the statement of the minister is correct. Mr. Meeker probably has the fullest collection of information on this subject extant to-day. Mr. MEEKER. I have also some other letters.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Some of the countries declined to answer?

Mr. MEEKER. Yes. A dozen of the ministers and ambassadors said that they were not permitted by their regulations to answer questions of a legal nature, or something of that sort.

In the translation which the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Slayden, has given me of a letter from the minister from Colombia, which gives the oath which they must take, he says:

This oath of itself does not make a citizen of Colombia. The oath does not modify the statutes as to personal and real property of foreigners in Colombia, or to exercise the rights, natural and civll, that the laws of Colombia establish.

Mr. RAKER. Judge Burnett, does not our law permit a man who has served in the Navy to become a citizen without any other formality?

The CHAIRMAN. That is a proviso. We have several laws which are rather incongruous in regard to service in the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. We passed a bill through the House two or three years ago making them harmonious, but it was lost in the Senate. Mr. Campbell, of the Bureau of Naturalization, has been insisting for quite a while that those laws be made uniform. As I understand, a man has to be a citizen for a certain length of time.

Mr. RAKER. Does not the mere fact that he has served in the Navy permit him to become a citizen?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so. I will ask Mr. Parker about that.

Mr. PARKER. I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. There are several laws. For instance, there is the law with reference to alien seamen of merchant vessels:

Every seaman, being a foreigner, who declares his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States in any competent court, and shall have served three years on board of a merchant vessel of the United States subsequent to the date of such declaration, may, on his application to any competent court and the production of his certificate of discharge and good conduct during that time, together with the certificate of his declaration of intention to become a citizen, be admitted a citizen of the United States.

Mr. RAKER. What was the statement that Mr. Campbell called our attention to day before yesterday in regard to a man being admitted, no difference what he had done or what he had been, he might have been convicted of a felony or anything else, but he could just walk up and get his citizenship papers?

The CHAIRMAN. But, as I understand, a discharge is necessary. I remember that the judge of the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Judge Ewing, wrote and called my attention to it. He said that he could not understand that whereas a man who had served his time and served twice as long as required by the law, yet unless he had a discharge he could not get his naturalization papers. That, of course, should be amended. Mr. Campbell, the Chief of the Bureau of Naturalization, called my attention to the incongruity in our law a time or two and asked that it be amended, and we did pass two bills in the House making harmonious the law requiring a different length of time for those who had served in the Army, the Navy,

and the Marine Corps to acquire citizenship. I believe as a prerequisite in all of those cases there had to be a discharge.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; I think so. You are now referring to the class of cases for which provision was made in the naval bill of three years ago, June 30, 1914.

Mr. RAKER. That is the one that I am asking about.

The CHAIRMAN. That modified the law?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; to this extent, that it allowed anyone who had been engaged in the Navy or the Marine Corps to be naturalized if he had a certificate of discharge without any evidence of character and without any limitation of time.

Mr. SLAYDEN. That had no reference to the merchant service?
Mr. CAMPBELL. No, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Irrespective of what his conduct might have been?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir; he might have been in the penitentiary.
Mr. RAKER. And he could come right out and get it?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Even in a meritorious case there has to be a discharge?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SIEGEL. The discharge would show on its face whether it was honorable or not.

Mr. CAMPBELL. The point that I make against the legislation is that it is making a preferred class, making an American citizen without any investigation of those discharged from the naval service. Mr. SIEGEL. Is there any limitation of time as to when the application must be made?

Mr. CAMPBELL. In the bill reported favorably from the Naval Committee of the House there was a limitation of six months, but as enacted there was no limitation whatever. I called the chairman's attention to it shortly after the law was passed.

Mr. RAKER. Does that provision mean that if a man serves in the Navy and gets his discharge, by force of that service and discharge he can become an American citizen, irrespective of what his conduct or character might be?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Precisely, without any interval or delay of any kind, without_investigation and regardless of the result of any investigation. In other words, it gives him a certificate of character which entitles him to become an American citizen if he asks for it. The CHAIRMAN. In justice to this committee, I desire to say that we never reported that bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It was a rider put on the appropriation bill by the Naval Committee, as I understand.

Mr. ROGERS. I want to pass on, if I may, with just this word of summary. My own investigation convinces me there is no shadow of doubt that practically all our American boys who have enlisted in an army, other than France, of one of the allied powers or one of the central powers during this war have lost their citizenship thereby and are men without a country. The only exception appears to be Serbia, and I suppose there is not a corporal's guard of American boys who have enlisted in the Serbian army.

Mr. RAKER. A man can become a citizen of the country in whose army he enlists or in this country by complying with the laws in existence in the country or in this country?

Mr. ROGERS. By complying with the ordinary naturalization laws in each case.

I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the remedy suggested by this bill does not represent a difference in kind; it is a difference in degree. It is simply a curtailment of time. does not give the man any undue privilege; it simply gives him a short cut in elapsed time to citizenship. The suggestion has been made by a member of the committee that these men violated the law of the United States when they went abroad and enlisted in one of the foreign armies. To me it is clear they did not. I shall not deal with their discretion or wisdom in enlisting, because that is necessarily a matter of opinion as to the judgment or wisdom of those men, citizens of the United States, who went abroad to fight in the armies of Europe. But the legal aspect is more easily ascertained. I should like to read a paragraph from the Revised Statutes on this subject, entitled "Neutrality," section 5282:

Every person who, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlists or enters himself, or hires or retains another person to enlist himself, or to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, as a soldier, or as a marine or seaman, on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer, shall be deemed guilty of high misdemeanor, and so forth.

