Mrs. OWEN. The Cable Act. I believe no one has greater cause than I to recognize the value of that particular act. I want to acknowledge the intent behind this present legislation, and I want to make my statement one that refers to the principles on which all this legislation, I believe, should be founded rather upon the details of this bill. We are considering details now that are very confusing and difficult, but there is a general principle which is easy to define. Either the American citizen, man or woman, is entitled to the same consideration before the Government, or there is a discrimination made between the sexes. I think the only equitable view that can be taken is that men and women are entitled to exactly the same consideration from their Government. Now, if we recognize that principle, we will find in the present state of United States law two existing discriminations against women; first, a woman who has married one who is ineligible to citizenship loses her citizenship. A man may marry an alien ineligible to citizenship and his citizenship is not thereby affected. Therefore, I think, fundamentally, that provision is wrong. It makes a distinction between the rights of American men and American women. Secondly, a woman who resides outside the United States for a certain length of time is by that act considered to have forfeited her citizenship. I believe that also is showing a discrimination against the citizenship of the American woman, because no similar penalty attaches to a man's residence abroad. For that reason I oppose that provision.

I would like to say that I have looked over the list of organizations whose representatives are to speak here this morning and I find several organizations of which I am a member. The League of Women Voters, the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, the Association of American University Women, and the Young Women's Christian Association. I hold membership in these organizations whose representatives are speaking to you this morning. So I believe I will find that the views that those organizations present will be substantially my own views. However, underneath it all lies a fundamental question that we must consider. Our country at this moment has erased by its legislation a great many discriminations against women. I am not going to be content, and I do not believe the organized women of America will be content until all discriminations are erased.

On the 13th of this month at The Hague an international congress will be held to consider, among other things, problems of nationality. We have sent delegates to represent our country at that conference. All these very difficult problems you have to consider, concerning the rights of children to choose their own nationality, the problems that are arising concerning divided nationalities in the home, and so forth, will be considered at this conference at The Hague. I hope the United States will go on record as recognizing the dignity of its women's citizenship as well as the dignity of the citizenship of its men. To the extent that this equality of citizenship is recognized, I favor this bill. I hope we may find a way to amend it satisfactorily in order to equalize the nationality law in regard to men and women. The CHAIRMAN. You admit that there are many involved problems. Mrs. OWEN. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to sit with us to help iron out the difficulty?

Mrs. OWEN. I would like to be of any assistance I can be.

Mr. CABLE. Do you see any reason why an American-born woman who married an alien and lost her citizenship thereby before September 22, 1922, should be required to come here and remain a year before she may be naturalized?

Mrs. OWEN. I do not.

Mr. CABLE. Do you see any reason for her going through the whole naturalization proceedings as you had to go through?

Mrs. OWEN. I think that such naturalization of a loyal Americanborn woman is a farce. I will give you an illustration of the absurdity of the situation. I will give you a concrete illustration in my own case. I was required to fill out the same form that is given to any alien to become a citizen. I went to the court and was naturalized in a group of aliens. In that court at the time were two women appointed by me to take charge of the Americanization of aliens under the auspices of the Woman's Club. For three years we have been conducting classes to prepare aliens for citizenship, and yet I had to go before that court as an alien and my own appointees who were there teaching the aliens. I appointed these two women to take charge of the teaching and preparation of these aliens for American citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. Those teachers were citizens?

Mrs. OWEN. Yes. The law had taken my citizenship away at the time of my marriage.

The CHAIRMAN. You left the country and abandoned your citizenship by marriage to a foreigner?

Mrs. OWEN. I did not abandon my citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. You took on the citizenship of another country. Mrs. OWEN. I did not take it. It was forced upon me by an unjust law, now repealed.

The CHAIRMAN. What law?

Mrs. OWEN. The act of 1907, which was repealed by the Cable Act. Mr. CABLE. Do you not think it would be sufficient for an American-born woman, as in your case, simply to go before the naturalization examiner, prove that you married an alien and thereby lost your citizenship, walk into court, take an oath of allegiance, and receive a certificate of citizenship?

Mrs. OWEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have probably given this a great deal of thought.

Mrs. OWEN. I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose after that step just outlined, a woman becomes reconciled to her husband in Great Britain and returns to him. Would you have her drop American citizenship again?

Mrs. OWEN. Let her do the same as a man would do-take out citizenship in Great Britain if she desires. If she desires to retain her citizenship I see no reason why marriage should be held to affect it.

The CHAIRMAN. But if she finds there or elsewhere that she is required in order to participate in property rights to have that foreign citizenship, she would have it and also the American citizenship up her sleeve to use if she needed it.

Mrs. OWEN. Suppose an American man went abroad and business conditions seemed such as to make it desirable for him to identify himself with that country, what would he do?

The CHAIRMAN. I think a man staying away should have the same length of residence we have for women. I do not believe naturalization is like a hat that you can take off and put on at will.

Mrs. OWEN. Then make it the same for men and women.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that naturalization should be very much more strict, and that the period of residence precedent to naturalization should be at least twice as long as it is now.

Mrs. OWEN. Any details concerning citizenship should be uniformly applied regardless of sex. You will find the most careful and just consideration given by women to this matter. All we ask is to be considered to have an equal dignity as citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a great deal of trouble with dual nationalities. People come here and naturalize but they do not forfeit their citizenship abroad. Take, for instance, the Italians. When they return to their country they are seized for service in the Army. We should take notice of that. The minute a man or woman is recognized as a citizen of another country, he or she should lose American citizenship and not get it again.

