Table IV

Number of Replies from Judges in Each District

Boston District.—Comprising the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island.

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Maine	9	3
New Hampshire	6	1
Vermont	7	4
Massachusetts	29	3
Connecticut	18	4
Rhode Island	8	2
	—	—
Total	77	17
———
———

New York District.—Comprising Northern, Eastern, and Southern New York, and Hudson County, New Jersey.

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
New York	74	19
New Jersey	3	0
	—	—
Total	77	19
———
———

Philadelphia District.—Comprising the Eastern and Middle Districts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey (except Hudson County).

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Pennsylvania	46	11
Delaware	4	2
New Jersey	24	10
	—	—
Total	74	23
———
———

Pittsburgh District.—Comprising Western Pennsylvania, Western New York, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland (counties of Allegheny, Frederick, Garrett, and Washington), Kentucky (counties of Campbell and Kenton).

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Pennsylvania	29	7
Kentucky	1	0
Maryland	4	0
New York	22	6
Ohio	81	22
West Virginia	27	9
	—	—
Total	164	44
———
———

Washington District.—Comprising the District of Columbia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky (except the counties of Campbell, Jefferson, and Kenton), Louisiana, Maryland (except the counties of Allegheny, Frederick, Garrett, and Washington), Mississippi, North Carolina, Porto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee (except Shelby County), Texas, and Virginia.

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
District of Columbia	1	0
Alabama	7	2
Florida	12	3
Georgia	10	0
Kentucky	12	2
Louisiana	18	2
Maryland	14	2
Mississippi	13	1
North Carolina	10	1
Porto Rico	1	0
South Carolina	6	0
Tennessee	9	3
Texas	25	8
Virginia	9	1
City of Baltimore	9	1
	—	—
Total	157	29
———
———

St. Louis District.—Comprising Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Shelby County, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois.

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Arkansas	35	9
Illinois	20	6
Iowa	62	27
Kansas	39	14
Nebraska	34	11
Missouri	43	11
Oklahoma	34	11
	—	—
Total	267	89
———
———

Chicago District.—Comprising Northern Illinois, Indiana, Southern Wisconsin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, Southern Peninsula of Michigan, and Mackinac County, Michigan.

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Illinois	87	20
Indiana	70	20
Michigan	51	18
Wisconsin	15	5
	—	—
Total	223	63
———
———

St. Paul District.—Comprising Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Northern Wisconsin, Northern Peninsula of Michigan (except Mackinac County).

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Minnesota	48	20
Michigan	4	3
North Dakota	13	6
South Dakota	13	5
Wisconsin	11	7
	—	—
Total	89	41
———
———

Denver District.—Comprising Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and the counties of Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Bonneville, Custer, Franklin, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison, Oneida, and Power, Idaho.

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Colorado	17	7
New Mexico	9	5
Utah	9	3
Wyoming	8	2
Idaho	5	3
	—	—
Total	48	20
———
———

San Francisco District.—Comprising California, Arizona, and Nevada.

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
California	95	34
Arizona	16	8
Nevada	12	2
	—–	—
Total	123	44
———
———

Seattle District.—Comprising Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho (except as assigned to Denver).

———
———
State	Judges	Replies from
———
Washington	47	15
Oregon	27	11
Montana	26	7
Idaho	11	1
	—–	—
Total	111	34
———
———

Recapitulation

———
Total number of judges addressed	1,410
Replies received from	423
———

Percentage of Replies

———
St. Paul District	46.0
Denver District	41.7
San Francisco District	37.4
St. Louis District	33.3
Philadelphia District	31.0
Seattle District	30.6
Chicago District	28.2
Pittsburgh District	26.8
New York District	24.6
Boston District	22.0
Washington District	18.5
Average	30.9
———
———

It would be perilous to generalize from these figures as to the interest of judges in various parts of the country in the study of the problems involved in naturalization. Silence does not necessarily imply indifference; moreover, the courts in large centers of population are overburdened with ordinary litigation, and it is not surprising that there should be procrastination or entire failure in responding to a more or less elaborate questionnaire. Nevertheless, there is food for reflection in the fact that the lowest percentages of exhibited interest are in the East and South—the highest west of the Mississippi River.

The judges who did reply to the questionnaire represent on the whole both wide experience and substantial interest in the subject. Of those who state the number of naturalization cases coming before them in an average year, more than 100 passed upon 100 cases or more—not including the very large numbers passed by a few in acceptance of soldiers under the “military naturalization law”; at least as many more had from 50 to 100 cases a year (160 between 10 and 100); only 67 reported less than 10. Upward of 400 judges, each answering for himself, undoubtedly afford a reasonably reliable cross-section of the opinion of the naturalizing agency of the government.

Bird’s-Eye View of the Questionnaire

The questions which were asked, and the general nature of the replies to each, give a bird’s-eye view of the principal phases of the problem, and a fair notion of the degree to which the judges may be regarded as liberal or conservative and alive to the situation. The questions and the figures given after each speak for themselves:

Do you regard the present requirements for naturalization as too strict, or not strict enough?

Answers:	About right now	185
	Too strict	26
	Not strict enough	97
	Noncommittal	20
		—–
		328

What is your policy as to “continuous residence”—how long, if at all, do you permit a petitioner to have been absent from this country during the five years immediately preceding his petition?

The answers to this question may be roughly classified to show the general attitude of the judge, as follows:

No absence whatever permitted	72
A fixed time limit (three to six months very general)	32
“Entirely a question of intention”	210
Noncommittal	26
	—–
	340

How frequently do you require the petitioner’s witnesses actually to have seen him during the five years’ period?

Very strict (“daily”; “constantly, as a neighbor”; “I insist upon a real personal intimacy,” etc.)	53
Reasonable (“enough to satisfy me as to the petitioner’s character and residence”; “a bona-fide acquaintance,” etc.)	287
	—–
	340

Do you require applicants for naturalization to prove that they can read as well as speak the English language? The law does not require ability to read.

Yes	179
No	155
	—–
	334

Would you favor amending the law so as to permit the substitution of a witness where, in evident good faith, one of the original two appears, in the judgment of the court, to be honestly mistaken in believing that he has adequately known the petitioner for the whole five years? (Under the present practice the petition is denied, and a new one must be filed and a new fee paid.)

Yes (“The present practice imposes a great hardship and injustice”)	311
No	36
Noncommittal	6
	—–
	353

Would you favor amendment of the law so as to mitigate the present requirement that two, only two, and the same two, witnesses must swear to personal knowledge of all of the petitioner’s residence up to five years, within the state in which the petition was filed, and thus permit him to cover a part of this residence by depositions, or additional witnesses, when witnesses possessing the qualifications now required cannot be procured?

Yes	289
No	34
Noncommittal	11
	—–
	334

Would you write into the Naturalization Law a specific educational or intellectual test for admission to citizenship?

Yes	167
No	157
Noncommittal	25
	—–
	359

Do you favor a uniform required course of instruction for applicants for citizenship?

Yes	208
No	134
Noncommittal	33
	—–
	375

Would you favor acceptance, as prima-facie evidence of intellectual fitness, of a suitable certificate from schools or class, of the successful completion of such a course?

Yes (“I would”; “I do accept school certificates now,” etc.)	209
No (“The judge must satisfy himself by his own inquiry”; “it is character, not learning, that counts”; “too many Socialists are teaching school,” etc.)	110
Noncommittal	31
	—–
	350

Would you favor the abolition of the present Declaration of Intention (first papers)? If not, what good purpose do you think it serves?

Yes (“It serves no good purpose”)	82
No (“It is an essential of the proceeding”; “it serves notice to all concerned”; “it tends to keep the applicant in mind of his desire to be a citizen,” etc.)	241
Noncommittal	33
	—–
	356

What have you observed to be the special difficulties in the way of desirable foreigners, hindering them from seeking naturalization?

Know of none deterring desirable foreigners	107
Ignorance and indifference	104
Deterring attitude of natives	60
Technicalities in law and examinations	42
No opinions	58
	—–
	371

Would you favor legislation to permit the naturalization of a married woman in her own name, if personally acceptable, regardless of the alienage of her husband, or his failure to obtain or refusal to seek naturalization?

Yes	204
No	104
Noncommittal	25
	—–
	333

Would you favor reserving to a native-born American woman, if she desires it, the American citizenship which under the present law she sacrifices by marriage to a foreigner?

Yes	220
No	127
Noncommittal	17
	—–
	364

Would you favor modification of the law so as to admit to citizenship any individual personally fit, regardless of race or color?

Yes	100
No	225
Noncommittal	34
	—–
	359

Do you believe that the admission of large numbers of aliens under the Act of May 9, 1918, solely on the ground of military or naval service, without the usual requirements of residence, etc., operated on the whole to the advantage of the United States?

Yes	111
No	113
Doubtful	28
No opinion	58
	—–
	310

Would you favor applying the same standards and tests to all prospective voters, native and foreign born alike, before endowing them with the suffrage; with suitable ceremonies of induction into “active voting membership,” so to speak, in our society?

Yes	180
No	102
Noncommittal	44
	—–
	326

Would you favor removal of naturalization from all state courts, so as to make it exclusively a function of the Federal courts?

Yes	112
No	208
	—–
	320

Would you favor placing naturalization in the hands of traveling naturalization commissioners, appointed by and responsible to the courts?

Yes	76
No	202
	—–
	278

Would you favor making naturalization a purely administrative function, exercised by the Naturalization Bureau, or other appropriate organ of the Department of Labor, or other department?