I will not pass upon the question of the wisdom of these men, but I want to call your attention to the fact that as far as the law goes illegality attaches only in the event of enlistment within the United States in a foreign army or navy. John Bassett Moore's Digest, from which I intended to bring a citation this morning, says that the enlistment of citizens of the United States or of any other country in a foreign army or navy raises no international question of any kind. These men therefore are violators of no law of the United States or of international law.

Mr. RAKER. Is it not by force of the fact that he does not expatriate himself because he is not any longer a citizen of the United States that there is no international question involved? That is the very object and purpose of this law, to avoid international questions over which we would have no control. So far as arresting and convicting him, when he has gone abroad and is on foreign soil, he has thereby waived his rights to be a citizen of this country. Does not that appeal to you?

Mr. ROGERS. Of course the man at the time of his enlistment was still an American citizen, even though on foreign soil.

Mr. RAKER. Of course that is true.

Mr. ROGERS. Also, our expatriation act dates back only 10 years, and there is some question as to whether it was more than declaratory of international law as it then stood. I should say there is a good deal of force in what you have said.

The CHAIRMAN. A great many countries do not require any oath, and those enlisting in their armies do not forfeit their American citizenship.

Mr. RAKER. If he joins the army he does, whether he takes the oath or not.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not so understand.

Mr. SIEGEL. That is the decision of Judge Ray.

Mr. ROGERS. I think it is pretty generally agreed that men who enlisted in the French forces did not lose their American citizenship, because they were not required to take the oath of allegiance. The question is whether or not the recruit took an oath of allegiance to the foreign government.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the language of the statute:

That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign State in conformity with its laws, or when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign State.

It is not the service in the army, it is the taking of the oath. Mr. MEEKER. If I might make a suggestion as to something that has been on my mind since having received this communication from Mr. Cecil Spring-Rice, in which he said:

I greatly regret, however, that I am unable to supply the further information desired as to how this oath confers the rights of British citizenship. Much of the information you desire would require considerable legal opinion, and I would therefore suggest that you should submit your inquiries to the United States Embassy in London.

Mr. SIEGEL. Should that be done direct or through the State Department?

Mr. MEEKER. Through the State Department. He then gives the oath that is taken on enlistment in the British military forces. I do not know whether that is applicable at all or not, but the fact is that a very grave situation obtains and exists in regard to those men, especially who have gone into the English Army. I do not think the men in the French Army would be affected in any way. The French ambassador simply says:

I beg to inform you that an alien who desires to enter the military or naval service of France is not asked to take any oath. He has only, under the present circumstances, to sign a paper pledging himself to serve while the present war

lasts.

Mr. ROGERS. I want to call your attention to the words "under the present circumstances." I understand that the practice now prevailing was not in practice at the beginning of the war and for sometime

thereafter.

Mr. MEEKER. I see. If the men of the United States who have gone into the armies of the allies were to be taken into the American Army over there, it would settle all this trouble.

Mr. SIEGEL. I understand that the policy of the War Department is to transfer them as a body to the American Army.

Mr. MEEKER. That is one way out of it.

Mr. ROGERS. I think I can throw a little light on your inquiry. Of course, as the committee understands, before a man can become an officer in the American Army he must be a full citizen. Before a man can enlist in the American Army he must have taken out his first papers toward becoming a citizen. These men who are now fighting with the Canadian or British forces, either in England or in France, or somewhere else, of course can not take out their first papers toward becoming citizens while they are on foreign soil. They would have to do that in this country. Therefore they can not become declarants for citizenship and become enlisted in the American forces. They can not become officers, because they can not acquire citizenship over there. You will remember, however, that the

language of my bill, H. R. 3647, permits those men to reacquire and reassume the character and privileges of citizens of the United States by presenting themselves, if abroad, before a consular officer of the United States.

Mr. MEEKER. The provision in your bill to which you have referred might cover the very thing I have in mind, that those men, under the supervision of the American representatives in Europe, during this emergency can get back their citizenship. I do not think any of the men have lost their citizenship except those who have gone into the British Army, as it is very plain now that they have neither become citizens of Great Britain by the oath they have taken, though they have forfeited their citizenship here.

Mr. ROGERS. The same situation applies as to Canada. A much larger number of our boys have gone into the Canadian forces than into the real British forces.

Mr. MEEKER. The soldiers in the Canadian and British forces are like the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Mr. SIEGEL. They are worse off.

Mr. MEEKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. They are like Philip Nolan, men without a country. Mr. MEEKER. By bringing them back into full citizenship while over there, if that can be done, by permitting them to register under the supervision of the American consuls and representatives abroad, as an emergency matter, I think that would be the easiest and quickest solution of it. Even then there is this anomalous situation of these men with their families and everything here not having the status of citizens anywhere.

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. MEEKER. Not even in the country for which they are fighting. Mr. ROGERS. If a law like this should be passed the working out of the transfers would be purely an administrative matter and would require no further activity by Congress.

Mr. MEEKER. Possibly so. There is one other point that is evident in a number of these letters. Cecil Spring-Rice did not answer the question, and neither did the French ambassador, but some of them did. That is, the status of the men who are injured, wounded, or killed in the Canadian Army, in the British Army, or the French Army, or any of those other countries, as to the provision which those countries are going to make in the way of pensions.

Mr. SLAYDEN. The advertisement of the British Empire, which some one read to the committee, said that they would be pensioned in the event they were injured.

Mr. WELTY. By what Government?

Mr. SLAYDEN. The British Empire.

Mr. SIEGEL. When these men come back they will land in New York City, and that town will have to take care of them.

Mr. RAKER. There should be a showing made to the committee as to the necessity of such legislation.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Is it not a fact that all these letters disclose that they temporarily become citizens of the foreign countries, ipso facto, by going into the foreign armies? The French ambassador's statement is to the effect that they do not in France.

Mr. MEEKER. They take no oath.