Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws."

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. That would apply to native and naturalized citizens? Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. And, second, "When he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign State"?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Those are the only provisions under which a man evpatriates himself?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. He does that voluntarily and under the power of Congress he then becomes a citizen of the other country and not of the United States?

Mr. CRIST. There is only one other provision, and that is in section 5, I think, of the same act.

Mr. SLAYDEN. The naturalization act?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir. Page 24 of this pamphlet, section 3, "That any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband." There is an expatriation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parker has just called my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Mackenzie case.

Mr. CRIST. I was going to refer to the Mackenzie case. That is where a woman in San Francisco wanted to register and vote. The election officials refused to allow her to register when they learned that she was married to a British subject. She appealed through the various State courts to the Supreme Court of California and up to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States held that she was a foreign subject and not an American citizen, and that she had forfeited her American citizenship by marrying a British subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is what they held.

Mr. CRIST. It seems to me that as we are here to consider a modification there are two ways by which the force and effect of this may be avoided. One of them is by this bill which we have been discussing, introduced by Representative Rogers, H. R. 3647, and another is by the bill H. R. 4629, also introduced by Representative Rogers on the 22d of May, with some changes that are slight and of which I have several copies here.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that a copy of that proposal be inserted in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

(The changes suggested by Mr. Crist follows:)

A bill defining section 2 of the act approved March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. L., pt. 1, p. 1228).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in any case where any American citizen has heretofore taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign State in order to be enabled to serve in the armed forces of such foreign State, and who actually served in the armed forces of such foreign State, the provisions of section two of the act approved March second, nineteen hundred and seven (Thirty-fourth Statutes at Large, part one, page twelve hundred and twentyeight) shall not be construed or held to be applicable, if that foreign State was, at the time when such service began, engaged in war with a country with 13884-17

4

which the United States is at war, nor shall it be held to apply to any American citizen who, prior to April sixth, nineteen hunded and seventeen, entered the armed service of any country now engaged in the European war.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 4 of the act of 1907 evidently applies to expatriation where a foreign woman marries an American citizen? Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And after his death she renounces her citizenship? Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir. That is the correlative of section 4, which says that any foreign woman who acquires American citizenship by marriage to an American citizen shall be assumed to retain the same, etc. That is under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, which has been on the statute books for many years.

Mr. RAKER. After having read the decision of the Supreme Court in the Mackenzie case, your view of it, from your work in the department, indicates that it is a very necessary and proper legislative and judicial determination?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir. It seems to me that is the only way to have that question finally settled.

Mr. RAKER. Otherwise there would be international as well as all other kinds of complications?

Mr. CRIST. The international observance of it is that way, that the woman's nationality follows that of her husband. There are other decisions of courts of orginal jurisdiction, where a foreign woman, for instance, tries to become an American citizen on her declaration and petition and the courts denied her petition, and in a decision which was rendered in 1908 or 1909, the court said that the allegiance of the wife followed that of her husband and that she could not become an American citizen without the action of her husband who was foreign born.

Mr. SLAYDEN. If she had been a widow she could?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir; unmarried or a widow.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a question that I want to hear the gentleman on. In this Mackenzie case it seems that he voluntarily entered into the service and took the oath and voluntarily expatriated himself, and that therefore the provision of the Constitution as to those rights does not operate against it.

Mr. CRIST. I do not think it does. The only question was as to the penalty for taking the oath. This provides that this section shall not apply to those who have entered the foreign armies, regardless of the country they went to serve, excepting they entered the army of an enemy nation of this country and do so or did so after April 5, 1917. If one should do that, enter an enemy army since war has been declared, he is a traitor; that is treason under our Constitution, so that the question of whether he expatriated himself is submerged in the greater question of treason.

Mr. RAKER. What about those men who entered the army of Germany, they are traitors now?

Mr. CRIST. If they went into the army of Germany before war was declared, they went in from the same impulse that other American citizens went into the other armies, and being in the army of the Kaiser, I do not see how they could get out.

Mr. RAKER. Is there that fine distinction as to what a traitor is? Mr. CRIST. Giving comfort to the enemy.

Mr. RAKER. If an American citizen took the oath and is in the Kaiser's Army at this time, when we are at war with Germany, is he not a traitor, and if he comes to this country should he not be tried and shot?

Mr. CRIST. It might be construed that way. There is, however, the other point which will come in, he went in at a time when friendly relations existed between Germany and this country and therefore he never dreamed, having gone in at the early stage of the war, that this condition would exist.

Mr. SLAYDEN. There was no treasonable intent?

Mr. CRIST. No.

Mr. RAKER. If the man was an American citizen, born in the United States, and he went and took the oath in the German Army and is in that army now, is he not a traitor to this country?

Mr. CRIST. Yes; he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; there is no question about that.

Mr. SLAYDEN. How could he get out?

Mr. CRIST. There is the question of intent and that would be a question for some higher authority to decide. He may be at this time performing service that he would not perform if he could get

away.

Mr. RAKER. Suppose that up to this time he has been in the army and in the trenches fighting, but by some hook or crook does get away and comes to this country, is he not a traitor under every conceivable rule of law, and upon trial should be executed?

Mr. CRIST. I think the question of treason is one of heart.
Mr. RAKER. That is hard to prove.

Mr. CRIST. Suppose that he had been in the German Army for two years and that there is contact between the two forces and he escapes and is captured and proceeds at once to come back and says, "I have been trying to get here. I came here the first chance I could this morning: here I am."

Mr. SLAYDEN. Let me ask you a question in connection with this suggestion: At this time, if the newspapers tell the truth-and I would not insinuate that they do not-Belgians and French are performing involuntary service in the German Army, and in the other armies. farther east that is true on even a larger scale. There is no treasonable intent on the part of any of those people. If a young man, an American citizen, but who, under the same sort of impulse that you said a moment ago carried other American citizens into the armies of the allies, had gone back to the country of his birth, or of his father, and had gone into the army while we were still in friendly relations, he would not be guilty of treason, and now he might be very anxious-and probably would be, as a matter of fact-to get out of that service for many reasons, but he might specially want to get out because the United States, the country of his adoption and of his citizenship, had gone into war, and he could not do it. That young man would not be guilty of treason, would he?

Mr. CRIST. NO; I do not think he would be convicted and the penalty carried out.

Mr. SLAYDEN. That is certain; and I doubt if he would be guilty technically.

Mr. CRIST. It is a matter of the heart.

Mr. WILSON. Is this paragraph offered as a substitute for the Rogers bill?

Mr. CRIST. There have been two bills introduced by Mr. Rogers. Mr. WILSON. The one which was before the committee yesterday. Mr. CRIST. Yes. This was suggested because it avoids creating administrative machinery, and it avoids going through a formality by all these Americans, and it determines what Congress can do declare whether or not this law will apply. It does apply. You can avoid its application by having them go through a formality or by legislative enactment.

Mr. WILSON. Do you not think it would be better to have the formality?

Mr. CRIST. I do not see any value in it.

The CHAIRMAN. The failure to take the oath obviates that.

Mr. WILSON. No; he has taken the oath of allegiance. I do not think that he intended to forfeit his American citizenship. He has taken that oath?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Do you not think that the record would be better if he should go and get his honorable discharge, and by filing that honorable discharge and coming into the American forces he would reestablish his citizenship. Under this there would be no record, and he would have nothing under the sun to show. It seems to me that the amendment suggested by Mr. Rogers this morning and the Slayden amendment would be a very good piece of legislation.

Mr. CRIST. Suppose those people should get killed over there, they have taken the oath of allegiance, and they are aliens undoubtedly, and you could not repatriate those men under any conditions. Here is the wife of one of them who came into my office the other day and wanted to know what could be done. Her husband is abroad. She was born an American citizen. He has gone back and taken the oath of allegiance. I said, "We can not help you." She said, "I am an American citizen." I said, "But you are not; your husband is a Frenchman, and you are a French person." Suppose her husband was killed. Here are a number of children and the wives of Americans who go over there and who will get killed in the war; you can not repatriate one of them. You make no provision for the repatriation of either the children or the wives, rather.

The CHAIRMAN. But the children would not become expatriated because of the expatriation of the father?

Mr. CRIST. No.

The CHAIRMAN. The children born here, they would still be American citizens?

Mr. CRIST. It would not apply to them.

Mr. RAKER. Will you please look up that point under the French law and submit a brief to be included in the record?

Mr. CRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Flournoy covered that question.

Mr. WELTY. What effect would the passage of the proposed bill by Mr. Rogers have on our neutrality laws?

Mr. CRIST. Well, I do not know that I can answer that.

The CHAIRMAN. This was intended to apply to those who joined. the British Army, because that is the only one of the nations, so far

as we know, that requires this oath, which is equivalent to expatriation.

Mr. CRIST. It depends on whether they have gone into the French Legion or whether they have gone into the French troops.

The CHAIRMAN. If they go into the French Army are they required to take the oath?

Mr. CRIST. I can not tell you whether they are required to take the oath. There are two classes into which they go. If they go into the French Legion they take no oath. If they go into the regular army as individuals, I think that would be different, although I do not know.

Mr. SLAYDEN. It might clarify this discussion a little if you were to state the facts about the French Legion, which is made up of Africans, Asiatics, Americans, and nearly every adventurer who happened to be in France at the beginning of the war. As I understand it, this special body of men known as the Foreign Legion was exempted from an obligation or oath of any kind. All they wanted was to fight, and France wanted fighters.

Mr. CRIST. I can not say as to that.

Mr. RAKER. Let me ask this question. Your statement was in regard to the particular lady that came down to your office whose husband was a Frenchman and went back to France to join the French Army. Mr. Flournoy's statement was to the effect that they did not have to take any oath. They are not affected by their attitude, they are still American citizens, and not expatriated at all, is not that right?

Mr. CRIST. It depends upon whether they go into the French service.

Mr. RAKER. Under section 2 of the law he has not expatriated himself as a citizen of the United States; neither did he take the oath, if the French law does not require any oath, and therefore he is not affected at all.

Mr. CRIST. If there is no oath required.

Mr. RAKER. You said that there was no oath required?

Mr. CRIST. That was in the Foreign Legion only.

Mr. RAKER. That is what I want to ascertain. Please furnish the law on the subject. If there is no oath required by the French Army and he is not naturalized, then he is not affected and is still an American citizen and can come back and resume his rights and duties as an American citizen?

Mr. CRIST. Certainly.

Mr. RAKER. You do not know whether or not they are required to take an oath?

Mr. CRIST. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know, Mr. Flournoy?

Mr. FLOURNOY. My understanding is that Americans have entered the French Army and have not been required to take an oath.

The CHAIRMAN. They have not been required to take an oath? Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. The usual procedure is to take them into the Foreign Legion and immediately transfer them into some other section. That is my information. I can not tell you whether it is absolutely certain that no American citizen has taken the oath in France or not, but I do not believe they have been required to do so.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »