Mr. SLAYDEN. I would like to ask Mr. Flournoy and Mr. Rogers a question at the same time. This bill, if I understand it correctly from a hasty reading, simply proposes to reestablish for these men American citizenship-that is, for those men who were American citizens and who have gone to Europe to engage in the military service of any one of the countries that are now our allies. It frankly discriminates in their favor and against those who went into the armies of the nations with which we are at war. Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir. Mr. SLAYDEN. And it is perfectly proper to do that. Mr. SIEGEL. Yes; we have the legal right to do that perhaps. Mr. SIEGEL. I do not know about that. We want a policy that will encourage people to fight for us. Mr. SLAYDEN. I am not in favor of doing anything that would establish a permanent policy making citizenship easier to acquire than it has been, or making forfeiture less certain, but these are the facts: We are at war; these men went abroad; they allied themselves in a military way with the countries that are now our allies in the war against Germany, and now we come to the question of discrimination, because certain other Americans went and joined the military forces of Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. We have got the right to discriminate against them. That is true, because we propose to strengthen ourselves in a military way wherever we can. Incidentally this bill proposes to reclothe those former American citizens with citizenship. Is not that the whole bill, Mr. Rogers? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir. Mr. SABATII. Would it not be much better for our country if we could get those who may have joined the German forces to quit fighting for Germany and come back bere and join with our country in the war? Mr. SLAYDEN. I will say yes to that if you can show us how we can get them out of Germany. Mr. RAKER. This bill, as I understand it from a hasty reading, without any reference to the question of discrimination, gives a man back his citizenship after he has voluntarily waived it and after he has gone into the army of a foreign country-and he may be a de serter Mr. ROGERS (interposing). No; he can not be a deserter. Mr. Hoop. The bill provides that he must have been honorably discharged. Mr. RAKER. That is provided for in the bill, then. It applies only to those who are honorably discharged from the service? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir; that is true. Mr. SIEGEL. What are you going to do with American citizens who went over and have been fighting with Turkey or have been fighting with Austria? We are not at war with them. Mr. ROGERS. We are not doing anything with them under this bill. Mr. SIEGEL. That is true. Mr. SLAYDEN. Do you say that we are not at war with Austria? Mr. SIEGEL. No; we are not. We have merely severed diplomatic relations. Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that these gentlemen be permitted to make their statements and let the members hold these dis cussions afterwards. I make that suggestion, although I have been engaging in the discussions myself. The CHAIRMAN. Any inquiries that are pertinent can be made as we go along. Mr. WILSON. We have been arguing among ourselves, and I have taken part in the argument, but we will have to leave here at 12 o'clock, when the House meets. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Flournoy, do you happen to know whether men who are now in the British Army are registering at the present time in Great Britain for the purpose of going into the American Army? In other words, are many applications being made for transfer to the American Army? Mr. FLOURNOY. A good many of them are making such efforts. Mr. SMITH. I happen to know that at one place in London 300 Americans have made application for transfer to the American Army. I know of another case where a man connected with the Pierce-Arrow Automobile Co. over there had to take material to the front, but he was not allowed to do so until he became a member of the British Army and took the oath. Now he is no longer an American citizen and can not be unless we pass some law of this kind. The CHAIRMAN. Nor is he a British subject, either. Mr. SMITH. No, sir: he is a man without a country. Now, to answer Judge Raker, I will say that I live near the Canadian border. and I know personally of at least 25 or 30 boys, between the ages of 18 and 23 or 24 years of age, who caught the war fever and went over there and joined the army, without realizing what kind of oath they were taking. Mr. FLOURNOY. They unquestionably did not realize it, and they had no intention of giving up their citizenship. One of them came into my office not long ago. He had been serving in the Army and was wounded, and wanted a passport to go to Russia. I told him how the law had been construed, and that he had lost his citizenship. He was terribly distressed about it, and remarked that there was nothing for him to do but to throw himself into the river. I told him that