses who are going to be carried along to a certain point, and also gives the names of six or eight friends who know him, and the naturalization service would then proceed to see these friends or send questionnaires to these friends would that add to the burden and gain you nothing?

Mr. COLEMAN. I think you would have the same difficulty there. The friends he picks out will be the ones he thinks will be favorable to him. The CHAIRMAN. Surely; and it would just increase the number.

Mr. WHITE. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Going back to the subject of publicity, I was impressed with the statement made by Mr. Kleczka on yesterday, and if we want some real publicity why do you not print notices in the county papers? Then you would have publicity, but it would cost some money.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right where they have county papers.

Mr. WHITE. Well, in the city papers, and then you would have hundreds of papers in which the notices could be published. It is well known that in the rural districts the average man hardly visits the county courthouse once a year; many times he does not make one visit a year on account of the inconvenience of getting there, and when he pays his taxes he sends them in. I think Mr. Kleczka's statement is absolutely typical of the situation, or, at least, it indicates the general situation, especially in rural communities. Therefore, the people in the rural communities do not see these notices, and I do not know how necessary it is that they should see them.

Mr. RAKER. Does not the gentleman overlook this, and I will ask the witness the question: That in practically all rural districts-in fact, all of them-newspapers are printed at the county seat, and that they have active reporters on these papers who look at these notices and I imagine that three-fourths or all of these notices are published as news items in the papers. The fact that Smith or Jones is making an application for naturalization is carried as a news item, and if they have anything against the man the newspaper knows about it and they ask this man and that man about him. Therefore, so far as the country papers are concerned, real publicity is given to those posted notices. Mr. VAILE. You do not mean Jones or Smith, but you mean Paduski or Markovitch.

Mr. WHITE. I think the gentleman from California in this particular instance is absolutely wrong in his opinion, from my own observations.

Mr. RAKER. I am speaking from what occurs in my own country, where it is exactly as I have stated it. In most every instance you will notice that Jones or Paduski, or whatever his name is, has made application for citizenship. It is carried as a news item. The boys go up to the courthouse or to the office in which these notices are posted, they see the notices and then carry in the newspapers a news item concerning them.

Mr. WHITE. That may be true in one instance and not true in hundreds of others.

Mr. RAKER. As the gentleman knows, property worth thousands and tens of thousands of dollars is sold on notices posted in that way, and the posting of those notices gives the court jurisdiction, and those notices are published in the newspapers.

Mr. WHITE. I know that as well as the gentleman, and the gentleman has stated it in his fluent, subtle, and sagacious manner, but the fact is that those other things are advertised, while it is not a legal requirement that these notices be published in the newspapers; it is only a voluntary notice carried in the paper as a news item, as the gentleman suggests, and it is not parallel with his other statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The publication of these notices in newspapers would mean expense, and it is a matter that will have to be taken up by the committee. Mr. WHITE. Certainly, and doubtless it will be taken up by the committee. I was probably out of order in calling it to the attention of the committee at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. It is suggested to me that one advantage in having these lists posted is that these educators probably watch those lists and get information that they probably can not get from the clerks.

66

Mr. COLEMAN. I can not help but feeling that there ought to be something in this law more specifically requiring a knowledge on the part of the applicant as to the form and fundamentals of our Government. The statute now says, and it is proposed to continue it, knowledge of the principles of the Constitution of the United States. Sometimes a difference of opinion arises as to what that means. I have heard the courts in the past say, Well, this man has been living here in the community; he has conducted himself right, has a good family, has a nice farm here, and is law abiding in every way, and he satisfies me that he has a knowledge of the principles of the Constitution of the United States." I realize the difficulty of stating specifically what these requirements should be, but I do feel that there ought to be something in this statute indicating the necessity of this man having a reasonable knowledge as to what our Constitution is. I do not mean to say, as I said yesterday. that he should be a constitutional lawyer, or be able to recite any part of the Constitution, but something by which he would be required-and could not be evaded-to have a knowledge as to what this instrument is that he is swearing he will support, and also require workable knowledge as to the fundamentals and frame work of our Government, so that when he is made a citizen it can be inferred therefrom that he will be in a position to fairly and intelligently exercise the right to vote. We know the importance of that. I have no particular suggestion to make in the matter, but I desire to call the attention of the committee to that.

