Colonel LLEWELLYN. I think Mr. Butler has misinterpreted this thing.

Mr. REES. If he is residing in a country where he has dual citizenship, is that what you mean?

Colonel CRAWFORD. Yes.

Colonel LLEWELLYN. I do not see why we should be concerned even with the visitors. He knows the law, and if he goes there and deliberately invites that situation he knows he may be subject to military service.

Mr. BUTLER. That is exactly what we should provide against. You take the Steinkauler case, when he was living in Germany and he had a dual citizenship. They said, "Why don't you get out of here? If you had gotten out you would not be subject to military service." Mr. REES. Did we protect him?

Mr. BUTLER. No. We would have done the same thing here if we had been in a war.

Colonel CRAWFORD. As I understand, under the code he automatically lost his citizenship anyway. Under this suggestion of the State Department it is merely to stop one loophole by using the duress clause.

Mr. FLOURNOY. And they have done it over and over again.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Mr. Flournoy, was that amendment written in anticipation of the fact that the committee might change section 401, as suggested by Mr. Henry Butler, to let a person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, expatriate himself vountarily?

Mr. FLOURNOY. No, it has nothing to do with that at all.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. You will remember, Mr. Rees, the other day that that was suggested.

Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It was just to overcome the principle of duress. Mr. FLOURNOY. No; this was 2 years ago, and I found this old memorandum in looking this matter over. I think that could be made a proviso on section 401 (c), and I suggest that be done.

Mr. REES. Is there any objection to that proviso?

Mr. RILEY. May I have a copy of that?

Colonel CRAWFORD. The War Department is in favor of that suggestion.

Mr. FLOURNOY. In section 401 it says "For the purposes of section 201, 207 (b) and 402," and you could just insert there "401" as "the place of general abode shall be deemed the place of residence." That means the place à man has his home.

Mr. REES. You think there might be a question about what is meant by residence?

Mr. FLOURNOY. That is already in there. That would apply also to the general place of abode, and that would cover the whole thing. Mr. REES. All right. Now, is there any objection to the amend

ment presented here now by Mr. Flournoy? Mr. BUTLER. I think it concerns both the War Department and State Department.

Colonel CRAWFORD. We have no objection. We are in favor of it. Mr. REES. Are there any further suggested amendments?

Mr. RILEY. What about the situation where a man is living in a -country like Norway, Denmark, or Czechoslovakia, is there for a while, and the German Government takes it over and drafts him?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. You mean if the German Government requires him to do military service?

Mr. RILEY. Yes. I think the present law is much better. I mean if the claim is purely frivolous, or the Jap stuck his head in the lion's mouth, the present findings of the courts sustain a finding of expatriation in that case. So it seems to me that kind of phrasing of the situation as it is done here creates a situation of inflexibility. Of course, it means litigation occasionally, but that is true of every branch of the law.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The only thing is in the past the plea has been made, and they have gotten by with it.

Mr. RILEY. You can overcome it. It seems to me the possibility of Germany or any nation like that taking a citizen and bringing him into the army would immediately cause representations to be made, and immediately eliminate that possibility.

Mr. FLOURNOY. This only relates to a citizen.

Mr. RILEY. That is correct, but we are assuming that where Germany, for instance, takes over Denmark and we have a citizen there who has the nationality of Denmark, and even so Germany would have no right to induct that man into the service, or a Danish or Japanese subject, and certainly no third party would have any right to do that.

Mr. FLOURNOY. You might have to consider those applying to persons having two countries at birth. Those are the cases of persons who had two nationalities. For practical purposes, that would cover all we have.

Mr. BUTLER. Could not Germany have the power to force American citizens into the army in Denmark?

Colonel CRAWFORD. I do not think there is any doubt of that. Mr. BUTLER. And suppose he is a Dane as well as an American citizen?

Colonel CRAWFORD. I do not think they have the slightest right as to that.

Mr. BUTLER. But they have the power.

Colonel CRAWFORD. Yes; they have a lot of power today.

Mr. BUTLER. Should not we protect them, Colonel, from loss of citizenship?

Mr. FLOURNOY. This only applies to nationals.

Mr. RILEY. Suppose an American who had been born here, who had a German father who had been naturalized here, and he is there on legitimate business, and the Germans go in there.

Mr. REES. You say he is a resident of that country?

Mr. FLOURNOY. It says national of a foreign country and is residing therein.

Colonel CRAWFORD. You may apply this to persons who have dual nationalities at birth, and if you want to accept those we have no objection.

Mr. REES. I think that would take care of the objection by Mr. Shoemaker.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I just want you to give a man a chance for his white alley.

Mr. REES. I wish I could agree with you, but I do not see how you can carry these cases too far.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I am not unmindful of that, of course.

Mr. REES. If you want to put in dual citizens at birth, I see no objection. Of course, you gentlemen know so much more about this than I do.

I would like to take care of this situation of these men from the War Department and which they have raised, but I do not want to create any injury to innocent persons.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. We are most anxious to do everything we can. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. REES. We have now this amendment which has been proposed by the War Department, and the last discussion here was about further protection to make it apply to those who were born of dual citizenship. There cannot be very serious objection to that, can there?

Mr. RILEY. You mean this proviso they just offered?

Mr. REES. Yes; which has just been offered and suggested.

Mr. RILEY. Just sitting here, offhand I can think of a number of cases, for example, as to this matter. Take this situation: Suppose you should be traveling in Europe and a child should arrive during that period. You might have come back to this country during that summer. Years later he gets a job in the Standard Oil Co., and his duty is in the country where he was born. The countries, of course, disagree on abode. Is he subject to the military authorities where he was born?

Mr. FLOURNOY. He knows he is a national of that country. That brings out admirably the point I mentioned. Why single out a rare case? Mr. RILEY. It is not a rare case. There are thousands of those cases. Mr. REES. What do you want to do to that fellow?

Mr. RILEY. If he has gone there knowing this would happen and is perfectly willing it should happen that is one thing, but if he happens to be there on business reasons and it does happen that is another thing.

Mr. REES. No; but he is there and has established a home. I realize, as you do, that there is a question about the place of abode and residence. How far should you protect him?

Mr. RILEY. What is disloyal about this particular person?

Mr. REES. Go ahead and tell us what you want for him.

Mr. RILEY. Assume war breaks out and he is drafted. I would certainly let him make a showing that was against his will, and that he intended to keep his American citizenship.

Mr. REES. Do you mean all throughout the years? If he lost his citizenship by going into the Army and he decided he wanted to come back to the United States and reside, what about that?

Mr. RILEY. Yes.

Mr. REES. He could come in and you would arrange some way in which he could declare citizenship?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. If it is Greece or Hungary he might have to wait 20 years.

Mr. RILEY. This man then is perpetually exiled.

Colonel CRAWFORD. Assuming he fought against the United States, what would his status be? You would still let him in? Suppose he is in the foreign army and engaged in war, presumably with someone else, or take Germany, would we still want to give him citizenship equitably?

Mr. RILEY. I think we would still give him an opportunity to be heard. Of course, it would be the Government's evidence that he should have come back?

Colonel CRAWFORD. Should not those be called ordinary business risks? He may get killed, too.

Mr. RILEY. I do not see any objection to letting the courts decide points like that.

Mr. FLOURNOY. They cannot do it.

Colonel CRAWFORD. This individual you picture fits the picture perfectly, and you allow him to escape the penalties we are trying to provide through this duress clause, it practically nullifies this entire clause.

In Japan they will do this for him perfectly.

Just to protect one individual, or a dozen, or one thousand, I realize in your case there could be a case of injustice. But it looks to me as if the advantages far outweigh the risk to this individual who, after all, in major cases must have assumed those risks voluntarily.

Mr. REES. The last thing we talked about was your further amendment making it apply to those born of dual citizenship.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes; those who also have the nationality of a foreign country acquired at birth or because of conditions existing at birth.

Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Sometimes the individual does not acquire the citizenship at birth, but afterward, and he acquires the citizenship then of that country. It covers both of those.

Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I will read the whole amendment.

That if an American national also has the nationality of a foreign country acquired at birth, or because of conditions existing at birth, and is residing therein at the time when he reaches the age of liability for military service, his entry into the armed forces thereof shall be taken conclusively to be voluntary. Mr. REES. Do we understand the amendment?

Mr. FLOURNOY. And there would also have to be an amendment back here in the definitions in section 104 after 201 and we have already inserted 307 (b) on page 4, at the top, and add to that "401", or if you want to say "401 (c)" it is all right. I do not think there is any other question which it raises.

Mr. REES. All right. Do you understand the terms of the proposed amendment? We will have to rewrite it.

Mr. FLOURNOY. That is the proviso on this section regarding entering the foreign army, and it is 401 (c).

Mr. REES. All right. Now, as I understand it the War Department and the State Department are in accord?

Colonel CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. REES. And as to the Labor Department, is it agreeable to the Labor Department?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Mr. Riley is appearing for the Labor Department, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RILEY. I did not know there was any disagreement among us, but I did not want it so broad as this. I can understand it as to Hawaii

Mr. REES (interposing). What I want to find out is whether the Labor Department is for or against it.

Mr. RILEY. I would be in favor of something limited to the Hawaiian problem, but I would be opposed to anything as broad as this.

Mr. REES. You are opposed to the amendment as far as the Labor Department is concerned?

Mr. RILEY. Yes.

Mr. REES. What about the Department of Justice?

Mr. BUTLER. I sympathize a great deal with the point of view of the State Department and the War Department, but I do not believe I can go as far as Colonel Crawford said for the benefit of the many we must do injustices to a number of other citizens of the United States.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Butler, will you point out where the injustice is where a person living in the other country acquires their oath of allegiance if he has chosen that as his home?

Mr. BUTLER. I think Colonel Crawford's proposition conceded there might be injustices. I do not think it is necessary or incumbent on me to say where there might be injustices, because I think Colonel Crawford agrees there may be injustices. It seems to me we ought to provide so there won't be injustices to any person or to any number of persons.

I do not know that I can agree with Colonel Crawford's assumption that because it does the greatest good that we should make no provision for innocent persons that get in this situation.

I am not prepared to say how we should provide for this protection, but I really believe some thought ought to be given to it.

Mr. REES. I am not the chairman of the subcommittee, but I assumed these Departments were going to get together and work out something satisfactory to the entire group, and try, if possible, to take care of the very important situation brought to our attention by the War Department. If you can, then all right, and if you cannot, we will have to take the propositions submitted by the War Department, by the Department of State, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice and let the committee try to figure them out. That is my viewpoint.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Mr. Chairman, let me say this on the War Department's proposal submitted Tuesday morning. We did meet and we came into practically absolute agreement, that is, the four Departments, and we are in agreement on that today as far as the Hawaiian situation is concerned. But this matter was first presented this morning by Mr. Flournoy.

Mr. REES. And you are objecting to it right now?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Riley says they discussed it in conference 2 or 3 years ago.

Mr. RILEY. I said it was discussed then.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to spring any surprise on anybody. I do think it is important. I came across it the other day in going over the War Department's proposal. We did not have time yesterday afternoon to discuss it. It is not necessary to limit it to that anyhow, but it is not limited to this War Department proposal.