Hon. ELLISON D. SMITH,

United States Senate.

MAY 8, 1917.

SIR: The department has received your letter of April 12, addressed to the Chief of the Bureau of Citizenship, inclosing a copy of Senate bill No. 1721, "to restore certain persons to American citizenship." You ask for suggestions concerning this bill, which provides for the repatriation of American citizens who have lost their citizenship under the provision of section 2 of the expatriation act of March 2, 1907, by taking oaths of allegiance to France, Great Britain, and their allies upon enlisting in the armies thereof.

It appears to the department that the wording of the proposed bill should be changed in some particulars, and I inclose herewith a draft of a bill which would meet with the department's approval. In this proposed draft there are two provisions to which I wish to call special attention. The first is to the effect that a person of the class mentioned who wishes to recover his American citizenship must obtain a discharge from the foreign army in which he is serving. It is understood that the British military law does not provide for the enlistment or service in the British Army (at least as private soldiers) of persons who are known to be of foreign nationality. The French military law is understood to have a similar provision.

The second provision to which I wish to call attention is to the effect that a person of the class mentioned must take an oath of allegiance to the United States in order to recover his American nationality. This provision seems eminently proper, considering the fact that the persons concerned have lost their American nationality by taking oaths of allegiance to foreign countries.

The provision that "if the oath of allegiance is taken before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign country the proper authorities thereof should be duly notified" is added because it is deemed undesirable that persons should be naturalized as citizens of any country or restored to its citizenship while they are residing in a foreign country unless the authorities of such foreign country are duly notified. While it is not anticipated that the Governments of France, Great Britain, and their allies will have any objection to the restoration of the persons in question to American citizenship while such persons are still within their territories, it is deemed advisable that they should be notified in each case.

The department believes that the proposed law as modified would serve to remedy an unfortunate situation and considers that the passage of such a law is desirable. It is believed that most of the young Americans who enlisted in foreign armies, particularly France and England, did so without any intention whatsoever of giving up their American allegiance. Moreover, it is understood that such persons have not acquired the nationality of the foreign countries in whose armies they have been serving, so that they appear to be left at present in an anomalous situation in respect to their nationality. The present time, when the United States is enlisted in the same cause in which France, Great Britain, and their allies are fighting, seems to be an opportune moment to provide means by which the young Americans in question may be restored to their original status as American citizens. It is believed that the governments under which they are serving will be willing to release them from the obligations which they have taken through their voluntary enlistment and will grant them permission to return to this country in order that they may join the American Army.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

FRANK L. POLK.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any American citizen who may be deemed to have expatriated himself under the provision of the first paragraph of section two of the citizenship act of March second, nineteen hundred and seven, by taking an oath of allegiance to Great Britain, France, or any of their allies in the present conflict upon enlisting in the armed forces thereof be, and he is hereby, authorized to recover the character and privileges of an American citizen after obtaining a discharge from the foreign army in which he is serving and upon taking an oath of allegiance to the United States before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, if he is abroad, or before

a clerk of a court in the United States having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens if he is in this country. The oath of allegiance to be taken is as follows:

"I, hereby renew my allegiance to the United States of America and disclaim and abjure allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty. Further, I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God."

The oath of allegiance should be signed in triplicate, one copy to be filed in the office where it is taken, one to be forwarded to the Department of Labor, and one to be delivered to the affiant.

If the oath of allegiance is taken before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign country, the proper authorities thereof should be duly notified.

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.)

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Thursday, June 14, 1917:

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John L. Burnett (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we now have a quorum of the committee. I called the committee together this morning because we have not been making much progress on the Rogers bills, and I do not know that we will be able to act definitely on them to-day, because we have not yet got all the information we requested of the State and Labor Departments. At the hearing before, we asked the gentlemen representing the Labor Department to send a suggested amendment to one of the Rogers bills, and that has been sent down. We also asked for information in regard to the status of people who take this soldiers' oath in the other countries-as to whether they become citizens of those countries or not. There has been some question about that. We asked them to secure that information and submit it to us. Mr. Meeker also has been making a careful investigation of that question, and he says he has run down the information in 19 countries. The Labor Department has not made any report as to their investigations. The State Department this morning sent us a communication. I do not understand this to be executive or secret. If it is, we will have it put in the record and then can erase it before printing.