Yes	48
No	222
	—–
	270

General Trend of Judges’ Opinions

The returns of this questionnaire, from a sufficiently representative cross-section of the naturalizing agency of the government, self-selected by the operation of substantial personal interest in the problems embodied in the situation (as evidenced by taking the pains to express opinion), make clear the opinion of the judges on several important points, and may be summarized substantially as follows:

(1) The judges on the whole believe that the present law requires no drastic amendment in principle; they believe that the naturalizing function should remain with the courts; should not be confined to the Federal courts, and should be exercised in the open courtrooms as it is at present. And this, notwithstanding the fact that the function adds materially to the burden of ordinary litigation.

(2) In the matter of attitude toward both petitioners and their witnesses, the judges are in the main liberal and humane, judging of absence during the five years’ probationary period chiefly with regard to the occasion for the absence and the continuing intention to become an American citizen, and the witnesses’ knowledge of the petitioner by the practical facts in the case.

(3) An overwhelming majority of the judges favor mitigation of the technicalities now surrounding the proceeding by permitting the substitution of witnesses and the supplying of evidence to convince the court, by means of depositions covering portions of the period of residence within the state in which the petition is filed. It may be added that very many of the judges would accept testimony of the same character as that which they would receive in any other sort of proceeding before the court to establish any fact.

(4) A majority of the judges require of petitioners proof of ability to read the English language; some require also ability to write it—although the law requires only ability to speak it. There is a marked weight of opinion in favor of requiring reading; some also advocate writing—even among the judges who do not now require it because the present law does not. The judges are about evenly divided as to the desirability of a uniform educational test. Most of those who oppose it emphasize the fact that, in the selection of citizens, character and general reputation are more important than book learning; that a bad man is made only the more dangerous by education. A majority of the judges would favor a required course of instruction, and would accept as prima-facie evidence of intellectual fitness a school certificate of the successful completion of such a course. Increasingly, such certificates are in fact accepted by courts all over the country.

(5) The judges are emphatically opposed to the abolition of the declaration of intention, the ratio of expressions in the negative being approximately three to one. The declaration is regarded by the judges of the widest experience as having a moral value of great importance, and as affording indispensable notice to the government and the public of the alien’s intention to apply for “active membership.”

(6) With regard to married women, the judges are two to one in favor of permitting their naturalization as individuals, regardless of the action of their husbands, and nearly as much so in favor of reserving to American-born women their citizenship, notwithstanding their marriage to aliens. As regards the latter point, most of those expressing themselves in the affirmative insert the proviso that the woman must continue her domicile in this country.

(7) Opinion is in the negative as regards naturalization of “any individual personally fit, regardless of race or color.” Most of the judges interpret the question as applying to Chinese and Japanese. A Southern judge holds that “since citizenship has been granted to the African race, there is no reason for withholding it from any other.” Those who vote in the affirmative do so on the ground that even membership in the Mongolian racial groups should not exclude persons who can show personal fitness for citizenship; nevertheless, the vote in the negative is more than two to one.

(8) The judges are not clear with regard to the suggestion of a standard test for all prospective voters, native or foreign born, by which even native Americans at the age of twenty-one years should pass at least the same examination as an alien applicant before being armed with the ballot. Nevertheless, nearly two to one of those who spoke on that point favor the establishment of such a test.

(9) Military naturalization is the subject of grave doubt. The vote is about evenly divided—a shade toward the negative—but nearly as many judges are doubtful or noncommittal as are either favorable or opposed to the measure. It should be said, however, that those most emphatically satisfied with what was done in this regard are those who had the most experience with it.

The Clerks of the Courts

The clerks of the courts in many ways are not less important in the experience of the petitioning alien than either the judges or the naturalization examiner. Upon the clerk, more than upon anyone else, in the vast majority of cases, depends scrutiny of the declaration of intention; usually he actually makes out the declaration for the alien; if he is careful and familiar with the routine of form and fact he makes it out, or sees that it is made out, correctly; if he regards the whole business as a nuisance, has a prejudice against immigrants as such or against the particular race represented by this particular alien, or doesn’t like this individual, if he has had a controversy with the Naturalization Service or is, for some other reason, in an unfriendly mood, or if, as is more likely to be the case, he is simply careless or unfamiliar with the technic of the business—having very little of it to do—the interests of the alien may suffer accordingly. The courts do not give the alien the benefit of any allowance for clerical or other errors made or permitted by the clerk if they relate in the slightest degree to any material fact; the alien must guard himself against any such error, or bear the consequences alone. In fact, the courts have repeatedly held, as it is expressed in a brief in the case of Mulcrevy vs. San Francisco, in the United States Supreme Court, that the duties in connection with naturalization performed by clerks of courts “are not appurtenant to the office of clerk of court.... All of their transactions with the Bureau of Naturalization, and these include almost all of their service, are performed without any reference to the court.”86 In many instances, the clerks are greatly annoyed by having this citizenship work thrust upon them; they take no pleasure in having been “freely designated by Congress to serve the purposes of the Federal government,” or in being thus “instrumentalities or agencies of the Federal government,” as the Mulcrevy brief puts it, and perform their duties in a careless, grudging, and ill-natured spirit.

