"Any person who has at no time been an alien enemy, and who was on July 1, 1914, otherwise qualified to become a citizen of the United States, except that he had not made the declaration of intention required by law, and who prior to that time, believing that he was a citizen of the United States, exercised the rights and performed the duties of a citizen of the United States, may file the petition for naturalization prescribed by law, without making the preliminary declaration of intention required of other aliens, after registering at least one time."

Now, the reason why the phrase "who has at no time been an alien enemy is in here was because the war was on when we began the preparation of that naturalization bill, and it was in the act we passed in 1918.

Mr. RAKER. That was continuing in force a provision of law already in force allowing Germans to be naturalized under certain conditions, when the President consented; but that is all past and gone.

Mr. COLEMAN. On yesterday Mr. Bevington, of St. Louis, made some suggestion to the committee in regard to putting something into the law by which to deal with those people who, after their naturalization, committed some unlawful act or were found to be unfit for citizenship. In passing, I want to make this suggestion, that it seems to me that in framing some provision of the statute applicable to those cases it might be well to provide that in an action to cancel their papers, a subsequent disloyal act, or such act as you may designate, shall be presumptive evidence that when he was admitted to citizenship he concealed his real attitude toward this country. That would throw the burden of proof upon him.

Now, on yesterday something was said about women. I am a thorough believer in this proposition to put women on their own individual footing as to citizenship. I have been an advocate of that for two years. Two years ago I recommended that in my annual report to the bureau, or I recommended that something of that kind be done. Now, I want to tell this committee what has happened up in northern Minnesota. There are quite a number of judicial districts in my territory in northern Minnesota and in some other districts where we have prevailed upon the courts to make a requirement that if the alien is a married man and is applying for citizenship he shall bring his wife with him personally to court, and if she demonstrates before the court her unfitness for citizenship or if she is not fitted the court will decline to naturalize him. The result of that has been this, that in the night schools in that section of the State of Minnesota-I can not give the exact figures now, and I wish I had the exact figures with me but I think I am correct in saying that it has increased the attendance of women in those night schools from very little to practically as inuch, if not more, than the attendance of men. You would be surprised at it. They have taken a very deep interest in the matter and it has given a great impetus to the work of the evening schools.

Mr. VAILE. So far, at least, as the work in the country districts is concerned that fact would seem to disprove the statement that the women would not have time to attend them.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir; it certainly would make that appear.

Now, in these matters of elections I do not know that I should take up the time of the committee by discussing them, but of course I feel that there ought to be every safeguard against anybody being naturalized just before elections; but when this provision was put into the act of 1906 prohibiting naturalization within 30 days before an election I think the committee overlooked the fact that in another part of the bill they made it impossible for them to do so, because a man must file his petition at least 90 days before he is naturalized. He must take some action himself at least 90 days before he is naturalized. That provision in the law was aimed at an old practice of rushing people in just before election from the byways and highways so as to have them to vote for this or that candidate.

Mr. RAKER. At this time practically all the States have laws requiring the registration of electors 30 days before an election.

Mr. COLEMAN, Yes, sir. As the law stands now it cuts us out of doing a lot of naturalization work at times.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe the statement came from Wisconsin that one year there were so many elections of all kinds that the naturalization work was pretty well suspended and they were prevented from declaring intention. That law, it would appear, meant general elections, but it was held out there to apply to bond elections, school elections, city elections, and primary elections.

Mr. RAKER. Our court held that a primary election came within the terms of the law, and they refused to naturalize two men in my district on account of a primary election.

Mr. COLEMAN. I could tell you of some difficulties we have had lately. We have had men working in the State of North Dakota, with a great deal of work to do. We went to considerable trouble to get the courts throughout the State to make naturalization rule days in succession, so that the judge in a certain section would give so many days in succession, and then, following that, there would be so many days in another circuit, covering nearly the whole State circuit courts in that way. In that way we could cover the State twice a year and save considerable expense to the Government. Now, you have probably heard of this recall election in the State of North Dakota, which broke right into this program I have just mentioned. I felt embarrassed about the matter and wrote to the five judges in whose districts those hearings would fall within 30 days before the election. I called their attention to the provision of the law and asked them what they would do about it. I then took occasion to say that so far as my personal opinion was concerned it would seem that what actuated Congress to make this provision in the sixth section of the act of 1906 would be as applicable to an important election of that kind as to the November election. The judges wrote me that it was not a general election under the terms of their State law, but as to whether it was within the spirit of the naturalization law a general election they were uncertain. Two of them wrote me positively that it was not within the naturalization law and that they proposed to hold the hearings.

