The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Flournoy, have you the British oath which they take?

Mr. SIEGEL. That is given at length in the decision of Judge Ray. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Flournoy has it also. This is quoted. Mr. Chairman, in the case of Ex parte Griffin, which I just cited. I wrote Col. McCormick of the Canadian forces, who is known as the "Yankee Colonel," because he is an American and went over to Canada and became colonel in the Canadian forces, to ask if the oath as it appears here is still the oath in use. He advised me two days ago that it was the oath still in use.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not the same oath used by the other allies, perhaps.

Mr. ROGERS. It is the same oath as that used by Great Britain. Mr. FLOURNOY. It is the British oath and it is also used for admission into the Canadian Army.

Mr. ROGERS. The British and the Canadian oaths are identical. Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes: they require the same oath.

The CHAIRMAN. But to join the French armies or the Italian armies I presume there is a different oath?

Mr. FLOURNOY. In the case of the French Army, most Americans who went into the French Army were admitted into what is known as the foreign legion, a division of the French Army made up entirely of foreigners, and there is a special provision under which they are excused from taking an oath of allegiance to France. The question comes up principally with regard to Americans who joined the British Army in England or the Canadian Army in Canada. Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, may we have that oath read? Mr. ROGERS (reading):

I,

do make oath that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty, King George the Fifth, his heirs and successors, and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, his heirs and successors, in person, crown, and dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, his heirs and successors, and of all the generals and officers set over me: So help me God.

Mr. RAKER. Now these men have all taken that oath after leaving the United States?

Mr. ROGERS. Every man in the Canadian or British forces.

Mr. RAKER. And while the United States was neutral as against all the warring foreign countries?

Mr. ROGERS. That is true.

Mr. RAKER. Now, I would like to ask Mr. Flournoy, if this man is a British subject and has renounced his allegiance to the United States, what is the necessity for his getting a passport? Could he not go as a British subject?

Mr. FLOURNOY. It does not make him a British subject. It leaves him up in the air.

Mr. SLAYDEN. And he ceases to be an American citizen ipso facto. Mr. FLOURNOY. He is a man without a country.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Has the question ever been definitely settled—that it does not make him a British subject?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SLAYDEN. He takes an oath of allegiance to His Majesty King George and his heirs and successors, and swears to defend the throne.

The CHAIRMAN. But he does not renounce allegiance

Mr. FLOURNOY (interposing). That always is taken on a false assumption. It is contrary to the British law to admit anyone into the British Army unless he is a British subject. The way they get around it is that the recruiting officer hands a man a paper and tells him he can put in anything he pleases, and they usually say that they were born in Canada.

Mr. RAKER. Can it be possible that these men who have expatriated themselves from the United States are so dense-I am going to use good, strong language as to their rights as American citizens and as to what they are doing that they will take an oath of that kind when, as a matter of fact, they do not intend to take any oath at all?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Most of them are young fellows who are rather enthusiastic about joining the cause of the allies and they do not take that part, I think, so very seriously. I remember one of them came to my office and told me that after he joined he was very much distressed to hear he had lost his American citizenship; that he had no idea he was going to lose it. He said he stood up in a row with several others, and the recruiting sergeant made them hold up their hands and then read off an oath to them, and he said he did not pay much attention to it, although he admitted that he did take the oath.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Was he a man of intelligence?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes; I think so-a man of average intelligence. Mr. MEEKER. He was smart enough to get in, but not smart enough to get out.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a rather natural mistake, because that same thing happens as to getting in and out when the young fellows join our own Army.

Mr. RAKER. If it is true that those men are so thoughtless and so negligent and so utterly disregardful of their duties as a citizen of the United States, do you not think that they ought to wait about five years when they come back before assuming the obligation of citizens of the United States and not be in position to immediately assume some high position of trust in the United States? Do you not think they ought to think about five years after they come back before becoming citizens? I am asking you that question, Mr. Flournoy.

Mr. FLOURNOY. No, sir; I do not think so. I really do not think they realize that they are taking an actual oath of allegiance. They think it is a sort of contract to serve. That is the way they look at it.

Mr. HOOD. How about those going to the Army of France? Are they required to take any oath?

Mr. FLOURNOY. No, sir: not in the Foreign Legion.

Mr. JOHNSON. In Northwestern United States they are advertising and the agents of the British Government are soliciting citizens in the State of Washington, for instance, to join the Canadian regiments like the One hundred and ninety-sixth Western Universities Battalion and other battalions, and the advertisement says:

Americans joining Canadian units enjoy exactly the same rights as Canadians in the matter of pay, pensions, separation allowances, promotion, and honors, etc.

Would it be a good plan to let those American citizens go, as they can do, into a Canadian regiment with the idea that they would be taken back as citizens of the United States in course of time?

Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not think that we are now doing that. I do not think the War Department would approve of Americans at this time joining any foreign army.

Mr. JOHNSON. But they have been advertising within a week in the newspapers of my district for Americans.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I should think that is a matter that ought to be taken up at once.

Mr. JOHNSON. And the advertisements state that Americans joining the Canadian forces will be on an equality with Canadians in the matter of pay, pensions, separation allowances, promotions, and honors, and in many cases the attraction is the offer of a large tract of fine land in British Columbia.

Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Crist says that they will not be allowed to leave this country at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. They are already stopping them along the border. Mr. MEEKER. Suppose the United States had not gone into this war and had remained neutral throughout, would this bill then have applied to the men who had taken the German side of the fight instead of the English?

The CHAIRMAN. No; because if you will read the bill it says that it applies to only those who join the armies of those countries with whom we are allies. That may not be the language, but that is the

substance.