In most of the rural districts, naturalization business is very light; sometimes there will be only two or three cases a year; there are even courts in which a year or two might pass without any at all. In such instances the labor is trivial; but for that very reason the clerk is not alive to the importance of details, and the ratio of mistakes may be the greater for that reason.

In the large cities, where the naturalization business is heavy, there are usually deputy clerks devoting virtually all of their attention to it; they keep in practice, and avoid errors. But it is to be remembered that because this work is not “appurtenant to the office of clerk of court,” neither the United States nor the state contributes anything whatever to the remuneration of the clerk. The alien pays for that, in a manner well calculated to create an undesirable relationship all the way round. The clerk is put in this regard largely at the mercy of the Naturalization Service, and the result is not a happy one—as might very well be expected.

The Question of Adequate Clerical Force

The report of the New York State Commission of Immigration, transmitted to the Legislature April 5, 1909, after the present system had been in operation about two years, dealt with this matter in connection with its comment upon delays in the naturalization business in the courts, especially of New York City, which is attributed chiefly to insufficiency of clerical force, due, in its finding, to the operation of the following provision of the naturalization law:

That the clerks of courts exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings shall be permitted to retain one-half of the fees in any fiscal year, up to the sum of three thousand dollars, and that all fees received by such clerks in naturalization proceedings in excess of such amount shall be accounted for, and paid over to said [Naturalization] Bureau, as in case of other fees to which the United States may be entitled under the provisions of this Act. The clerks of the various courts exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings shall pay all additional clerical force that may be required in performing the duties imposed by this Act upon the clerks of courts from fees received by such clerks in naturalization proceedings.

And in case the clerk of any court exercising naturalization jurisdiction collects fees in excess of the sum of six thousand dollars in any fiscal year, the Secretary of Labor may allow salaries, for naturalization purposes only, to pay for clerical assistance, to be selected and employed by that clerk, additional to the clerical force, for which clerks of courts are required by this section to pay from fees received by such clerks in naturalization proceedings, if in the opinion of said Secretary the naturalization business of such clerk warrants further additional assistance: Provided, That in no event shall the whole amount allowed the clerk of a court and his assistants exceed the one-half of the gross receipts of the office of said clerk from naturalization fees during such fiscal year.87

When the Clerk Pockets the Fees

The clerk is not required to spend for additional clerical force the portion of the fees under three thousand dollars retained by him. In some states he is required to surrender it as part of the income of his office; but generally speaking he can put it in his pocket if he chooses to do so, and allow the naturalization business to become clogged and delayed. Sometimes he does just that. The Naturalization Service has no redress, although it usually is blamed by the uninformed for the ensuing situation. Of course the alien has none, although he is the principal victim of it. The possibilities of the arrangement are well illustrated in one great Middle Western city, where there are two courts, one state and one Federal, performing naturalization functions. The clerk of the state court is very efficient and interested in the work; he spends more than $3,000 on naturalization business, employing a deputy at $1,800 and a stenographer at about $1,000 a year, and in rush periods having extra force. The service to aliens in that court is courteous, accurate, and expeditious. The clerk of the Federal court does otherwise. He retains his $3,000, but employs an assistant at only $1,200 without any stenographer, and the work is badly delayed. A letter of complaint about this court mentions the fact that “I have been advised by... that the United States District Court will be closed all day to-day.” Day after day, during 1918–19, the office of the naturalization deputy clerk in that court was entirely closed, so far as the aliens were concerned, owing to the insufficiency of the clerical force. Generally, an overworked condition of a clerk’s office leads, naturally, to hurry, discourtesy, and inevitable delays, during which applicants and their witnesses will lose day after day of working time in waiting for attention.

Forms of Petty Graft

This sort of thing leads also to another evil, inevitable in such an atmosphere. Petty officers of the court, policemen and others having the run of the building, will tyrannize over the crowds of aliens awaiting attention, and will pretend to have, or actually will exercise, the power to put one person ahead of another or otherwise effect an unfair discrimination in favor of those who will pay something for the advantage. In one court there was found a definite arrangement with a neighboring saloonkeeper, who collected the bribes for a guard in the Federal building. The Naturalization Service has been assiduous in its discouragement of this sort of thing, and has had a good measure of success upon the minor grafters; but as the law reads at present it can use only moral suasion upon the clerks of courts to induce them to spend the retained share of the fees for the purpose for which the retention obviously was authorized—the bona-fide employment of the extra clerical force needed to handle the naturalization business.

The “moral suasion” business, however, has its limitations. While the chief naturalization examiners, in charge of the districts in the field, usually are on cordial terms with the clerks of their various courts, the relations between the clerks and the office of the bureau at Washington, maintained almost exclusively by correspondence, with that correspondence almost invariably growing out of some complaint or dereliction on the part of the clerk, are not always so happy. The clerk has to send to Washington for all his supplies of blanks and other stationery used in the naturalization business. In one of the largest cities in the country there was a delay of weeks in getting certain supplies from Washington, and the petitioners suffered accordingly. The whole naturalization service is habitually short-handed and correspondingly overworked; but the penalty for the delays falls upon the head of the petitioner for naturalization. When a clerk of a small court, or a large one, has not on hand the blank forms upon which his declaration or petition must be written in order to be valid, the alien, who may have traveled with his witnesses scores of miles to file his paper, must return to his home and wait some more. This is an occurrence by no means infrequent.