it was not necessary to do that, and that it could be fixed up some way probably. But that shows their attitude. Most of them had no idea of giving up their American citizenship. Mr. RAKER. As to those men who go into the armies of France or England, and are wounded, say. in the arm or leg, or are incapacitated from earning a livelihood, would they be admitted to this country again? Would they be admitted to this country under that law? Mr. SIEGEL. They are being admitted Mr. FLOURNOY (interposing). That is a question that Mr. Rogers can answer better than I can. The CHAIRMAN. They are being admitted under the immigration law as construed by the Department of Labor. Mr. JOHNSON. I brought a number of the boys back who enlisted from my district, and the State Department assisted in getting them back. Mr. RAKER. I will go further and ask Mr. Rogers whether those who are able-bodied-that is, those who have not been wounded, and those who are of proper age, and we assume that all of them are of - proper age-shall come back, or are they to remain in the English Army Mr. FLOURNOY (interposing). They prefer to fight under their own flag. They do not consider themselves British subjects at all. The CHAIRMAN. Most of them come back for the purpose of joining our Army. Mr. RAKER. I know; that may be true in some instances, but we are now fighting with England and France, and they say that we ought to have good men over there with them. Now, why can not these men remain where they are? Mr. SABATH. Somebody suggested that some of them might have had enough of it. Mr. RAKER. I am seeking now for information. After a year or two years possibly such legislation as this might be very wise; but I am asking Mr. Flournoy at the present time whether these men who are capable of rendering service, and who have not been wounded in any way, should not remain. Why could they not remain with the army of the country that they chose, as against the United States, and fight in the British or French Army? Mr. FLOURNOY. I suppose that a great many of them will undoubtedly remain, but I imagine it would be very useful for our Army to have those men, or some of them, to come over and assist in the training of troops over here in the practical methods of warfare over there. Mr. JOHNSON. Who is here for the War Department? Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not know whether there is anybody here from the War Department or not. Mr. SLAYDEN. Mr. Rogers, what do you think of the idea of incorporating in your bill a provision that the men who are now soldiers in the army of either of our allies, and who were American citizens before they took their oath of allegiance to the foreign Government, shall, if they continue in the service of those allies until the end of the war with Germany, have their citizenship reestablished under these conditions? Mr. ROGERS. I should personally favor it. Mr. SLAYDEN. You would favor that amendment? Mr. ROGERS. I think the bill already covers the exact case you put. Mr. SIEGEL. That would not help out those other people at all. Mr. Hoop. What do you suppose the policy of Great Britain would be with reference to enabling these people to come back? Mr. SLAYDEN. Then there is the question of actions or claims accruing because of disabilities received in their service. Mr. ROGERS. This bill as it stands takes care of that. Mr. SLAYDEN. Where? Mr. ROGERS. I am inclined to think it does. Mr. SLAYDEN. You see, Mr. Rogers, the case is this: A man goes to Europe in a moment of enthusiasm and enlists in the army of Great Britain or France, as the case may be. Those Governments have made certain guarantees to the soldiers in the way of pensions in the event they are hurt. Now, if they continue in the service of those countries until the close of the war, practically, from a military point of view, they will be rendering us the same service as though they had been transferred to the Army of the United States, and yet it leaves the obligations in regard to pensions and things of that kind with the foreign government, and it is entirely possible, looking at our pension records, that the health of 90 per cent of them will be absolutely destroyed by reason of their service there. We should leave that obligation with those Governments, and relieve this Government of it. Mr. FLOURNOY. I can give you one example of that: A lady came to my office a few days ago; her son had enlisted, I think, as a soldier in the British Army very shortly after the war broke out, and he has gradually been promoted and is now a captain in the British Army. As soon as he heard that the United States had gone into the war, he telegraphed his mother to go immediately to the War Department and try to make an arrangement for him to come. back and fight under the American flag. I think that is the attitude and feeling of a great many of them. Mr. SLAYDEN. This suggested amendment would not bar them at all, because it says "those who shall persist in the service of the allies until the close of the war." Mr. ROGERS. It would be an addition to this bill and not a subtraction from it. Mr. SLAYDEN. Yes, sir; it would not interfere with this at all. I do not know whether we have jurisdiction of it or not. There should, however, be a provision that when a former American citizen now with the army of one of our allies shall seek a transfer to the Army of the United States, he should be admitted only after a careful medical inspection and physical examination. We do not want to have a pension roll again running up to $200,000,000 a year, or approximately that, if it can be avoided. Mr. WILSON. I understand from Mr. Flournoy that those people after taking the oath in order to go into the British Army are not really British subjects. Mr. SLAYDEN. But they cease to be American citizens. The CHAIRMAN. What we are more interested in is that they shall not get pensions in this country on account of their service in the armies of other countries. Mr. SLAYDEN. Listen to this. This is an advertisement published in a newspaper: Americans joining Canadian units enjoy exactly the same rights as Canadians in the matter of pay, pensions, separation allowances, promotions, and honors. Mr. MEEKER. Read the rest of it. Mr. SLAYDEN. It continues: Men of the universities, schools, and colleges who have no assurance of getting to the front with their own regiments in time to strike their blow for democracy and freedom, would be welcomed into the university platoon. Mr. MEEKER. That is the way the Canadian Government is trying to take our college and university boys out of this country. Mr. WILSON. But they are not being permitted to do it. Mr. SIEGEL. I understand that the Department of Labor says that after June 5 it must stop. Mr. JOHNSON. This is only a week old, and you must remember that there are a great many Americans in Canada. We have had a lot of difficulty along the Canadian border in western Washington owing to the fact that we have military posts there. A couple of years ago our men were going out at the end of their enlistments or when their time ran out, and the Canadian officers were actually coming to the barracks of the United States and soliciting the men who were leaving our Army to enlist in the Canadian Army at double the price that we were paying. As a result of that our regiments were depleted from 800 or 900 men down to about 400 men. They were allowing double pay to them to go over there and become soldiers in the volunteer army that was being raised in Canada. Those men are the men they want in their army. Many of them are men who have been in the Army since the Philippine war, and when they get these honorable discharges from the British Army they propose to come back here and become officers, or, if they are between the ages of 21 and 30, they would escape conscription Mr. KNUTSON (interposing). Don't you think that most of the men who have seen service abroad are more valuable to us when they come back? The CHAIRMAN (interposing). In that same connection I noticed an Associated Press dispatch about three weeks ago, which I inserted in my speech against constription, to the effect that 500 young men had left Chicago at one time. They were agricultural college young men and left because over in Canada they were offered $50 per month and 160 acres of land to go over there and settle, and a great many of them, it is said, were then in Canada where this conscription process could not reach them. Now, do you think that those people who have gone over there because they could get 160 acres of land and $50 per month and there joined the army perhaps, ought to be permitted to come back here again and enjoy all of the privileges of this bill? Mr. ROGERS. I think so. The CHAIRMAN. When they have escaped our conscription law and gone over there and become British subjects? Mr. ROGERS. Of course, under the law, expatriation is impossible after we engage in war, and I think that that would answer most of what has been recently said. So far as that is concerned I am perfectly frank to say that those men who went from this country to Canada prior to our declaration of war, and took this oath for the purpose of enlisting and did enlist, and were honorably discharged, and who now want to come back to this country, should have the right at once to reassume citizenship. Of course they have the undoubted right to reassume citizenship, but it is only a question of how long it shall take them to do it. It is a question of whether they shall do it by appearing before the proper officer and doing it to-day, or whether they shall wait five years. These men are American citizens at heart, and they are just as American to the core as we are. They thought that they were doing their duty to the United States-thousands of these American citizens-when they went across the border or across the ocean and enlisted in the armies of our allies. Mr. WELTY. Do you think that they were doing their duty as long as we were a neutral Nation? Mr. ROGERS. They thought so. Mr. WELTY. But were they? Mr. ROGERS. My own opinion is emphatically that they were. |