Mr. RAKER. As a matter of public policy, Mr. Flournoy, ought we at this time to declare to the world that whenever any countries are at war our men may leave this country and renounce their allegiance and go over and fight and come back and still remain citizens or become citizens without any time limit or anything of that sort? Do you think the Government's policy ought to inculcate any such idea as that in its citizens; that its citizenship is to be so lightly held?

Mr. FLOURNOY. In the first place, they did not specifically or intentionally renounce their allegiance to the United States.

Mr. RAKER. But that must be assumed. It can not be assumed that 45,000 men were so dense as to language and as to their rights as citizens that they did not know what they were doing. I can not conceive that that is possible.

Mr. KNUTSON. But this point ought to be taken into consideration: You must remember that Germany committed outrages against us for several years. For instance, the sinking of the Lusitania was a great incentive for red-blooded young Americans to go over there and avenge the killing of our women and children.

Mr. RAKER. Then your theory is that while we remain neutral as a country that the men should take it into their own hands and renounce their allegiance to this country as American citizens, and say, "Notwithstanding my country is neutral and my Nation is neutral, I am going to abandon my country and fight for another country." Is not that the real purport of it, Mr. Flournoy?

Mr. KNUTSON. The boys at Lexington did practically that. Mr. SIEGEL. If there is no objection, Mr. Crist, of the Labor Department, could probably answer that question.

Mr. ROGERS. Before Mr. Crist begins, may I make one suggestion, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. If we are through with Mr. Flournoy. Is there any other question that any member desires to ask Mr. Flournoy?

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Flournoy has had lots of experience and is a man of extraordinary ability in these matters, and I would like to ask his opinion as to the question of public policy-cut out the present war for just a moment, because this country is not going to quit in the next two years or 10 years, and there is a question of policy involved-ought we to hold out such a law as this or such an idea as this to our citizens?

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, this bill does not do that, as I understand it.

Mr. SIEGEL. This simply applies to this war.

The CHAIRMAN. It only applies to any person who has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war. It would not be a blanket repeal of the present law, and it would only apply to those who had previously joined the armies of countries that are now our own allies when we are engaged in the same war that they are.

Mr. JOHNSON. A large number of Italians went back and some of them were citizens.

Mr. RAKER. Have not some of the Russian people gone back also? Mr. KNUTSON. Yes; they went back from our own country.

Mr. MEEKER. Mr. Flournoy, suppose by the accidents of war or the policies of war, this whole thing was reversed and we were now fighting the allies instead of fighting Germany and her allies, then the fellows you are talking about, if by the mere accidents of war we took the other side because of an attack made upon us, would all be shut out and then the Germans would come in?

Mr. ROGERS. Bear in mind that this bill was not introduced until some time after we were at war.

Mr. MEEKER. That does not make any difference.

Mr. ROGERS. I think it makes all the difference.

Mr. MEEKER. That is not the point I have in mind. The point is that these men who volunteered on either side before the date of our war declaration should all be treated alike as long as we were neutrals. Now, as to those who have gone in since, of course that is another question, but if this Nation was neutral and was saying, "You can go in any direction you please, take either side of this war, because we are neutral: but since we have declared war, and you are in the Army, we will make provision for those fellows who took sides in the war and who are on our side in the war, but the other fellow does not have that privilege." I think that is a bad policy.

Mr. SLAYDEN. I think we have the unquestionable right to favor the men who went in and who can now help us.

Mr. MEEKER. Not if we were neutral

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Mr. Flournoy, this could not be construed in any way to allow these men to come back here and draw pensions from us because of their disabilities received over there while in the armies of those who now are our allies? There can not be any distortion of the law that would permit that, could there? Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not see

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I do not think so.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not see anything in the bill that would warrant that at all.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so, either.

Mr. MEEKER. Now, following up that question, suppose that some of the men who want to be officers in our Army, or who are coming back here so that they can become officers in the American Army, should come back here and go into the service again, or into our service, how would these men enter their claims against the foreign Governments?

Mr. SABATH. They would be entitled to pay for services rendered there and for disabilities received there, and then would they not be entitled to pensions for disabilities received in the service of our country?

Mr. RAKER. We are going to determine whether or not we will establish a policy that will apply to the whole world. If we favor those who joined one side while we were neutral, we will be encouraging other people to violate the law against our own country by fighting on one side or the other. Now, after we have gone in and joined one side or the other, we will say, "Boys, while you have expatriated yourselves, and while you didn't think enough of your own country to retain your citizenship in it, because you are on our side in this contest, you are all right, but these others who joined the other side are criminals."

Mr. SABATH. The point is made that there is a discrimination practiced against those who have joined the German forces or the Austrian forces or the Bulgarian forces, but at that time they did not know that our country would ever take sides or that we would be dragged into this war, and from the statement that has been made by Mr. Meeker, as well as by Judge Raker, it seems to me that there might be some force in that proposition.

Mr. WILSON. Don't you think that the men in the army of the allies will continue to fight there the same battles that we are fighting? They will be better American citizens

Mr. SIEGEL (interposing). As I understand Mr. Rogers's bill, it is introduced for the purpose of giving the men who went abroad to fight previous to our declaration of war against Germany the chance to become American citizens again.

Mr. WILSON. Now, whenever he presents his discharge from that army and comes back, this does away with the other forms and delays incident to his becoming an American citizen. He simply presents his discharge and takes the oath of allegiance to the United States, and becomes an American citizen. He is now in the army of our allies

Mr. SIEGEL (interposing). That does not make much difference. because you can not legislate, it seems to me, and make one law for the goose and another law for the gander. You should make one law for all; you should make one law to answer for all of those men who went abroad to fight previous to our declaration of war.

Mr. WILSON. No, sir: we can not do that.

Mr. SIEGEL. It should apply to all those who went abroad previous to our declaration of war.