Penalties are provided by law against clerks who fail to send punctually to Washington the required periodical reports and duplicates of papers. The Naturalization Bureau has been reluctant to attempt enforcement of these penalties—it is a bit drastic to fine a clerk $25 for a little delay in transmitting papers—and usually has been content to send an examiner to the court to get the material. But the correspondence growing out of such delays, and out of the effort to induce clerks to spend their retained share of the fees for clerical assistance, has added acerbity in many instances to the irksomeness of a task “not appurtenant to the office of clerk of court.”

Small irritations also add friction. For example, the clerk is required to send his reports and papers by registered mail; there is no provision to reimburse him for this; he can put in an expense bill—and maybe get it after a long delay. This is exasperating, whether one’s annual share of fees in a small office amounts to $10 or $3,000. There was a clerk in California who declined to answer letters or have anything further to do with the Bureau after he thought he had been badly treated in some such matter; he induced the judge of his court to relinquish naturalization jurisdiction, and then wrote to the Bureau that it could have the records in his custody if it would send for them. The Bureau has a highly detached, impersonal style of correspondence, admirably adapted to alienate human sentiment and blight human interest.

“Personal Equation” in the Naturalization Service

The executive arm of the government has the right to appear before courts exercising naturalization jurisdiction, for the purpose, as the law says:

of cross-examining the petitioner and the witnesses produced in support of his petition concerning any matter touching, or in any way affecting, his right of admission to citizenship, and shall have the right to call witnesses, produce evidence, and be heard in opposition to the granting of any petition in naturalization proceedings.

This perfectly breathes the spirit exhibited as a general rule by the representatives of the Naturalization Service. The alien petitioner, having passed muster in respect of the clerk’s office, confronts the representative of the government, presumably familiar with every detail of technicality, in far too many cases bent upon preventing his naturalization if by any possibility it can be done. Judge after judge, in all parts of the country, answering the questionnaire of the Americanization Study, describes the naturalization examiner as a zealous young man, intent upon straining every technical point to its utmost—against the petitioner.

In the original instructions issued by the Commissioner of Naturalization on June 30, 1909, when the field service was taken over by the Department of Commerce and Labor—of which the Naturalization Bureau then became a part—he said to the division chiefs:

There is one point which I desire especially to call to your attention, and through you to the attention of those under your charge and direction, and it is a point upon which I must insist. The service is largely one not alone of an investigating nature, but of an advisory and instructive character as well; it furnishes the courts, the clerks of the courts, and the general public with information—especially that part of the general public directly interested in acquiring citizenship, or indirectly interested, as witnesses to those who are seeking naturalization.

Referring particularly to applicants, he said, also:

They should further be made to understand that the substantial effect of such exactions [requirements of the law] upon your part is to protect them, after they once secure naturalization, from the disappointment, embarrassment, and distress which must ensue in case they secure naturalization without having complied with the law.

These excerpts from the Commissioner’s instructions were quoted by authority in a letter dated August 15, 1919, from one of the district chief examiners to the writer; therefore they may fairly be taken to represent not only the initial policy of the Naturalization Service in beginning its work, but the policy to-day. As a statement of general policy and attitude they leave nothing to be desired. Furthermore, any fair consideration of the naturalization system must take into account generously the background and historic perspective of this business.

A Scrupulously Honest Service

As it already has been made sufficiently clear, prior to the enactment of the law of 1906, naturalization in the United States was not only a chaotic but a scandalous thing. Many persons believe now that it is “easy to get naturalized,” that upon payment of a few dollars, or in consideration of political subserviency, promised or expected, any alien can go, as it were, straight from the vessel that brings him to the naturalization court and thence to the ballot box! It used to be almost like that, but with the enactment of the law of 1906 a revolution set in, and the condition now, generally speaking, is quite otherwise. The pendulum has swung to the other extreme. It is as difficult now to be naturalized as it used to be easy. And it is quite natural that it should be so, in the reaction of public sentiment from the old happy-go-lucky days, with the law’s administration in the hands of a corps of men who, from top to bottom, answer any test of honesty and zeal. In all the wide inquiry upon which this volume is based, there was no hint anywhere of any manner of corrupt practice on the part of anyone in the service. Such faults and shortcomings as may be attributed to the Naturalization Service are of an entirely different character.

At the outset, the principal function performed by the government was that of investigation; the group of men who pursued the inquiries about aliens petitioning for citizenship was little more than a corps of detectives, bent upon ferreting out something, anything, that would show the applicant to be unfit. To begin with, this work was done under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States. All naturalization proceedings, in fact, were in charge of special assistants to the various United States district attorneys, the examiners operating under them as field investigators. The politicians had a good deal to say about the selection of examiners. Many, if not most of them, were former pension examiners. Some had been in the postal service; some had had no experience at all in the government employ.

Without implying any dereliction of intention on their part, then or now, it may be said that few of them had legal training or were otherwise fitted to conduct the government’s part in court proceedings. The training of the examiners always has been of the most haphazard, inadequate character. Even under the operation of the Civil-Service laws, it was held that the kind of experience a man ought to have for the field service was that of general contact with the public—that of policemen, street-car conductors, and the like. Yet, as the practice has grown up, these men have to appear in important courts virtually in the guise of attorneys for the government; they must know the law, not only as set forth in the statutes, but as interpreted in innumerable decisions of Federal and state courts.

Need of Unifying Influence

The chief examiners have done their best, but differences of “personal equation” have resulted in a very wide diversity of policy and attitude. There never has been any adequate unifying influence in the service; supervision has been conducted largely by correspondence, and the correspondence has not always been self-consistent. Even in the matter of transmitting to the chief examiners the decisions of courts in naturalization matters, there has been a strong tendency to transmit chiefly those decisions which supported the contentions of the Naturalization Bureau, so that there have been cases in which examiners went on insisting upon interpretations of the law which had been overruled, “getting away with it” in courts whose judges did not keep close track of the decisions, to the detriment of petitioners who could not know their rights—since the alien, as a rule, has no one in court to protect him, and rarely is in a position to take an appeal.

In the majority of the courts, particularly those far from the great centers and having relatively little naturalization business, the judges regard it as more or less of a nuisance, do not keep posted about the law and decisions, and, looking upon the naturalization examiner not only as the accredited representative of the government, but as an expert in this field, follow his recommendations and contentions; and here, again, there being no one in court to represent the frightened or embarrassed petitioner, the point of view of the examiner becomes that of the judge, and the law is handed down accordingly. On the other hand, a few judges have taken the attitude that they would not recognize an examiner who was not an attorney admitted to practice before those particular courts.

“Nothing to Litigate!”

The Bureau of Naturalization has contended that a naturalization hearing is not a “case”; that there is nothing to litigate; that the examiner is present not as an attorney, but as a friend and informant of the court, with which abides the final responsibility. It holds that the petitioner does not need an attorney, the judge being assumed to be of course as solicitous to protect the interests of the petitioner as those of the country’s citizenship. No allowance is made under this theory for judges like the one, for instance, who regards it as his duty to “construe everything against the petitioner”!

The operation of the system certainly leaves the petitioner frequently, at least, in a most unsatisfactory and perilous posture; as witness the matter of the seven-year limitation upon “old-law declarations.” The crisis came in September, 1913, and there was a decision soon afterward in the United States District Court in New York ruling out all “old-law declarations.” A policy in regard to these declarations should have been made then—a unified policy, applicable throughout the Naturalization Service. Nothing of the sort was done; the decision was heeded in some districts and ignored in others, for five years!—until the Supreme Court of the United States, sustaining the holding of the District Court in New York, at one stroke guillotined, so to speak, thousands of declarants under the old law. In many other matters there is still not only uncertainty, but variety of interpretation and practice; a regrettable lack in effect of the “uniform rule” contemplated by the Constitution.

In many courts the point of view of the judge and that of the naturalization examiner are at variance, and this leads in some cases to open bitterness. Some examiners quibble and irritate the judge with trivial objections; some judges constantly ignore important provisions of the law urged upon them by the examiners. Between such extremes the petitioner is a helpless shuttlecock at the time, and later the victim of cancellation proceedings. There are “too many cooks,” too little supervised and unified, and among them the petitioner’s broth is spoiled. One of the crying needs of the Naturalization Service is a permanent law officer, able and willing and vigilant to watch the making of the statutes and decisions all over the country, and to inform and guide the representatives of the service in their interpretation of the law.

Confused State of the Educational Test

It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that, during five years at least immediately preceding the date of his application, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Such is the substance of the law. It requires also that he must be able to speak the English language, and that each of his precious two witnesses shall, of their own knowledge, certify that he is “in every way qualified, in their opinion, to be a citizen of the United States.” The barbed entanglement of technicalities through which the petitioner must grope before the questions of substantial qualification can be reached, we already have seen.

Now, what does it mean to be “attached to the principles of the Constitution”? What manner of intellectual display is required to prove one “well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States”? Around these two rather indefinite phrases rages the whole storm of “Americanization” as it affects the alien seeking to become one of us. Whether common sense, the notion of the man-in-the-street, the average, plain-spoken layman, shall prevail, or the ideas of a hypercritical “nativism,” depends upon the “personal equation” of the judge, the clerk, the naturalization examiner—or, rather, the diagonal of forces produced by the concurrence or conflict of all three, aggravated or modified by that of the petitioner and his witnesses.

A considerable—one might almost say an overwhelming—literature has grown up about this part of the subject of immigration; of scores, even hundreds, of books, pamphlets, leaflets, posters, diagrams, moving-picture reels, lectures, and what not else, designed to afford to aliens aspiring to citizenship that knowledge of “the principles of the Constitution” which the applicant must display to “the satisfaction of the court.” The number and variety of these is impressive, even startling; they vary from the appallingly elaborate and diffuse “Citizenship Textbook,” issued by the Bureau of Naturalization itself, to the simple and lucid folder issued by a judge at Duluth, Minnesota. One judge in Montana, who thinks “a residence of ten years should be required” before final application, has “a list of questions which every applicant who appears before me must answer. He is also asked many questions not contained in this list which go to his qualifications to become a citizen.” The printed list occupies nearly four newspaper columns of solid type, and covers everything relating to the governments of the United States, the state of Montana, the local county, city, and ward—a body of civic information beyond the ken, or the hope, of 999 out of 1,000 native-born Americans between the two oceans; yet, on the whole, only what every citizen ought to know about the government which taxes and rules him.

A judge in Missouri, who has “possibly two, not over,” of naturalization cases in a year, holds that an applicant should have “not merely an educational or intellectual test—for the more of either a man has the worse he may be for the country—but I would establish one of sentiment or principle, about as follows”:

Every applicant shall satisfy the court that he is familiar with, and attached to, such sentiments as are expressed in such writings as “A Man Without a Country,” “America,” “Declaration of Independence,” etc., and that he is possessed of reasonable opinions on necessity of government and duty of citizens to support the government and its laws, the freedom of the press, liberty of speech, obtaining redress for grievances, and a firm opposition to rioting, violence, force, and secret societies or orders countenancing or teaching overthrow of the government.

An Iowa judge says:

“Search the heart for the truth.” The chief thing is to have the heart right—to have love and attachment for liberty, justice, and humanity, and to be ready to die, if need be, for the maintenance thereof. It might be well to have a uniform course of instruction for applicants for citizenship, but I would not adhere to it too strictly, if the heart proved to be right.... No good man, a true lover of liberty, justice, and humanity, should be rejected, unless he utterly fails to meet the other requirements of the law.

A Pennsylvania judge thinks little of educational requirements; that they would exclude many desirable applicants.

The principle test that I apply is as to the honesty of the party. Under an intellectual test many honest, hard-working men would fail, while men who had the advantage of education would secure naturalization.... Where men are required to support a family and labor hard they have not much time to study.

A judge in Nebraska, who handles some 200 cases a year, declares:

The intellect is not a test of good citizenship. I know many people with insufficient intellect to procure much education, who cannot read nor write, who are excellent citizens; and many others who are highly educated and too crooked to make good citizens.

A California judge avers:

My observation has been that many of our best citizens are those who possess no extended education, and some of the most dangerous are of those who possess high educational qualifications.

A judge in central New York, who has large experience with naturalization, says:

Too much stress is laid upon information concerning the details of our governmental system, and not enough upon the candidate’s personal record, endeavors, and results. An Italian laborer who has been unable to learn the number of Houses into which Congress is divided, but is hard-working, steady, possessed of a desire to own his home and bring his family up in our ways, is more useful to us than some of more intelligence.

He holds that the principal difficulty with which desirable immigrants have to contend, in seeking naturalization, is the fact that “too much technical information is demanded by the young men who represent the Bureau of Naturalization.”

Over against such expressions as these place the opinions of one of the Ohio judges, who, after the fashion of the Know-Nothings of the ’40’s, would require twenty-one years’ residence before naturalization and “add to, rather than diminish, the present requirements,” admitting “only heads of families, with children”; or those of the Arkansas judge who avowedly “construes everything against the applicant,” and would admit a German under no conditions until after fifty years of residence. Such a diversity indicates the sort of difficulty confronting the alien in court, and the need of some unity of standards to be created by law, and a great simplification of the tests and examinations.

A letter was addressed to a number of experienced judges, known for their wisdom and humanity, asking for a tentative set of questions designed to disclose the knowledge thought to be essential to embody “attachment to the principles of the Constitution.” Replies were few, but they evidenced the difficulty of expressing in words such an “attachment.” Many of the judges frankly confessed both their inability to produce any such exhibit, and their conviction that the intellectual display was of least importance in the test of the applicant.

The Craze for “Americanizing” — Somebody Else!

When the Great War burst upon the world, with its various kinds of hysteria, many Americans suddenly awakened to a passion for what has come to be called “Americanization.” Every sort of foreign-born, foreign-speaking—or even foreign-looking—person was seized upon as a subject or victim of this vague and little-ordered movement, with results as various as the degree of intelligence involved on the part of the Americanizers and the kinds of treatment inflicted; but to a great extent mischievous and tending to arouse hostility rather than “Americanism”—whatever the much-abused term might mean—in the breasts of the bewildered immigrant. Some of the effort, to be sure, was intelligent, considerate, and constructive.

