tlemen, and they are questions that we ought to consider very seriously, because it is abandoning the fixed policy of this country.

Mr. RAKER. I never like to have to explain, and I generally do not, but all the questions I ask are simply asked for the purpose of eliciting information, and my questions before the committee do not indicate my attitude or how I will vote on amendments or on the bill or anything else. I am seeking information and endeavoring to get the views of the speakers. Now, let me ask you this question.

The CHAIRMAN. And the questions asked by the members of the committee do not indicate that they were pro-German or proally before we entered the war, and we do not want the members of the press or anybody else to get that idea. These are practical questions, and asked because the committee wants to get information.

Mr. ROGERS. I may say in response to the chairman's suggestion that I did not intend to impute anything of that nature, and if in any of my answers to questions I have appeared to do so it was an inadvertence and I apoligize.

Mr. RAKER. Have you thought about this feature: This bill, after its passage, would make a man an American citizen whether he returned here or not?

Mr. ROGERS. Provided he complied with the formalities; yes.

Mr. RAKER. A man may never return to the United States but by making a proper declaration before a consul, or whoever the proper officer might be, he would become an American citizen and remain an American citizen with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto?

Mr. ROGERS. That is true.

Mr. RAKER. Then have you thought of this: That he could then marry a woman who would not be admitted to the United States, but that by thus marrying the woman she and her children, as well as his mother-in-law and others of the family that he might marry into, could be admitted?

Mr. ROGERS. That is true, of course, of any American citizen who marries abroad.

Mr. RAKER. I know, but how about that feature of it, because it is in the bill, and the committee wants information from somebody so that we may know how to act, at least that is true so far as I am concerned.

Mr. ROGERS. Of course, your position is entirely sound, but it seems to me that my suggestion is an answer to it, that it is just exactly the same as with any American citizen who may marry abroad. I am not asking special favors for this fellow; I am simply asking that he be treated as other American citizens are treated.

Mr. RAKER. But it seems to me you are asking special favors for him because he said he did not belong to this country; he said he renounced his allegiance to it and swore allegiance to King George the Fifth?

Mr. ROGERS. He did not renounce his allegiance.

Mr. RAKER. Well, I think so.

Mr. ROGERS. He did not in terms renounce his allegiance.

Mr. RAKER. That is true, but he comes now and asks to be given a special favor.

Mr. KNUTSON. Do you assume that these men who went abroad would marry a class of women that could not be admitted here? Mr. RAKER. There are some under our law who could not be admitted.

The CHAIRMAN. There must be some end to this and we can not conclude it to-day, because it gets bigger the further we go into it. I want to leave 15 minutes before 12, and we can hear some gentleman for 15 minutes, and then, if it meets with the approval of the committee, we will meet again to-morrow at 10 or half past 10 and resume the hearing.

Mr. ROGERS. I want to thank the committee for giving me such a full opportunity to be heard, and I have enjoyed the discussion very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear some gentleman briefly.

STATEMENT OF MR. RAYMOND F. CRIST, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF NATURALIZATION.

Mr. CRIST. Congressman Raker has asked this question: Whether or not this is the time to depart from the policy of the country as expressed in the second section of the act of March 2, 1917? I do not think this does depart from that policy; it only extends a way for these Americans to resume their American citizenship. You have required them to lose their American citizenship without giving them first the requirement that they take another citizenship. There is a difference between expatriation and naturalization. Expatriation refers to any man who may be forced, against his will, to give up his American citizenship, and that is contrary to the fundamental principles of our Government. We say the right of expatriation may be individual

Mr. RAKER (interposing). I do not quite get your meaning.

Mr. CRIST. That expatriation is involuntary under the act of March 2, 1907, because you put a condition there that places him out of any country. The theory of expatriation seems to me, according to my 10 years of study as an official in charge of the administration of the naturalization laws, that when a man attempts to become a citizen of another country he should lose his American citizenship. Mr. RAKER. Is not expatriation voluntary and not involuntary? Mr. CRIST. Not when an American citizen has first taken the oath to serve in the Army of any country of Europe, I do not care which country.

Mr. RAKER. That is involuntary?

Mr. CRIST. To force him to lose his American citizenship. I do not think that he ever renounces his American citizenship. The CHAIRMAN. What is the necessity for this law?

Mr. CRIST. Because it has been held judicially to divest a man of his citizenship, and that construction of the law will be followed in every case administratively. The State Department has administratively held that every American citizen, because of the letter of the law, who has taken the oath of allegiance to another country loses his citizenship. It does not say that this shall be a qualified oath; that is, what they take over there.

Mr. RAKER. Is not that his voluntary act? Let us be frank.

Mr. CRIST. I want to be frank..

Mr. RAKER. I know you do. Is not that his own voluntary act? Mr. CRIST. It is his voluntary act; yes.

Mr. RAKER. That is the application of the law?

Mr. CRIST. Yes; but I think it is a bad application of the law, and that is what we are here to consider, a modification of the force of the law. That is what this committee meeting is for. I feel that this committee meeting is a proper one, because I think now is the time to consider the application of the law and to modify it.

Mr. WELTY. Can you swear allegiance to two countries and be true to both?

Mr. CRIST. Yes; if you make a modification of the law. Two weeks ago a man came into my office; I think he came back from England, where he had served in the Army. He said, "I had three years of service in the Army before. I think I have training and knowledge which would make me of service. I went over there in 1914." He showed me his army record. He had enlisted in the British Army. He had been to the War Department and tried to, get a commission in our Army. They said, "We can not do it; you are not an American citizen." He said, “I am not a British subject, I never have been, and never intended to be. I simply went over there because I was trained as a soldier."