Mr. VAILE. It says here "any election."

Mr. COLEMAN. I am speaking now of section 6 of the act of 1906 and not about the provision of the act of 1918 relating to declarations of intention. Then after all I felt what was the use. I did not see that any great harm was done. Practically all of those applicants had filed their petitions months ago, It is a difficult situation, and I would not worry at all if the provision were taken out of the act.

The CHAIRMAN. One difficulty there has been that several States voted applicants upon their first papers, and it was with much pleasure that I noted that the number of those States had been reduced to one-Missouri. (Thereupon the committee took a recess until 1 o'clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The committee resumed its session at 1 o'clock p. m.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Coleman, you will proceed with your statement.

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is not much more that I want to say, and I do not want to take up too much of the committee's time, unless you have some inquiries that you desire to make of me. In pass'ng, I feel that it is quite important that in this requirement of law as to reading in the English language, there ought to be some provision or some reasonable test prescribed. I also feel that it would be important, and it is important, to have some expression in the law making some test of speaking in the English language, such, for instance, as a requirement that the alien shall be able to carry on an ordi'nary conversation in English. We have, unfortunately, had cases heretofore in which there would come up before the court the question of whether or not a man could speak English, and the court would ask him a question and he would answer Yes" or "No," and the court would say, "that man can speak English," and he would be admitted to citizenship.

66

The CHAIRMAN. What would happen?

Mr. COLEMAN. The man would answer some question, "Yes" or "No," or perhaps he would pick up a pencil and say that it is a pencil. He hight pick up some article and give the name of it, but he could not carry on a conversation in English at all within the meaning and intent of the law. I feel that there should be some standard or test prescribed, such, for instance, as that he shall be required to be able to carry on an ordinary conversation in English. There is another matter upon which I desire to go on record, not for the purpose of opening up a discussion, but simply as a matter of record. It seems that I am in a minority upon the subject, but, nevertheless, I will go on record here as favoring the abolition of the requirement of the certificate of arrival. I have given this matter very careful thought for a long time, and I have heretofore again and again recommended it to the Bureau of Naturalization. I am

fully convinced from my own personal experience, although the experience of my colleagues may be different, that it is of no practical value; that it has caused a great deal of expense, much work, and a great many vexatious delays. I do not object to the delays if we accomplish anything thereby, but when we are not accomplishing anything by the delays, we had as well get that requirement out of the statute. In this connection I wish to refer to the statement made by Judge Raker yesterday, wherein he seemed to be under the impression that the immigration people were making false certificates, and that they ought to be prosecuted for it, or something to that effect. I fully agree that a man ought to be prosecuted for making a false statement or a false certificate, but I wish to call attention to the fact that this nunc pro tunc certificate which I consider an absolute farce and I might characterize it even more strongly than that is made by the immigration people, and on that certificate is a printed statement. I can not give the exact words, but the statement is to the effect that it is not a certificate of the fact that the man arrived in this country on the date named in the certificate. Practically, it is a certificate based on what the man told the inspector at that time.

Mr. VAILE. The cerificate is based upon information subsequently acquired? Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir. It is not a certificate of fact at all that the man did arrive at the time named. Now, I wish to call attention to a peculiar situation here, and I have given a good deal of thought to it.

The CHAIRMAN. As a part of your remarks, you might insert this card. Mr. COLEMAN. The statement on the back of this nunc pro tunc certificate reads as follows:

"It is granted solely for the purpose of allowing the alien to file a petition so that the court in which such petition is filed may judicially determine whether the certificate of arrival required by section 4 must be made up from the registration prescribed in section 1 of the naturalization act. This point should be brought to the attention of the court in every case in which it is used."

But, Mr. Chairman, the particular statement that I want to call attention to is on the front of the certificate, reading as follows:

"This certificate does not purport to verify the landing or admission of the alien named. From a subsequent examination it appears that he arrived at the port indicated on the date specified, and entered the United States without registration or examination under the immigration laws."

It simply emasculates the certificate.

The CHAIRMAN. I will let the front and back of the certificate appear in the record at this point.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Form 526a

CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL-FOR NATURALIZATION PURPOSES.

(For use of aliens arriving in United States after June 29, 1906. To be issued immediately prior to petitioning for naturalization.)

at

U. U. Department of Labor, Immigration Service. Office of This is to certify that the following-named alien arrived at the port indicated on the date and in the manner described below, viz:

Name of alien:

Port of entry:

Date of arrival:

Name of vessel (or railroad company or any other conveyance):
Line :

This certificate does not purport to verify the landing or admission of the alien named. From a subsequent examination it appears that he arrived at the port indicated on the date specified, and entered the United States without registration or examination under the immigration laws, because of NOTE.-See reverse side for remaining portion of statement.

[Reverse.]

It is granted solely for the purpose of allowing the alien to file a petition so that the court in which such petition is filed may judicially determine whether

the certificate of arrival required by section 4 must be made up from the registration prescribed in section 1 of the naturalization act. This point should be brought to the attention of the court in every case in which it is used.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the thought that has bothered this committee, as well as Members of the House and members of the Appropriation Committee was expressed by one of the chief examiners yesterday in his statement to the effect that the fact that he is without proof of arrival is not sufficient to debar him entirely if he has been able to stick it out in the country for five years.

Mr. COLEMAN. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that where a native-born citizen of the United States desires official documentary evidence of his citizenship, and is unable to procure an official birth certificate, there is no tribunal empowered by law to determine his status in an ex parte proceeding instituted for that purpose. I will give you an illustration so as to bring out what I desire to bring out before the committee: An order was served on me, issued out of the United States district court at St. Paul, to appear and show cause why that court should not adjudge a certain man, living in the city of St. Paul, as a citizen of the United States. This young man was a prominent business man in St. Paul, and the son-in-law of one of the judges of that State. The judge I know very well. It appears that this young man was born in the city of Philadelphia, and he was raised there. In connection with his manufacturing business in St. Paul he had gotten out a patent, and he desired to have that patent extended to foreign countries and particularly at that time to Russia, which was yet in the war. The Russian Government required as a very positive condition that he should prove his American citizenship. He was absolutely unable to produce any record of his birth, which is true, I think, of over half of the citizens of the United States to-day. That is a conservative estimate, I think, Therefore, he had gone to a very prominent attorney, who was personally known to me, in St. Paul, and that attorney had advised him upon the matter and had gotten out this order to show cause. The attorney came in and talked over the matter with me. I said to him, " You can not do anything in this matter." He said, "Why not?" I said, "I personally have not the slightest doubt in the world that this man is a citizen. I am just as sure of it as I am of my own citizenship, but the court has no authority whatever in this ex parte way to hear and adjudicate this matter." I said to him, "I grant you that if it were a case inter parties, where the question of his citizenship was raised, and that cause was before the court, the court would have authority under the law to decide that he was or was not a citizen." We went into the judge's chambers, and I said, "Personally, I will do anything I can to help him, but you have no authority of law to adjudicate this matter-not any more than you would have authority to adjudicate such a matter if I came in here and asked you to adjudge that a certain man was this or that." The court saw the point, and decided that nothing could be done. I have cases of that kind coming up all the time—that is, cases of men who do not know their status. They think that they are citizens and are satisfied that they are citizens, but they have no record evidence whatever of the fact, and have no way of establishing the fact of their citizenship.

Mr. VAILE. It might be difficult for some Members of Congress to prove their citizenship if they were required to make record proof of it.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We have in the bill here authority for issuing certificates of citizenship to certain aliens. In addition, the paragraph that was read just before recess authorizes the issuance of actual certificates which shall be proof. The idea behind that was this, that citizens who came into citizenship through naturalization or through the naturalization of their fathers very frequently were in the courts in the Western States in land cases and were required to prove citizenship, and therefore needed certificates; but this matter of providing a method by which the court shall issue a statement or judgment that such a man is an American citizen probably has no place in a naturalization act. Very probably it should be the subject matter for the introduction of a bill to go to the Committee on the Judiciary. Do you think so, Mr. Vaile?

Mr. VAILE. I think so. There should be some way of establishing the fact. Mr. COLEMAN. I realize that there is a danger in establishing a tribunal of that kind or some method of solving this question. There is a danger of undermining the naturalization law.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the point. We will suppose that Judge Raker himself wanted to perfect a patent in a foreign country, and that foreign country required him to make proof of his American citizenship. We will suppose that Judge Raker himself was unable to find his birth certificate. We will say

that he had not held public office, and that he was put to his wits' ends to find proof that he could submit to a foreign country, what would be his step or where would he get a document or paper establishing his citizenship?

Mr. COLEMAN. I know of no place where he could get official evidence of his citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. Should he get it from a naturalization officer? Should an American citizen go to an officer whose business it is to assist in making American citizens out of newcomers?

Mr. COLEMAN. I suggested that at this time because of the scope of this bill, which creates a bureau of citizenship. I am making this suggestion to the committee for its consideration if you do create a bureau of citizenship, and I feel that the committee should realize that this situation exists in the country. The CHAIRMAN. It is a good suggestion, and if we should establish a bureau of citizenship that might be one of its proper duties.

Mr. RAKER. This matter was brought to my attention last year in San Francisco by a man who had given his life work to this subject, and he tried to get the Census Bureau in taking the census to incorporate that in the census reports, but Congress did not provide for that, having left it out by a slip. He said "If it had been provided for there, I could have established my citizenship, but as it is now it leaves me almost helpless."

The CHAIRMAN. Somebody sent a brief to this committee entitled "How can you prove that you are a citizen of the United States?"

Mr. RAKER. It is an interesting subject when you stop to think of it a moment. Of course, the younger generation coming on now can do it, because there is a record of births in practically all the States of the Union.

The CHAIRMAN. I can not see why we should not authorize an additional paragraph covering that, inasmuch as we are providing a method of making citizenship. I do not see why we should not authorize the director of citizenship, under some form of procedure, to issue a certificate to any citizen. I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr. COLEMAN. I do not think I have anything further to say.

Mr. RAKER. Before the witness gets through I have a memorandum here that I would like to ask a question or two on. First, so that the record may be clear, I will submit a statement to the committee, so as to be backed up and to show that it is not just a random statement. My statement to the committee was that Congress conferred jurisdiction upon the various State courts by specific acts. That of itself does not authorize the State court to assume or take jurisdiction unless and until its constitution or statute gives the court specific jurisdiction.

In other words, the courts do not act unless they have common-law jurisdiction to take action on all matters or specific jurisdiction to act in naturalization cases, as in others. When it is an act relating entirely to Federal law, as naturalization, as it is now held by some of the courts in regard to the eighteenth amendment, the concurrent jurisdiction is given, but until the State has given the courts power to assume that they do not take it. Our constitution provides, in section 5 of article 6–

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The constitution of California?
Mr. RAKER. Yes, sir; the constitution of California. It says:

The superior court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases in equity," naming them, with a specific provision, "and said courts shall have the power of naturalization and to issue papers therefor."

I just wanted to insert that in the record so there could be no question about the statement I made before.

Mr. Coleman has just referred to one matter which, to some extent, has been settled by the committee, but it has been brought up, and I think it may be obviated even now.

Is it. not a fact that from 80 to 90 per cent of the delay and work occasioned by receiving certificates of arrival is caused by the red tape now enforced by the department relative to receiving the certificates? In other words, an alien goes to the chief examiner and that examiner gives him a blank which the alien, the applicant, fills out. The alien then sends it to the Bureau of Naturalization at Washington. The Bureau of Naturalization then sends it back to the alien. I assume that case. After the papers are received they are sent back to the Bureau of Naturalization and the Bureau of Naturalization sends them back to the court where the party wants to make his application. The court then notifies the bureau here that he can go there and get his paper. Is not that the procedure enforced?