The SECRETATY OF STATE,

Washington.

AMERICAN EMBASSY, London, November 11, 1915.

SIR: I have received and read with interest the department's confidential publication, Series M, No. 56, issued on the 23d ultimo by the Division of Information entitled, "Right to Protection of American Citizens Enlisting in Foreign Armies."

I have noted the statement in the final paragraph of the department's instruction of June 11 to the ambassador at Paris that "the department has frequently held that service by American citizens in foreign armies does not of itself operate as a renunciation of American citizenship, unless such service involves the taking of oaths of allegiance to foreign Governments, which would come within the purview of the first paragraph of section 2 of the act of March 2, 1907," which has been my understanding of the department's views on the subject.

The CHAIRMAN. You will remember we asked them also to find out whether, so far as France is concerned, there were any outside of the foreign legion who were not required to take an oath. It was understood they were not required to take an oath to join the foreign legion; that they were just men from all countries, and were not required to take an oath; but the question was asked as to whether they had others, either by transfer from the foreign legion or by enlistment over there, in the other armies of France, and as to whether or not they were required to take an oath which would expatriate them here. That answer has not been given to us. The answer here only applies to the effect of the British oath. [Reading:]

In the department's instruction of September 22 to Mr. Sharp I observe that Dr. J. C. Johnson, an American citizen, is held to have expatriated himself in view of the fact that in enlisting in the Canadian contingent of the British forces he had taken an oath which is quoted in the instruction. This oath is that which all persons enlisting in the British Army are obliged to take, and I am therefore desirous of knowing for my guidance in the future whether the department rules that all Americans now serving in the British forces are held to have permanently expatriated themselves and to have lost for all time their claims to American citizenship and protection.

Mr. Bryan, in an unnumbered instruction of November 25, 1914, made certain inquiries of me with regard to the general question of the enlistment of Americans in the British Army, with a view, among other things, of determining whether the taking of the oath above referred to results in the final loss of American citizenship, the point to be determined, according to Mr. Bryan, being whether the oath required involves permanent allegiance or merely amounts to a contract to serve for a limited period in the British Army. In my dispatch No. 663 of December 15, 1914, I had the honor to inform Mr. Bryan that the competent department of the British Government had made it clear to me that the claim of any person now enlisting in the British Army to British nationality merely through his having taken the oath of allegiance quoted above would not be admitted.

That is, he did not acquire citizenship in England or in the British possessions.

It seems abundantly clear, therefore, that Dr. J. C. Johnson and the other Americans now serving in the British Army, who are currently reported to number as many as 25,000, have not acquired British nationality merely by enlisting and taking the oath in question.

There is a further point in connection with the foregoing on which I should be very grateful to receive instructions. This is the status of the wives of Americans who have enlisted in the British Army and who are at the present time in England. These women are not British subjects and can not receive passports from the British Government. They can not therefore leave England unless they receive passports from me, since all aliens must be in possession of passports to be able to land in or leave this country. These women would appear as a general rule to be not to blame for the actions of their husbands in enlisting, and may be put to great inconvenience and even distress if they are held to be expatriated through their husbands' actions and thus to have forfeited all claim to the protection of our Government.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

WALTER HINES PAGE. Now, it seems to me that the Rogers bill would not meet the situation presented by the last clause of this letter, because, as I recollect it, it applies only to those who make application and take an oath. showing that they desire to be repatriated, and hence it would not affect the situation of the wives.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Would not the wife's citizenship follow the husband's?

The CHAIRMAN. It would, after they did that; but they are there now and the husband is still in the army, and it is a serious question which he presents, whether these women now, while their husbands are in the British Army, can get back.

Mr. SLAYDEN. If we determined the first phase of that question, would not that also determine the second one?

The CHAIRMAN. As I said, Mr. Meeker has been collating the authorities and laws of other countries and he finds, he tells me, from the investigation he has made so far, that there is a great diversity of laws in the other countries in regard to the status of these men; but I think none of them hold that by taking the oath they become citizens of those countries; but we have not had a full investigation, and the Labor Department has not made answer, and it is up to the committee as to whether we ought to proceed now or make a further investigation of this matter.

Mr. SLAYDEN. How can we proceed without full information?

The CHAIRMAN. I hardly think we can, and for that reason I thought that inasmuch as Mr. Taylor has introduced two very important bills for the expatriation of slackers, if the committee did not think it practicable to go on with the Rogers business, I should be very glad for us to give Mr. Taylor a hearing.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, I concur heartily in what you have said this morning, inasmuch as the information we have requested has not been furnished. The letter which has been read here was written a few years ago, and while it makes suggestions it does not answer them. I do not think we are in any better position now than we were before, and I think we ought to have further information before we proceed further.

The CHAIRMAN. That is my opinion.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Why are they delaying the report?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers took the matter up the other day. I perhaps should have written to them, but I was very busily engaged with some people from the South at the Confederate reunion and did not write and urge them to give the information. We asked them for it at the hearings. The hearings are right here and they show that we asked them to give us the information, and I think that Judge Raker, perhaps, especially emphasized the importance of it, and possibly some other members, and they were to give it to us. They did send down the amendment which they said they would recommend, and that is the only communication we have received until just now. Unless some one objects, I think the matter had better go over until next Thursday.

Mr. SLAYDEN. I move that it be deferred until next Thursday. (The motion of Mr. Slayden was adopted.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIRGATION AND NATURALIZATION,

Friday, June 29, 1917. The committee this day met, Hon. John L. Burnett (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up this morning the Rogers bills, H. R. 3647 and H. R. 4629.

Mr. Rogers, have you any additional statement which you desire to make?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have just two or three things to which I should like to call the attention of the committee.

Mr. Meeker sent to all the legations and embassies of foreign countries in Washington a letter of inquiry seeking information as to the status of citizens of the United States who enlist in the armies of foreign countries. Specifically, he asked whether or not they acquire citizenship in the new country. There were several other points mentioned in Mr. Meeker's letter of inquiry, but that is the one that seems to bear especially upon my bill.

By the courtesy of Mr. Meeker, I have examined these overnight rather carefully. He has letters of reply, I think, from about 25 embassies and legations. These disclose that there is only one country in the world which bestows citizenship upon an alien by the fact of his entering the army of that country, and that is the country of Serbia. With the permission of the committee, I should like to read two or three sentences from the letter of the Serbian minister:

An alien who desires to enter the military service of the Serbian Army, must take an oath of fidelity to his superiors and of submission to the military laws. His service in the army does not affect his citizenship without his express wish to that effect.

The taking of military oath does not make him a citizen of Serbia if he does not wish so.

The Serbian citizenship is obtained only by the written request of the alien. Assuming that statement is correct, it lies in the volition of the alien at the time of his application for admission to the Serbian Army whether or not he shall obtain Serbian citizenship. 'With the exception of that one country, so far as these letters disclose, there is no case where a man acquires citizenship in the new country simply by entering the army of that country.

That question was left open at the time that the committee had its last hearing upon this bill, and I was asked by the chairman to get any information that I could. Mr. Meeker has obtained very much more information than I was able to secure. I talked with the commissioner of naturalization at the Department of Labor, who told me that he had no information on file upon that subject and that he did not believe it could be obtained in this country, and that obtaining it would be a long and arduous process. I called again upon the Department of State officials, including Mr. Flournoy, who appeared here, and they all said that as far as they knew, there was no country on the globe where citizenship resulted from mere enlistment in the army. Apparently Serbia is at least a qualified exception to that, if