Imagini ale paginilor

(h) Klemens A. Offermann.-See addenda to Mr. Griffin's remarks. (P. 185.)

(i) Herman Enns.-Herman Enns applied for citizenship late in 1927 or early in 1928. He wrote “ Yes” in reply to a question but the examiner found out that he was a Mennonite from the reference in the paper to a mission. The examiner, after probing his beliefs, finally got him to say “No” to the question. “ Would you kill human beings?” He was forthwith refused. Enns now lives in Kansas.

(j) Jacob Becker.—Jacob Becker, of 1040 Marengo Avenue, applied for second papers in 1928. •To the bearing arms question he replied: “I am willing to defend the question.” The examiner asked him to explain the answer and when he was asked if he would kill human beings he said "No." His case was not disposed of until shortly before Christmas, 1929, when papers were denied.

(j) Auxenty Miroch.-Auxenty Miroch, age 35, of 533 Prospect Avenue, Newark, N. J., was a student of ministry at Bloomfield Theological Seminary. Was denied citizenship by Judge Flake in Newark, N. J., on May 12, 1930. Said he would be willing to lecture or help the Red Cross but would not take up arms.

Asked why, he replied: "Because the Bible teaches us not to kill.”


[ocr errors]

The applicant was a woman 49 years of age, a linguist, lecturer, and writer, well educated, and of unimpeachable character. She filed a petition for naturalization in the district court for the northern district of Illinois. The application was on Form 2214, which contained the following question:

“ 22. If necessary, are you willing to take up arms in defense of this country? To this she replied : If

the United States can compel its women citizens to take up arms in defense of the country-something that no other civilized government has ever attempted-I would not be able to comply with this requirement of American citizenship. In this case I would recognize the right of the Government to deal with me as it is dealing with its male citizens who for conscientious reasons refuse to take up arms."

She had previously expressed her willingness to take the oath of allegiance mentioned in question 20, and at the hearing reiterated her ability and willingness to take the oath of allegiance without reservation and added :

“I am willing to do anything that an American citizen has to do except fighting. If American women would be compelled to do that, I would not do that

in every other single way I am ready to follow the law and do everything that the law compels American citizens to do. That is why I can take the oath of allegiance, because, as far as I can find out, there is nothing that I could be compelled to do that I can not do."

Notwithstanding this her application was denied. She took an appeal to the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit, which reversed the district court and directed the granting of her application by unanimous decision.

An appeal was taken by the Government to the United States court which reversed the circuit court. Justices Holmes, Brandeis, and Sanford dissented. (See Exhibit I-a, b. and c.) (Pp. 152 to 158.)





Miss Graber, a nurse by profession, filed a petition for citizenship in the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County, Ohio. The hearing took place on July 9, 1929. The representative of the Bureau of Naturalization asked her:

Suppose you were called upon to act as a combatant in time of war for the United States, would you fight?-A. That would not be professional as a nurse.

“Q. That doesn't answer the question : Are you willing to fight for the United States if need be? You understand what is meant by fighting, Miss Graber; I mean to take up arms in defense of the United States if necessary ?-A. I can not kill, but I would be willing to give my life."

After some more heckling of this character her application was denied.


The applicant was a member of the Quaker religion. She made an application for naturalization at Richmond, Ind. The hearing came on March 28, 1929. She testified that she was a “Friend” (meaning a Quakeress); that in the

event this country got into war, she would be loyal to this country, but “I could not approve of war on account of my faith." Her application was denied.


This was a case where the applicant, a native American-born woman, was unable to recover her citizenship, which she bad lost by marrying the Rev. Jorgan Boe, a Norwegian, who was the pastor of the Church of the Brethren, Kenmare, N. Dak. Her marriage took place before the Cable Act was passed, consequently she had lost her citizenship and it became necessary for her to apply for restoration as a citizen, The Church of the Brethren to which she belonged, popularly known as the Mennonite, takes the same attitude against war as the Quakers. Therefore, on her stating that she would be unwilling to take up arms in the event of war, her application was denied,


The applicant was a Methodist minister residing at Lake Arthur, La. He was a native of England, and served for three years in the British Army, presumably as a chaplain. He was asked by the judge : Q. *

If California wanted more territory and decided to seize some in Mexico and everyone was drafted for some form of service, would you object or be loyal?-A. I do not believe the United States would engage in such a war.

“Q. I do not want any convictions, sir. Under such circumstances, a war of aggression, would you object?-A. In all probability I would. I would first have to consider my duty to God and to humanity.

“Q. In other words, you can't subscribe under any and every condition to the doctrine, ‘My country, right or wrong, my country ??-A. No."

The JUDGE. “ Then you can not be admitted. What we want are citizens who are prepared to say, 'My country, right or wrong, my country.' Therefore he was rejected.


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

In 1924 the applicant, a native of Germany, made an application for citizenship. Its disposition can best be described in a personal letter he wrote me from 24 Sheridan Avenue, Brookfield, Ill. His letter is dated May 31, 1929, and is as follows:

“I am one of them to whom citizenship was denied. I am not a radical, but only a noncombatant. The chief naturalization examiner of Chicago asked me about the position I would take in time of war. I said I would serve the country in any capacity I could. : Would you take up arms?' he asked. I said: 'Yes.' Would you shoot?' 'Yes.' “Would you shoot to kill ?" He said: · Whom?' He was asked, “Your enemy.' He replied, 'I as a Christian have no enemies to kill.' These were the questions of my examination. After some counseling with other men the chief examiner said to me: 'You can not become a citizen of the United States when you do not answer this question with "yes." That was in the year 1924. Because of my loyalty to the teachings of Jesus Christ citizenship is denied to me. Hoping your bill will pass so that conscientious citizens may be granted citizenship, I remain, "Yours very truly,




The applicant was a Mennonite and applied late in 1927 or early in 1928 for citizenship. In reply to question 23, whether he would be willing to take the oath of allegiance as recited in the application form, he replied that he would. The examiner, however, found out from a reference in his application to the mission' where he was located that he was a Mennonite. After heckling him for some time about his beliefs and his attitude on war, asked him the question ; “ Would you kill human beings?” Enns replied “No," and he was forthwith rejected. This was at Chicago, Ill.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The applicant, a resident of 1040 Marengo Avenue, Chicago, Ill., applied for second papers in 1928. To the bearing-arms question, he replied, “I am willing to defend the country." The examiner asked him to explain the answer, and if he would kill human beings. He replied that he would not. He said, "I am willing to lecture or help the Red Cross, but would not take up arms.' When asked why, he replied, " Because the Bible teaches us not to kill." The case was not finally disposed of until December, 1929, when the application was denied.


The applicant was a professor in the Yale Divinity School. He was over 60 years of age beyond the draft age and beyond the age where military service would be expected of him, He was a teacherà profession which in time of war has always been excused from military service. Notwithstanding that, he served as a chaplain in the English Army in France during the World War.

He was willing to take the oath of allegiance to defend the Constitution and the laws of this country; but when he was asked if he would promise in advance to bear arms in defense of the l'nited States under all circumstances, he replied that he would but only if he believed the war to be morally justified. His application was denied by Judge Bondy, of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. upon the authority of the United States Supreme Court decision in the Schwimmer case. An appeal was taken to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Southern District of New York, which overruled the decision by a unanimous Court-Judge Manton writing the opinion, deciding that the applicant was entitled to citizenship.

An appeal was then taken to the United States Supreme Court, which decided against the applicant in a “ five to four " decision-Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes writing the dissenting opinion, which was concurred in by Justices Brandeis, Holmes, and Stone.


The applicant was a nurse by profession, a resident of No. 100 Park Avenue, New York City. She was a Canadian by birth and served as a nurse for the United States Government at Brest, France, nursing the United States soldiers for nine months. On her examination she replied that she was unwilling to take up arms, as “I could not, according to my conscience as a Christian, bear arms. It is against my ethics, the ethics of Christ."

Judge Bondy, of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, also decided this case, denying citizenship on the authority of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Schwimmer case. She likewise took an appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals and her case, and that of Professor Macintosh, were practically argued together. Her application was upheld in the United States circuit .court, which reversed the decision of Judge Bondy. An appeal was taken to the United States Supreme Court along with the Macintosh case and decided against her by “five to four” decision as above mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. FREE. What have the general holdings been?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will touch upon that in my remarks when I go into it.

I wanted to say to the members of the committee that we have here to-day about a dozen prominent persons who have come voluntarily to the support of this bill from all over the United States. It is indorsed by many organizations, and I would like at this point to indicate what they are. I will not recite them now, in order to save the time of the committee. There are many religious organizations, the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Dunkards, the Methodist Church, and various other churches, the Episcopal Church, all of which will be enumerated in the extension of my remarks at this point.

(The list of the organizations referred to by Mr. Griffin are in the appendix.) (See p. 197.): .

Mr. GRIFFIN. In order to save the time of the committee, I would like to get my analysis of the bill on the record, and I trust that I will be permitted to proceed without interruption.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you may proceed.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The object of these bills now before you is expressed in their title, “ To provide that religious views or philosophical opinions against war shall not debar aliens, otherwise qualified, from citizenship.”

This committee is quite familiar with the problem of the naturalization of aliens and it will be unnecessary to burden you with an elaborate review.

But for the record, it is incumbent upon me to submit a few of the salient facts.

May I ask, Commissioner Crist, at this time, when you put into operation question 22-A subsequently superseded by question 24-A?

Commissioner Crist. You are referring to Form A-2214!
Commissioner CRIST. That has been in existence since about 1907.
Mr. GRIFFIN. 1907?
Commissioner CRIST. Yes, sir.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Containing this question?
Commissioner Crist. Not in the exact present form; no.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Then, that is not the correct answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you proceed. Commissioner Crist will be here for some time with us.

Mr. GRIFFIN. The earlier questionnaire (Form 2214) in use up to about 1923, simply required applicants for naturalization to say whether or not they would support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. (See Ex. III, letter of Assistant Secretary Robe Carl White and Form 2214 and A-2214). (See p. 186.)

This was in exact compliance with the terms of the oath of allegiance which Congress required should be taken and was deemed sufficient for over 100 years.

Please keep in mind that Congress made no change in the oath; neither did it pass any act requiring the Bureau of Naturalization to exact any further tests of loyalty, nor authorize it to dig into the attitude of intending citizens as to their religious scruples or views respecting war.

Influenced, no doubt, by the lingering spark of war hysteria the Bureau of Naturalization devised this question, designated as question 24 on the revised questionnaire (Form A-2214):

“ If necessary are you willing to take up arms in defense of this country?"

It is obvious that this question is purely hypothetical and calls for an answer as to what the applicant, at that moment, may think he may

be willing to do in a hypothetical war that may never take place in his or “her” lifetime. For it is true that the hypothetical question was not only asked of young men and women but of old men and women.

Such a question addressed to the aged, the infirm, and even to women, young and old, was a manifest absurdity and provocation to hypocrisy and dissimulation.

The thoughtless would, as they have done, are now doing, and always will do, answer this question flippantly, while cowards, under the fear of denial of citizenship, are virtually clubbed into making an outrageously deceitful statement.

In brief, they are willing to enlist offhand and now in a war that may never come. There are thousands of aliens admitted to our citizenship every day of the year. How many of them do you think would really fight for the flag if they were put to it? Yet, every mother's son and daughter of them raise their right hands and swear that they would.

Are they telling the truth? No; they are dissimulating for the purpose of obtaining citizenship, while self-respecting, conscientious men and women with high ideals and the finest respect for the principles of our Government, confess the truth manfully and say that they have religious or conscientious scruples, and thus are entrapped by this ridiculous, absurd, hypothetical question.

Take the case of Doctor Macintosh and Miss Bland. Both of them were under no compulsion to volunteer the information that they had these religious scruples with respect to war, but yet they were frank enough to confess immediately that they held these scruples, and they were denied citizenship.

The first one to fall before this question was a Mme. Rosika Schwimmer. She was a woman of education and refinement and of moral courage. She was distinguished for her advocacy of peace and had participated in the Ford expedition during the war in order to bring the nations around the council table and settle the war by arbitration. She is a lecturer of renown and highly respected wherever she is known. When she was asked this question she confessed her scruples against war. Citizenship was denied her. She took an appeal to the circuit court, which reversed the decision of the lower court and directed her admission.

At this point I will put in the opinion of the circuit court, which granted her citizenship.

(For the opinion of the circuit court referred to by Mr. Griffin see p. 152.)

Mr. GRIFFIN. The Bureau of Naturalization invoked the Attorney General to appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court, and that august tribunal in a decision now famous decided against her.

At this point I will put in the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion.

(For the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion referred to by Mr. Griffin see pp. 155-158.)

Mr. GRIFFIN. The case became famous, as I say, but it was famous principally because it brought into the limelight the cogent, scholarly, and logical dissenting opinion of that able, learned, and patriotic Justice of the Supreme Court, the Hon. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who has a few days ago retired from his position as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

It has been charged that this bill is presented by the pacifists. I am not a pacifist. I am a veteran of the Spanish-American War. There are times when war is proper, in my opinion, but I am against war. I am a believer in peace. I am so fond of peace that I would


« ÎnapoiContinuă »