There is one place in this bill where a change is made in the matter of those filing applications for citizenship claiming exemption from a declaration of intention by reason of the fact that they have been misinformed and misled in the past as to their citizenship, and that they, by reason of that misinformation, actually believed themselves for a long time to be citizens. In this proposed change it is specifically stated that it shall not be applicable to any person who was ever the subject of a country with which we were at war; that is to say, who was ever an alien enemy. I am opposed to that. I do not see any reason at all, gentlemen of the committee, why we should penalize a man just because he happened to be at one time a citizen of a country with which we were formerly at war.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have touched quite an important point. You do not object to giving citizenship to those who have been here a long time and have actually lived under misinformation, to the effect that their fathers were naturalized, and that naturalized them, or something to that effect, or that the fathers thought the first papers were the final papers, and so on? There is quite a number of such cases, and principally in the outlying country. You think if we intend to go that far toward cleaning up this hangover or near citizenship we might just as well consider the war ended as regards those who were technically alien enemies in the United States at the time of the war?

Mr. COLEMAN. I think so.

Mr. VAILE. Your idea is that that class of alien enemies includes a great many people who were merely technically such on account of the circumstance of their birth, and who, as a matter of fact, are probably well disposed toward the United States?

Mr. COLEMAN. Every one of these people must prove that-that they were so disposed.

Mr. VAILE. They must prove that any way?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. I do not see any reason in the world why we should put something in the law, after the war is all over, that will penalize a man who happened to be a subject or citizen of a country with which we were formerly at war. I think it is unfair, and I am opposed to it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are right about that.

Mr. WILSON. You would put a man who happened to be a citizen of a country with which were formerly at war when he comes to be naturalized, after the war is over and peace conditions are settled, on the same basis as you would a man from any other country?

Mr. COLEMAN. Exactly.

Mr. VAILE. Except the fact that he was an alien enemy might require some further examination.

Mr. WILSON. Do you have reference to those who, during the war, were already here, or those who may come later?

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, those that come later would not come within this provision; they can not come within the terms of this provision.

The CHAIRMAN. I see exactly what he means; the matter of those who come from now on from countries with which the United States has been at war is another question, and one which we will have to handle pretty carefully. I say that for the reason that in the United States there are the relatives of over 100,000 dead soldiers, and they are bound to be resentful for a long time toward those who come from countries whose acts of war killed those boys.

Mr. RAKER. I have been advised by those who have been over there, even some Members of Congress, that those people are not feeling that way toward our people and our country.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not referring to the feeling there, but to the feeling here.

Mr. VAILE. I do not really think there would be such general resentment. Mr. WILSON. There is quite a feeling that the 3 per cent bill opened up the way for a great many of those people to come here.

Mr. VAILE. That was discussed in the committee, but, as a matter of fact, I have not heard a single instance of resentment because of Germany being given that opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. But they have not commenced to come.

Mr. WILSON. But they will come, will they not?

Mr. VAILE. I have not heard a single expression of resentment.

The CHAIRMAN. As chairman of the committee I have received a great many letters.

Mr. RAKER. I have heard no complaint.

The CHAIRMAN. But you will hear it. You have not heard it as yet, because we have not gotten to an actual state of peace, and the number of Germans coming in under the 3 per cent restriction has been very small. They come under special restrictions, 1,000 per month or less, and they have not landed in numbers to amount to anything. Under the 20 per cent maximum that can come in in any one month the quota from Germany can come in some time between the 1st of January and the 30th day of next June, and I can imagine every steamship coming in here loaded to the guards with German relatives of those who are now here, and then when they begin taking the westbound trains to this and that community the newspapers will take notice of it and all of us will hear of it.

Mr. RAKER. I would like to state my view of that right here. I think that our new restrictive law under which only so many can come should be continued for three or four years yet, and that the Germans who come to this country from now on, and reside here for five years, upon making their showing just as other aliens make their showings, should be naturalized like anybody else. The war is over, and if they make a proper oath of renunciation, even though they may have been soldiers, I think they will make good American citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, any laws we make regarding naturalization must be uniform under the Constitution. However, the thing we have under discussion right here, and Mr. Coleman has made a good suggestion in regard to it, may be found on page 22, line 7, and we had the same provision in H. R. 9, as follows: