The CHAIRMAN. Before you leave I would like to bring up a phase of the matter, although I do not know that it affects this bill, and the other examiners can pay attention to it. I am approached about every other day by some Member of Congress-who thinks I can correct it, but I do not know that I can, and I do not believe I can-with a complaint that judges in some parts of the United States are going out of their way to refuse citizenship to aliens who have resided in this country some time and who became alien enemies. These Congressmen say to me that the judges are very keen to set them back, yet at the same time they are admitting large numbers of the newest type of immigrants, those who have been here just about long enough to reach naturalization. These Members of Congress complain that a judge will find some man of German birth who lived in a community for some time, and naturally, when the European countries went to war, his sympathies were with Germany, and he talked that way, but as we went into the war perhaps that man kept his mouth shut and the war made him see the necessity of attempting to perfect his citizenship in the United States. So he goes ahead and brings his case into court. The court then rides him for what he said and what he did, and what he believed, and so on. The man tries to answer as best he can, and then they get into a wrangle as to how many bonds the fellow bought. The man says he bought $2,000 worth, we will say, and the judge say, "Why did you not buy more?" And he says, because he could not buy any more. The judge argues with him and dismisses him without citizenship, and then turns around and picks up some fellow who has been here six years, barely speaking English at all, and lets him in. I want to ask whether there is much of that going on in these western districts?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do not believe there is any of it at all in my district.
The CHAIRMAN. How about out in your district, Mr. Coleman?

Mr. COLEMAN. No; the courts are very fair.

The CHAIRMAN. I get this from Pennsylvania, Illinois, and some other places. Those men were not traitorous to the country, and if they had been the examiners would have found it out before they got into court. Do you not think so, Mr. Schlotfeldt?

Mr. SCHLOTFELDT. We have had very, very few cases where that was brought up. It may be that an examiner gets a little enthusiastic once in awhile, and goes into it too deep, but I do not think any court ever denied citizenship to a man on that account except in one instance, where it occurred with me. It was a case up in Wisconsin which was tried by the regular county judge. In that case it was shown that the man had not bought a single Liberty bond, but that he had bought an automobile, a town home, and done numerous things for his own business, but he had not bought a single bond, or done anything to help anyone of the various activities. The only thing he could say he had done toward helping to win the war was that he paid taxes on his automobile, which went into the Federal Treasury. I think the judge in that case very properly dismissed the man, but I think, Mr. Chairman, that when you run down a great many of these complaints that come here you will find that the dismissal is on a ground other than that which is stated, because most of these men do not actually grasp the thing for which they are dismissed, unless they have a conference with us afterwards. I think that in 9 cases out of 10 that you get here as complaints you do not have the actual ground of dismissal at all, and I think it would be well to have those cases referred for a report each time in order to see just what the facts are.

Mr. GORDON. There is one judge in Newark who goes into the bond question very thoroughly. If a man did not buy bonds of the first, second, and third issues, when we were starting our activities, and then only bought one or two, there is a question raised in the judge's mind as to whether he did not wait until he saw we were getting on easy street in war conditions, and then bought bonds as an investment and as evidence at the close of the war that he had an attachment for this country, but he does not dismiss them; he gives every man an opportunity to show his financial condition, and I know of very few dismissals. But he does go into that question on his own initiative.

The CHAIRMAN. I know from my own experience and my own activities as a Member of Congress that a Member gets very keen on one protest, and by the time he gets through with it he believes there are several protests, and I suspect that is so with these cases. Have you finished, Mr. Armstrong?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. I just want to make a short statement. Mr. Chairman, I have had the feeling-I do not know how many of the chief examiners have

had the same feeling that we were rather handicapped in not having a committee in Congress that was interested in the things that we were interested in, and especially that of trying to uphold and raise the standard of citizenship of the foreign people who come here, and that more or less we were being handicapped by those who were framing the laws. I say in all frankness that that is the way I have felt, and it has been worth a tremendous lot to me to sit here these three days and see the very keen grasp you and the members of the committee have of this situation, and the very thorough interest you all have in the subject. I go back to my own work with a whole lot different conception of this end of the game than I had when I came here, and I am very thankful for the privilege of appearing here before you and getting an insight into this angle of the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. That is very kind of you. I would like to say in that connection that the examiners here, who are representatives of the Government, are doing a big work, but you can see for yourselves the difficulties under which all Members of Congress labor in an effort to bring about constructive legislation. This is not the busy season of Congress. We are resuming here, after a little recess, and yet it is with great d fficulty that we are holding any men at all at this committee hearing on this very important matter. For instance, the Public Lands Committee, to which three Members belong, is holding a meeting, and three of the Members have been called there on a vote of some kind. Also to-day, beginning at 11 o'clock this morning, a very important bill is under cons deration on the floor, with very intense debate. It is a bill with relation to the method of handling the loans made by th's Government to the Alliesa bill which will involve votes on the rate of interest to be paid by countries which just now can not pay much, if any, interest. Those are matters sent to Congress to be decided, and the Members must know something about them, and it takes time. Now, as to immigration, naturalization, and Americanization, I would like to say that these rooms and files are filled with literature, reports, and letters from people who have made studies of the three subjects. These letters and reports contain great information, too much information, perhaps, so that the Members in an effort to study them get lost in a maze of information from every possible viewpoint. There is no way under our form of Government by which we can sit down with a club and put over legislation; we do it under the representative system, with the minority fully represented, and endeavor to weave something. I will say for the record that the plan is, as long as we have started on naturalization, to get just as much good as we can out of all that is before us on this bill and to straighten the naturalization laws, if we can get the thing to the floor in time not to be caught in next spring's jam of appropriation bills. I am very glad the examiners have been here, and I wish we could in a short time drop the record, get close in, and see how far along we are getting. But we want to hear the San Francisco man if he is here.

NOTE. The following letter has been received from Mr. Coleman :

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF CHIEF EXAMINER, NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Denver, Colo., November 15, 1921.

Hon. ALBERT JOHNSON,
Chairman Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: 1. When the committee had under consideration H. R. 8727 during the week of October 17, I was called as one of the chief naturalization examiners to discuss that bill, as well as naturalization generally. In the course of my testimony reference was made to the Americanization law in the State of Utah, particularly as to the registration feature, and you asked that I ascertain whether the law was being enforced and to report to the committee the present situation in that State. I have just received a report from Del L. Sullivan, naturalization examiner in charge of the Salt Lake City office, covering this subject, and am sending it to you for addition to my remarks before the committee, or for any other use you may wish to make of it.

2. The Utah Americanization law requires the registration of all aliens between the years of 16 and 35 who can not read and write English in a manner equivalent to that required of pupils for the completion of the fifth grade. A registration fee of $10 is charged each alien not so qualified. All of this registration money goes into an Americanization fund and is used in all parts of

the State in maintaining schools for the education of the adult aliens until they are able to pass the examinations outlined by the board. The new Utah Americanization law went into effect this year.

3. Examiner Sullivan's report submits these facts and observations: "There have been three convictions for violation of the alien registration law in Utah, but in no case was counsel employed by the defendant or the constitutionality of the law raised. A man pleaded guilty before the justice of the peace at Bingham and paid a fine of $15, plus the registration fee, and two men were prosecuted at Ogden, and like penalty imposed. Superintendent Wiggins, of Ogden, states that one of the cases there was tried in the city court and one in the district court.

"The law is not being enforced as effectively as was hoped, but, perhaps, in view of the industrial situation, there is no cause for pessimism. About 500 have registered in Salt Lake City, but the average attendance at the Americanization school is only 130. There are five successful classes in operation at Ogden, with splendid attendance at the school classes. There were 169 registered aliens at Ogden, and about 200 were excused. The fee has been collected from practically all who were required to register. Prof. Wiggins believes he has gotten a majority of the aliens to register if they come within the law. In Salt Lake City a great deal of difficulty is being experienced in collecting the fee. The registration officers were too 'easy' and allowed registrants, at the time of registration, to make a small payment. They are now having trouble in locating the registrants and collecting the payments due. "Carbon County is doing very little. About 300 registered on October 15, most of these being at Hiawatha and Sunnyside. In other portions of the State registration was successful and classes are being started. They had a good registration and a good attendance at Midvale and Bingham. The Davis County school board recently turned into the State treasury $800 collected by the board in the registration of aliens. Davis County is chiefly a farming community. The registration was chiefly of Japanese and Italians, who will be placed in part-time classes in a short time.

"If the Federal Government enacts a law compelling all aliens between certain ages to register each year and pay a fee therefor, several changes should be made from the Utah law, I believe. Such a law should require every alien between the ages specified to register before an examining officer. The Utah law leaves it up to the aliens themselves to decide whether they can read, write, and speak the English language equivalent to a graduate of the fifth grade. The law should exempt married women from payment of the fee. If the head of the family registers and pays a fee of $10, this should, in my opinion, suffice for the entire family. Ten dollars is perhaps too large a fee. Certainly it is a hardship in many cases for the head of a family to pay from $20 to $50. The law also should provide a ready way of collecting the fee, such as seizure of property."

