The CHAIRMAN. You will remember we asked them also to find out whether, so far as France is concerned, there were any outside of the foreign legion who were not required to take an oath. It was understood they were not required to take an oath to join the foreign legion; that they were just men from all countries, and were not required to take an oath; but the question was asked as to whether they had others, either by transfer from the foreign legion or by enlistment over there, in the other armies of France, and as to whether or not they were required to take an oath which would expatriate them here. That answer has not been given to us. The answer here only applies to the effect of the British oath. [Reading:]

In the department's instruction of September 22 to Mr. Sharp I observe that Dr. J. C. Johnson, an American citizen, is held to have expatriated himself in view of the fact that in enlisting in the Canadian contingent of the British forces he had taken an oath which is quoted in the instruction. This oath is that which all persons enlisting in the British Army are obliged to take, and I am therefore desirous of knowing for my guidance in the future whether the department rules that all Americans now serving in the British forces are held to have permanently expatriated themselves and to have lost for all time their claims to American citizenship and protection.

Mr. Bryan, in an unnumbered instruction of November 25, 1914, made certain inquiries of me with regard to the general question of the enlistment of Americans in the British Army, with a view, among other things, of determining whether the taking of the oath above referred to results in the final loss of American citizenship, the point to be determined, according to Mr. Bryan, being whether the oath required involves permanent allegiance or merely amounts to a contract to serve for a limited period in the British Army. In my dispatch No. 663 of December 15, 1914, I had the honor to inform Mr. Bryan that the competent department of the British Government had made it clear to me that the claim of any person now enlisting in the British Army to British nationality merely through his having taken the oath of allegiance quoted above would not be admitted.

That is, he did not acquire citizenship in England or in the British possessions.

It seems abundantly clear, therefore, that Dr. J. C. Johnson and the other Americans now serving in the British Army, who are currently reported to number as many as 25,000, have not acquired British nationality merely by enlisting and taking the oath in question.

There is a further point in connection with the foregoing on which I should be very grateful to receive instructions. This is the status of the wives of Americans who have enlisted in the British Army and who are at the present time in England. These women are not British subjects and can not receive passports from the British Government. They can not therefore leave England unless they receive passports from me, since all aliens must be in possession of passports to be able to land in or leave this country. These women would appear as a general rule to be not to blame for the actions of their husbands in enlisting, and may be put to great inconvenience and even distress if they are held to be expatriated through their husbands' actions and thus to have forfeited all claim to the protection of our Government.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

WALTER HINES PAGE.

Now, it seems to me that the Rogers bill would not meet the situation presented by the last clause of this letter, because, as I recollect it, it applies only to those who make application and take an oath showing that they desire to be repatriated, and hence it would not affect the situation of the wives.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Would not the wife's citizenship follow the husband's?

The CHAIRMAN. It would, after they did that; but they are there now and the husband is still in the army, and it is a serious question which he presents, whether these women now, while their husbands are in the British Army, can get back.

Mr. SLAYDEN. If we determined the first phase of that question, would not that also determine the second one?

The CHAIRMAN. As I said, Mr. Meeker has been collating the authorities and laws of other countries and he finds, he tells me, from the investigation he has made so far, that there is a great diversity of laws in the other countries in regard to the status of these men; but I think none of them hold that by taking the oath they become citizens of those countries; but we have not had a full investigation, and the Labor Department has not made answer, and it is up to the committee as to whether we ought to proceed now or make a further investigation of this matter.

Mr. SLAYDEN. How can we proceed without full information?

The CHAIRMAN. I hardly think we can, and for that reason I thought that inasmuch as Mr. Taylor has introduced two very important bills for the expatriation of slackers, if the committee did not think it practicable to go on with the Rogers business, I should be very glad for us to give Mr. Taylor a hearing.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Chairman, I concur heartily in what you have said this morning, inasmuch as the information we have requested has not been furnished. The letter which has been read here was written a few years ago, and while it makes suggestions it does not answer them. I do not think we are in any better position now than we were before, and I think we ought to have further information before we proceed further.

The CHAIRMAN. That is my opinion.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Why are they delaying the report?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers took the matter up the other day. I perhaps should have written to them, but I was very busily engaged with some people from the South at the Confederate reunion and did not write and urge them to give the information. We asked them for it at the hearings. The hearings are right here and they show that we asked them to give us the information, and I think that Judge Raker, perhaps, especially emphasized the importance of it, and possibly some other members, and they were to give it to us. They did send down the amendment which they said they would recommend, and that is the only communication we have received until just now. Unless some one objects, I think the matter had better go over until next Thursday.

Mr. SLAYDEN. I move that it be deferred until next Thursday. (The motion of Mr. Slayden was adopted.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIRGATION AND NATURALIZATION, Friday, June 29, 1917. The committee this day met, Hon. John L. Burnett (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up this morning the Rogers bills, H. R. 3647 and H. R. 4629.

Mr. Rogers, have you any additional statement which you desire to make?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have just two or three things to which I should like to call the attention of the committee.

Mr. Meeker sent to all the legations and embassies of foreign countries in Washington a letter of inquiry seeking information as to the status of citizens of the United States who enlist in the armies of foreign countries. Specifically, he asked whether or not they acquire citizenship in the new country. There were several other points mentioned in Mr. Meeker's letter of inquiry, but that is the one that seems to bear especially upon my bill.

By the courtesy of Mr. Meeker, I have examined these overnight rather carefully. He has letters of reply, I think, from about 25 embassies and legations. These disclose that there is only one country in the world which bestows citizenship upon an alien by the fact of his entering the army of that country, and that is the country of Serbia. With the permission of the committee, I should like to read two or three sentences from the letter of the Serbian minister:

An alien who desires to enter the military service of the Serbian Army, must take an oath of fidelity to his superiors and of submission to the military laws. His service in the army does not affect his citizenship without his express wish to that effect.

The taking of military oath does not make him a citizen of Serbia if he does not wish so.

The Serbian citizenship is obtained only by the written request of the alien. Assuming that statement is correct, it lies in the volition of the alien at the time of his application for admission to the Serbian Army whether or not he shall obtain Serbian citizenship. With the exception of that one country, so far as these letters disclose, there is no case where a man acquires citizenship in the new country simply by entering the army of that country.

That question was left open at the time that the committee had its last hearing upon this bill, and I was asked by the chairman to get any information that I could. Mr. Meeker has obtained very much more information than I was able to secure. I talked with the commissioner of naturalization at the Department of Labor, who told me that he had no information on file upon that subject and that he did not believe it could be obtained in this country, and that obtaining it would be a long and arduous process. I called again upon the Department of State officials, including Mr. Flournoy, who appeared here, and they all said that as far as they knew, there was no country on the globe where citizenship resulted from mere enlistment in the army. Apparently Serbia is at least a qualified exception to that, if

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?