Mr. RAKER. He did not try to enlist in the Regular Army of the United States?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir; he had been over to the War Department, and they had sent him to the Bureau of Naturalization.

Mr. RAKER. He wanted a commission.

Mr. CRIST. A commission in his case and an enlistment in the other

case.

The CHAIRMAN. Could he not enlist as a private?

He

Mr. CRIST. He could not unless he takes out his first papers. must declare his intention. He said, "I do not see why I should do that; I am an American citizen."

The CHAIRMAN. He could do that the day he came back?

Mr. CRIST. That is true.

Mr. RAKER. Is it a fact that no man can enlist in any of the divisions of the United States Army unless he has declared his intention to become a citizen?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. A man arriving here in the morning can go down to the clerk's office and declare his intention and become eligible to enlist?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir; but, on the other hand, he says, "I am an American citizen. I see no reason why I should be required to put myself on a par with the foreigners who are required to go through that routine."

The CHAIRMAN. Was it not his purpose to try to become an officer? Mr. CRIST. In one case; in the other case, no, sir.

Mr. RAKER. What did the other fellow want?

Mr. CRIST. He wanted to go into the Army.

Mr. RAKER. What was his age?

Mr. CRIST. He was about 27 years of age.

Mr. JOHNSON. He had been in the United States Army prior to the war?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. MEEKER. He could get into the Army in two hours by going down and making his declaration.

Mr. CRIST. But he maintains that he is an American citizen and should not be subjected to the filing of a declaration of intention. Congressmen have asked whether we should change the policy. This does not change the policy.

Mr. RAKER. At a time when it becomes necessary for a man to use every effort he has to remain neutral, as declared by his President, and to remain steadfast to the country and not lose his head, do you think he has any real strong equitable case when he goes off to another country during the time of neutrality?

Mr. CRIST. We are dealing with a fact.

Mr. RAKER. That is a fact.

Mr. CRIST. There are 45,000 Americans being divested of their citizenship, and they are being penalized now enough by enforcing the law, and are we going to administer a penalty which is out of all proportion to the offense which they have committed?

Mr. RAKER. The man knew it when he started.

Mr. CRIST. NO. From my experience, I do not think that 1 per cent, not 10 per cent when they took an oath of allegiance, knew that there was such a thing on the statute book as this, which would compel them to lose their American citizenship.

Mr. WELTY. Do you not think that they knew it at the time that the President of the United States, the Chief Magistrate, asked the American people to remain neutral in order not to affect this country? Mr. CRIST. Some did and some did not.

Mr. WELTY. If they did know that, do you not think that they violated the suggestion of the Chief Magistrate when they swore allegiance to any other country?

Mr. CRIST. Yes. The penalty for the offense, divesting the man of his citizenship, is what we are considering.

Mr. WELTY. You talk about a penalty. I want to vote for the law, if I can. Can you pass a law penalizing those people who went into the Austrian Army, the Serbian Army, and the German Army?

Mr. CRIST. The greatest penalty which you could inflict upon me would be to divest me of my citizenship if I went and did something; I can not imagine what that might be.

Mr. JOHNSON. Going back to the two fellows who had been in the service and wanted to come back, why could they not do so under section 2166

Any alien of the age of 21 years and upward who has enlisted or may enlist in the armies of the United States, either the Regular or the Volunteer forces, and has been or may be hereafter honorably discharged shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States

And the same way with the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Revenue-Cutter Service?

Mr. CRIST. It has been judicially held in two or three cases that he is not entitled to exemption.

Mr. MEEKER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Thereupon the committee adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Friday, May 25, 1917. The committee this day met, Hon. John L. Burnett (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Rogers, have you anything further that you desire to present this morning? Mr. ROGERS. I would like to reserve an opportunity to say something at the end, although I do not know that I shall care to say anything further. The only suggestion that I care to make at this time, which I have already made informally to most of the members of the committee, has reference to the idea that the committee may think there has been an improper discrimination made in this bill between the men who have fought on the side of the allies and the men who have fought on the side of Germany, all being American citizens. I have prepared, and should like to have read into the record at this point, an amendment to be inserted after the words "United States," in line 5 of page 2:

Any such person who has, since August first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, taken an oath of allegiance to any other foreign State

The word "other," I may say, parenthetically, referring to those other than the allied powers

engaged in war, and who took such oath in order to be enabled to enlist in the armed forces of such foreign State, and who actually enlisted in such armed forces, and who has, prior to April sixth, nineteen hundred and seventeen, been duly and honorably discharged from such armed forces, may, upon complying with the provisions of this act, also reassume and reacquire the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States.

That is identical with the provision relating to men who have been fighting with the allied forces, except that it requires that they shall have been discharged prior to April 6, 1917, which was the date of our declaration of war. It may be suggested, perhaps, that that is a rather difficult condition- for many of these men to meet; that they enlisted in the German Army in good faith, perhaps two years ago, and, of course, Germany regards them as permanently in the German Army until it cares to get rid of them. The fact that the United States entered this war on April 6, 1917, is not to Germany a reason why these men, formerly American citizens, should be discharged, and they will not be discharged. But, on the other hand-and to me this is controlling-it is not desirable, I think, to give a short cut to citizenship to men who have been fighting in the armies of a countrty with which the United States is at war, and therefore it seemed to me proper to suggest a limitation as of April 6, 1917.

Now, gentlemen, as far as my own opinion is concerned, I should prefer not to have that in the bill, but I do not think it does much harm, for this reason: I have made inquiries of men who are in a position to know, and they say there are astonishingly few men fighting in the armies of the central powers who will be affected by this bill, whether this provision is left in or left out, and on the whole, and in order to avoid the suggestion of discrimination, which appeals quite strongly, evidently, to certain members of the committee, I thought it wise to place this amendment before you for your consideration.