Yours, very truly,

PAUL ARMSTRONG, Chief Naturalization Examiner.

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE A. CRUTCHFIELD, CHIEF NATURALIZATION EXAMINER, TENTH DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. You represent

Mr. CRUTCHFIELD (interposing). The San Francisco district, comprising the States of California, Nevada, Arizona, and one county in Oregon. I will state, Mr. Chairman, that I have been in the naturalization service since 1907, four years of the time in charge of the Chicago district, part of the time as chief examiner and part of the time under the old system as special assistant to the Attorney General, and for 10 years I have been in charge of the San Francisco district.

I have made quite a number of notations of points in the pending bill concerning which I desired to call the committee's attention, but most of those points have been quite fully covered by the other chief examiners, and in order to conserve the time of the committee I will not, unless requested, go into those points which have already been carefully gone into.

The first point to which I desire to call attention, and it seems hardly necessary to go into it fully since this is only a preliminary draft which will no

doubt be corrected in the complete draft, is this: On page 5, section 3, it is stated that:

"An alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner and not otherwise."

That is followed by three things:

"First. Register annually as prescribed herein.

"Second. Make the declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States in the manner prescribed by this act.

"Third. Make and file the petition for naturalization prescribed by this act." As a matter of fact, those things do not qualify a man to be admitted to citizenship. There are other things necessary, and my suggestion would be that this section be put near the front of the bill, and that the wording be: "An alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the manner prescribed by this act."

The CHAIRMAN. I see the point. There are a number of steps omitted. Mr. CRUTCHFIELD. Yes. There has been called to the attention of the committee the advisability of authorizing the filing of a declaration anywhere without regard to the place of residence, so that the question of jurisdiction of the court in which he makes the declaration will not arise. I think myself that that is very advisable, particularly in our coast country, where so many applicants are sailors, who are themselves sometimes puzzled to know in what jurisdiction they reside. Many, many times I have had them come to me for advice, and I confess I have been puzzled to know where their real, legal residence was. So that would avoid all that difficulty and avoid the dismissal of many, many meritorious petitions where the sole cause of dismissal is the fact that they had made a declaration of intention in a court in whose jurisdiction they did not have a bona fide residence. While we are on the subject of declarations there is another suggestion I would like to make. I think it is on page 11, line 13. It is the provision relating to the renunciation to be made. Now, I have never seen any reason why in the declaration of intention there should be a double renunciation. A declaration of intention contains an expression of intent to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty of which the declarant may be at the time a citizen or subject. Personally I would like to stop with a general renunciation of allegiance to all princes, potentates, States, sovereignties, and powers, as far as the declaration is concerned, but if it be deemed necessary to have a particular renunciation made I would like to have it made simply to the Government by name of which he is a citizen or subject instead of particularly by name to the prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty of which the alien may be at the time a citizen or subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Your reason for that is that no examiner or applicant can keep up with the changing reigns of princes, potentates, and so on?

Mr. CRUTCHFIELD. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Neither can they keep up with the particular country in which they thought they were born in these changing days.

Mr. CRUTCHFIELD. Exactly; and we frequently find them renouncing allegiance to princes and potentates who are long since dead, because we have received no official notice of their deaths.

Mr. CRIST. It can not be any more exact at the date of naturalization or the date of petition than at the date of declaration.

Mr. CRUTCHFIELD. Please state that again.

Mr. CRIST. You can not be any more exact at the date of naturalization or the date of petition than you can at the date of declaration, so that if you are going to make a change in one respect you should make a change in all respects, especially if you change it on the plea of inability to be exact.

Mr. CRUTCHFIELD. I think it would be a good plan to change it all and not require the particular name of the sovereign. I think that would be a good thing.

The CHAIRMAN. If a man renounces forever all allegiance and fidelity to all foreign States or powers and rulers thereof, it means as much as if he renounced allegiance to King Swat, whoever Swat happened to be?

Mr. CRUTCHFIELD. Yes. In many instances it might be advisable to know the particular country that he claims to belong to; so that probably it would be better to renounce allegiance to all sovereigns, kings, potentates, powers, States, and particularly the Government of Russia or the Government of Germany or