or amended by section 1, Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 829); section 1, and second paragraph of section 3, Act of May 9, 1918 (40 Stat. 542-546, 547, 548); Act of June 8, 1926 (44 Stat. 709); section 4, Act of February 25, 1927 (44 Stat. 1235); Act of March 2, 1929 (45 Stat. 1512) (except sections 6 (e) and section 7 (b), thereof); section 1, Act of March 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1545); Act of June 21, 1930 (46 Stat. 791); sections 1 and 2, Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1511); Act of May 25, 1932 (47 Stat. 165) (except sections 1, 5, and 7, thereof); and Act of April 19, 1934 (48 Stat. 597); United States Code, title 8, sections 18, 106, 106a, 106b, 106c, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 358a, 360, 364, 365, 372, 373, 377, 377c, 378, 379, 380, 380b, 381, 382, 384, 386, 387, 388, 389, 391, 392, 393, 394, 396, 397, 398, 399, 399a, 399b (a), 399b (b), 399b (c), 399b (d), 399c, (a), 399c (b), 399c (c), 399d, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, and 415; Sections 2, 5, 6, and 7, Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1228, 1229), as amended by section 2, Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797; U. S. C., title 8, secs. 8, 16, and 17); Sections 74 to 81, inclusive, Act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1102-1103; U. S. C., title 18, secs. 135 and 137 to 143, inclusive); That portion of section 1, Act of August 22, 1912 (37 Stat. 356; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 11), reading as follows: "SEC. 1998. That every person who hereafter deserts the military or naval service of the United States, or who, being duly enrolled, departs the jurisdiction of the district in which he is enrolled, or goes beyond the limits of the United States, with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval service, lawfully ordered, shall be liable to all the penalties and forfeitures of section 1996 of the Revised Statutes of the United States: Provided, That the provisions of this section and said section 1996 shall not apply to any person hereafter deserting the military or naval service of the United States in time of peace: * * So much of section 1, Act of October 6, 1917, chapter 79 (40 Stat. 376; U. S. C., title 39, sec. 324), as reads as follows: "Provided further, That all mail matter of whatever class, relating to naturalization, including duplicate papers required by law or regulation to be sent to the Bureau of Naturalization by clerks of State or Federal courts, addressed to the Department of Labor, or the Bureau of Naturalization, or to any official thereof, and indorsed 'Official Business,' shall be transmitted free of postage, and by registered mail if necessary, and so marked: Provided further, That if any person shall make use of such indorsement to avoid payment of postage or registry fee on his or her private letter, package, or other matter in the mail, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of $300, to be prosecuted in any court of competent jurisdiction."; Section 1, last proviso of section 2, and second paragraph of section 3, Act of May 9, 1918 (40 Stat. 542-546, 547, 548), as amended by section 6 (c), (d), Act of March 2, 1929 (45 Stat. 1514); Act of June 21, 1930 (46 Stat. 791); and sections 2 (a), 3, and 10, Act of May 25, 1932 (47 Stat. 165; U. S. C., title 8, secs. 18, 354, 377, 378, 384, 387, 388, 389, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 403, and 405); Proviso to second paragraph of section 4, chapter XII, Act of July 9, 1918, chapter 143 (40 Stat. 885; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 366); Second proviso to section 2, Act of August 31, 1918, chapter 166 (40 Stat. 955); Act of November 6, 1919, chapter 95 (41 Stat. 350; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 3); Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1021-1022); as amended by sections 1 and 2, Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 854); section 4, Act of March 3, 1331 (46 Stat. 1511-1512); and section 4, Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797; U. S. C., title 8, secs. 367, 368, 368a, 369, and 369a); Act of June 8, 1926 (44 Stat. 709; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 399a); Section 4, Act of February 25, 1927 (44 Stat. 1235; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 358a); Act of March 2, 1929, chapter 536 (45 Stat. 1512-1516) (except sec. 6 (e), and sec. 7 (b)); as amended or added to by sections 4, 5, and 6, Act of May 25, 1932 (47 Stat. 165–166); and sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, Act of April 19, 1934 (48 Stat. 597-598; U. S. C., title 8, secs. 106a, 106b, 106c, 356, 377b, 377c, 379, 380a, 380b, 382, 388, 399b (a), 399b (b), 399b (c), 399b (d), 399c (a), 399c (b), 399c (c), 399d, 399e, and 402); Section 1. Act of March 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1545; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 373); Section 2, Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 854; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 369); Act of February 11, 1931 (46 Stat. 1087; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 366a); Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1511-1512) (except section 4 (b) thereof) (U. S. C., title 8, secs. 9, 372a, 396, and 397) ; Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10, Act of May 25, 1932 (47 Stat. 165-166); as amended by section 2, Act of April 19, 1934 (48 Stat. 597; U. S. C., title 8, secs. 356 (a), 377, 377b, 384, 388, 399b (b), and 399b (c)); Act of April 19, 1934 (48 Stat. 597-598; U. S. C., title 8, secs. 106a (b), 380a, 399 (b), 399b (a), 399 b (c), 399c (a), 399f, and 402); Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797; U. S. C., title 8, secs. 6, 8, 17a, and 368); and Second proviso to Act of June 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 1245, ch. 845; U. S. C., title 48, sec. 733b); Act of June 24, 1935 (49 Stat. 395); Act of June 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 397); Act of June 25, 1936 (49 Stat. 1925-1926); And any other Acts or parts of Aets in conflict with the provisions of this Act, except for the purposes of section 346 of this Act. The repeal herein provided shall not terminate nationality heretofore lawfully acquired, nor restore nationality heretofore lost under any law of the United States or any treaty to which the United States may have been a party. SEC. 504. If any provision of this Act shall for any reason be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such declaration shall not invalidate the remainder of this Act. TITLE II SEC. 601. This Act shall take effect from and after of its approval. days from the date The CHAIRMAN. This bill, H. R. 6127, is a rather important piece of legislation not only from the standpoint of the administration, gentlemen, but from the standpoint of a fair government and an equitable government and in justice and in equity to those people, men, women, and children, who have been discriminated against as a result of our nationality laws. Five or six years ago the matter was brought up. It was realized then that there was a great need for codification of all these laws and we went and asked that there be a report prepared by the Departments of State and Labor and Justice. The President approved of that and that was done. Now the Departments of State, Labor, and Justice have worked very hard and they have brought out a full codification of all of these laws. A year or, I believe, a year and a half ago the President sent a message to the Congress asking for the codification of these laws. The message and the report contained about one-thousand-nine-hundred-and-some pages. Now, up to this time, the law on this subject has never been modified or changed, but it has been all mixed up. From the laws as they existed you would not know who is who or what is what. Then the question came up time and time again in regard to lost citizenship and all these matters required to make up a definite code to understand what the law is on any subject. I believe in the last year there came to Mr. Kelly and this committee requests that the codifications and the analysis be printed. That was done in accordance with instructions. I have introduced the codification bill, which I referred to a moment ago which you now have before you. We have not only instituted the bill but the proposed analysis. There are three books and, if you do not have them, Mr. Kelly will give them to you. You will note that it shows on the bottom of each page where the old laws are and what we would change. In this connection I want to say that a dozen or more bar associations seem to be keenly interested in this codification. Then, too, the Departments of State and Labor and Justice are also very much interested and the public is vitally interested. If it were not for the fact that this is an election year with all the work that means for the Members why there is not a doubt but what we would have conducted hearings just as soon as Congress adjourned. I would have asked and I should have received authority from the House to have this committee sit in session either here or any other place for the purpose if necessary of hearing the witnesses, and so forth, but under the circumstances that will be impossible. It was, therefore, the intention of the Chair to point out as a suggestion that a subcommittee be appointed to hear the controversial questions because there will be a number of sections which are controversial and we could let the subcommittee decide and recommend to the whole committee the disposition the subcommittee deems appropriate in regard to the various phases of the nationality law. Now what is the wish of this committee? Do you think a subcommittee should be appointed to consider this matter or do you think that the whole committee should sit? I thought that you perhaps would prefer not to burden the whole committee with this matter but that a subcommittee could handle it in a few weeks and then report to the full committee for our final action. Mr. REES. Mr. Chairman, how much time do you think would be required for a subcommittee to conduct these public hearings? The CHAIRMAN. It might take several weeks. You see if you take Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and about four other States whose bar associations have been keenly following this legislation, and other groups and organizations throughout the country, it will undoubtedly take several weeks of hearings to consider all those groups. You must appreciate that this is the first time in the history of the Republic that we are trying to codify something so that any of us who must refer to these laws will understand it. All of you gentlemen know that today you must go and look in 20, 30, or 40 volumes in order to ascertain and be able to get a report on the status of an alien on questions, say, of expatriation, or repatriation, or whatever the case may be. Mr. REES. That part of the law of course is very important but that part to my mind would not be controversial except to the extent that we are changing the law. The CHAIRMAN. That is quite true but the fact is that the task is up to the committee. At present we are acting as a judge and jury and we are doing something which is not political, it is nonpartisan. We must take up this task and dispose of it. Mr. REES. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and I believe it should be done. Mr. MASON. The changes should be made. Mr. REES. The changes should be made but if there are not many changes there would not be many hearings required, but if there are a number of radical changes proposed we would of course have to have more hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Then what I would do would be to have the subcommittee request the chairman of that subcommittee or the vicechairman of that subcommittee to confine the examination of witnesses to controversial questions. Mr. REES. I think that is right, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. And they would not have to hold lengthy discussions on noncontroversial matters. Mr. REES. I think that would take care of it. The CHAIRMAN. That would solve your whole problem. Mr. REES. I agree with you because if you are going to open the whole thing up it would take a great deal of time. The CHAIRMAN. If we want to open the whole subject up we can spend two years or more on it because the bill itself embraces something like 92 pages. Mr. MASON. It is the codification of the nationality law, not naturalization. The CHAIRMAN. It is everything. Mr. MASON. It does not cover immigration. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hazard, will you give an explanation? You are acquainted with this proposal. The moment you open up these hearings, gentlemen, you will be flooded with petitions from bar associations and from various organizations and the reason I wish to have Mr. Hazard discuss these matters is because the State and Labor Department people know just exactly what the situation is. Mr. REES. Let us get the matter straight. Don't you mean that you have two jobs? One is codification of the laws-the codification of the laws means that you are just going to correlate the laws and put them in the form of a code. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. REES. Then, Mr. Chairman, if along with that you are going to modify or change the laws; if at the same time you are going to do that, then you are going to raise another question. Isn't that so? The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. REES. So then I think the committee should agree without much difficulty and without very many hearings that there should be a codification of the laws. However, if now you are going to talk about changes that should be made in the code and there are to be a lot of changes made in the laws then that raises another question. The CHAIRMAN. That is quite true. Mr. REES. Then to what extent and how far are we going to do that? The CHAIRMAN. Well, you will have Mr. Avra M. Warren, Chief of the Visa Division of the State Department, who is here now and who has been very active and helpful, and who will be right at your side; and then you will have Mr. Henry B. Hazard, administrative assistant to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization; and you will have bookkeepers and such experts who will be here during all of the sessions for the purpose of guiding you in any way you want. Mr. REES. And they will give their views as to wherein the law can be made more workable and practicable. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. You might find in instances that the two Departments will differ, and in such cases the subcommittee will work it out. Mr. REES. That is right. Now, isn't that about the extent to which this subcommittee will go? The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. REES. As you know, if you are going to open it up for general changes in the law that is another thing. The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you because then you will never get through. Mr. MASON. However, Mr. Chairman, when you are doing a job instead of just correlating all of the laws, if you find in the present set-up and you know definitely that there are many changes that should be made to make the laws more workable and sensible and practicable and understandable, it would be silly it seems to me just to codify what you have got when you know that certain changes ought to be made. Mr. REES. I agree with you and that is probably about as far as we could go as far as codification is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Hazard, will you please give us a brief summary and survey of the bill, if you can? STATEMENT OF HENRY B. HAZARD, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, INFORMATION, AND EDUCATION, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, LABOR DEPARTMENT Mr. HAZARD. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: The proposed code does two things. It rearranges the law in logical and systematic form, that is in the form of a code but, in addition, it attempts to clarify, and there are some changes that have been included in the codification to make it more workable. On the whole it is the present law arranged in systematic and orderly form with some changes that were felt to be desirable. It consists of five chapters. The first chapter consists of definitions, which we do not have in any of our naturalization or citizenship laws as a rule. It also determines nationality at birth in one chapter; what constitutes nationality of the United States at birth. It has a chapter dealing with nationality through naturalization and then has another chapter that consists of the provisions relating to the loss of citizenship or nationality; plus a criminal code in relation to the violation of the naturalization and citizenship laws. There have not been a great many changes in the situation as it now exists, but there have been some. For instance, in the matter of naturalization there have been great difficulties experienced with various classes of persons who served in the armed forces of the United States, or merchant vessels of the United States, and as regards the different qualifications of persons serving in different branches of the service. All of them have been placed in a single group and the requirements made uniform for the entire group. In the matter of proving residence in cases of that kind there has been nothing in the present law showing just what constitutes satisfactory evidence in cases where a man has been serving on merchant vessels for several years or where he has been serving in the military forces. There has been no definite method under the law by which residence may be proved in such case. The clarification of points of that kind has been attempted in the proposed code. The CHAIRMAN. Then practically it should not be much of a task. Mr. HAZARD. I should not think so, Mr. Chairman. Of course, there will be persons and groups such as those whom you have indi 65495-45- -3 |