MRS. OWEN. There one has to consider foreign law rather than our law. That will be done at The Hague. We can not do that in committee. It depends upon the foreign law rather than upon that of our own Government.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Under section (d) it does not restore the rights that some American woman lost if this bill becomes law. I refer to line 18, page 2. If there is some discrimination against certain women as a result of the Cable Act, and I am referring only to American women, they do not get the benefit of this law-they have lost it and they are gone. Why not restore them to the same equal rights?

Mrs. OWEN. You are referring to subdivision (b) on page 2 of H. R. 10208?

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Yes. It provides that—

The amendment made by this section to section 3 of such act of September 22, 1922, shall not restore citizenship lost under such section 3 before such amendment.

In other words, under the Cable Act, a certain number of American women have lost their citizenship and the present bill would not restore it.

Mrs. OWEN. I think it is necessary that they shall make a declaration as to intent. That is your intent, I believe, Mr. Cable?

Mr. CABLE. It gives them the option to elect whether they wish to remain citizens of our country, rather than force citizenship upon them.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Their husbands must have died or they must have been divorced in order to come back under the section we amended, section 4. They could become citizens within a year, and that is the discrimination.

Mr. CABLE. You are referring to immigrants, while these women may have resided in the United States continuously.

Mrs. OWEN. I would just like to say that if there is any way in which I can assist in the work that this committee is doing, I hope I may be privileged to take that part, because to my desk have come so many letters from women who have suffered through hardships inflicted by nationality laws.

I think that if you could read some of those letters and get an idea of the type of the letters, and of what they contain, you would realize that this is a matter that intimately affects the rights of American women who have just as much right to the protection of the flag as you yourselves.

I want to quote from one letter. This is from a woman who was born in the United States and lived here all her life. She taught school here in this country. She married a German citizen in 1917. This man could not apply for citizenship in this country then. The war was on. He wanted to become a citizen, but he could not. He had to wait. Circumstances prevented his completing his naturalization until after the passage of the Cable Act in 1922.

This woman has now suddenly realized what she did not know— that she is not an American citizen; she is an alien in this country. It has just been borne in upon her. She has never been out of the United States. She has always lived here. She has lived here all her life. She has always been a loyal American.

Mr. CABLE. When she married this German man, she realized that he was an alien, didn't she?

Mrs. OWEN. She realized that, but her husband was naturalized, and she thought that that naturalized her.

She says:

After going through all this anxiety, my husband has at last been naturalized and I am

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe in separate naturalization for women?

Mrs. OWEN. I believe in giving them exactly the same rights as men, alsolutely the same rights before the law. We all should be considered as citizens, not men citizens and women citizens.

She closed her letter by saying:

When I looked up and saw the American flag flying over the public buildings to-day and realized that it had in it no protection for me, born here and living here my whole life, can you imagine how that made me feel?

She sent the letter by air mail. You can tell by the whole tone of the letter that she is in the greatest possible grief and distress. The CHAIRMAN. You know, Mrs. Owens, that this act that you call ludicrous was only passed after some 20 years of effort?

Mrs. OWEN. I didn't call the Cable Act ludicrous. I said that the effect of asking the American-born woman to go through the same naturalization process as foreigners is to create absurd procedure. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that it ought not to apply to a woman like Mrs. Slydell, who joined the Confederacy and then fled abroad?

Mrs. OWEN. I only mean to apply it where a woman involuntarily lost her citizenship by marriage. She has to go through procedure which I do not think is dignified or reasonable.

Mr. CABLE. This bill would enable a lady in an hour's time to regain her citizenship.

Mrs. OWEN. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. Suppose, right there, that her husband had remained in Germany and she came back. Then under this law she would automatically become an American citizen, and her husband would remain the same as he was, I suppose?

Mr. CABLE. That is the present law, too, Mr. Green.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the next witness?

Miss STRAUS. I will call next Mr. McGrady, of the American Federation of Labor.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD MCGRADY, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. MCGRADY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for 40 years the American Federation of Labor has affirmed and reaffirmed its belief in equal political rights for men and women. We are not indorsing this particular draft of the bill, but I want to place my organization on record as favoring the principle of granting women under our immigration laws the same rights that men enjoy. We believe it is absurd and un-American to inflict a penalty upon a woman citizen that we do not inflict upon a man.

I don't know as I care to go into the details of this particular bill. But we do want to go on record again as being squarely in favor of anything that will give the women the same rights as the men citizens in this country enjoy in all laws relative to citizenship and naturalization of married women. We are absolutely opposed to any discrimination.

Mr. GREEN. How about the children? about them?

What are you going to do

Mr. MCGRADY. I believe that the children ought to have the right to decide that for themselves.

Mr. GREEN. You think they ought to have the right to decide their own citizenship?

Mr. MCGRADY. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. Before they are 21 or after they are 21?

Mr. MCGRADY. Well, I would say when they reach 21 or after.

Mr. GREEN. We have passed immigration laws that provided that when a father was naturalized, the children below 18 are naturalized with him.

Mr. MCGRADY. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. If we pass the bill now before us, suppose that, as the chairman pointed out, the father is a citizen of another country, and the wife returned to America to her former place of abode, where are you going to place the citizenship of the children? Would you let them elect that?

Mr. MCGRADY. I believe that the children ought to have the right to elect their own citizenship.

As to the age, I would not care to commit myself. Certainly it should not be below 18. I believe it should be somewhere between 18 and 21, when they reach the age of reason and discretion and they can decide for themselves as to what country they want to belong to.