It is to the credit of Richard K. Campbell, Commissioner of Naturalization, and Raymond F. Crist, his alert and enterprising deputy, that they were prompt in seeing the bearing of the Americanization movement upon their work. It is very easy now to criticize, from various points of view, the energy and enthusiasm with which the Bureau of Naturalization entered upon and increasingly absorbed itself in this activity, and to fan flames of jealousy between it and other organizations, governmental and what not, which have worked in this field. The fact is that, with all credit to others to which they may be entitled, the Bureau of Naturalization early saw, not only the essentials of this question, but that it was at bottom a question of education, and set itself to the task of inspiring the public-school authorities to adapt themselves to the situation, and of placing at their disposal, at least theoretically, the unique material embodied in the archives of the Bureau. It is regrettable, though hardly surprising, that, in doing so, it allowed itself to become both swamped in the magnitude of the job, and obsessed by a sense of proprietary precedence in the field; reaching out beyond rhyme or reason for sweeping powers and responsibility which it is ill-adapted to exercise, and, in that reaching out, neglecting to carry on the important functions normally attaching to its own business, and indispensable to the intelligent carrying out even of its own ambitions.

With its report for the year closing June 30, 1915, begins the recounting of activities of the Bureau in the new field. In so many words it is there recognized as a new activity—“a broadening of policy,” with a suggestion of justification, not to say apology, in the allusion to the Act of March 4, 1913, confirming the Bureau in charge of “all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens.” As early as the latter part of 1913, the Bureau was discussing methods of encouraging classes in citizenship, and “the elimination of the known evils attending some of the private organizations seeking, under the guise of instruction, to exploit the ignorance of candidates for citizenship as an easy means for the acquisition of a lucrative income” was referred to as one of the reforms that would follow a co-operative activity between the public schools, the public generally, and the Bureau of Naturalization.

It was seen that the influence of the Bureau for the betterment of citizenship could be extended to every hamlet in the United States through the expansion and extension of the naturalization laws. This plan proposed the organization of the public schools, with the Bureau of Naturalization, into an active unit for the development of American ideals of citizenship in the student body; the assembling together, on stated occasions, in the different metropolitan and other centers, of naturalized citizens and candidates for citizenship; the conduct of patriotic exercises, including addresses, the singing of national anthems, and a conferring of citizenship.88

But it was not until the period covered by the 1915 report that the Bureau began to be greatly engrossed with this policy. In that report, which directed attention to the growing interest of naturalizing judges and others in the mental training of aliens for citizenship, and their co-operation with the Bureau “in arousing the interest of the public,” and thus operating upon the local school authorities to establish courses of training in English and in civics for alien residents who purpose to become citizens, the Commissioner himself utters a caution about the scope of business:

It has been pointed out to the state authorities that the government cannot undertake, even if it were one of its appropriate functions, to institute and operate training schools in good citizenship; that the making of a citizen of the United States is also the making of a citizen of the state in which the petitioner resides; and the results of such action are more immediate and more frequent in their effects upon state than upon Federal interests.

At that time the work of the Bureau force consisted chiefly of sending to the school authorities lists of aliens residing in their respective districts who had filed declarations of intention and petitions for naturalization, with intent that they should secure the attendance of such aliens upon public-school courses of training in good citizenship. The Commissioner pointed out that

The extent and character of this course of mental training must depend upon the enlightenment of the school authorities which experience alone can give.89

From this time on, however, the Commissioner’s reports are characterized by an increasing emphasis upon the educational aspect of the Bureau’s work, the things to which it had formerly devoted itself diminishing in emphasis; while, at the same time, both in the reports and in activities not therein disclosed, the Bureau was seeking wide extension of its scope and powers, although its normal work was suffering from the shorthandedness of which it had complained ever since the Bureau was established.

Extra Responsibilities Self-Sought

It has been the habit of the responsible heads of the Bureau of Naturalization, in reply to any suggestion that the Bureau was “overextending” itself in the assumption of educational functions, or that there was confusion and conflict between the activities of the Bureau and those, for example, of the Bureau of Education in the Department of the Interior, to revert, as in the Commissioner’s report for 1916, to the fact that the law imposed upon the Naturalization Bureau “charge of all matters concerning the naturalization of aliens”; to declare that it is “only complying with the law,” or “endeavoring, under great difficulties, to perform the duties laid upon us by Congress.” This is plausible enough on its face; but the fact is that, generally speaking, no duties have been laid by Congress upon the Bureau from the beginning save those which it has urgently sought; virtually all legislation affecting it—especially that legislation relating to “Americanization”—has been drawn by the Bureau and actively lobbied for in Congress by representatives of the Bureau. More than that, the Bureau has been exceedingly and notoriously aggressive in seeking widely extended scope and powers.

One of the most striking examples of this appeared in the so-called “King bill,” of the Second Session (1918) of the Sixty-fifth Congress, introduced by Senator King of Utah, with the purpose of establishing in the Department of Labor “a Bureau of Citizenship and Americanization, for the Americanization of Naturalized Citizens,” etc.:

The province and authority of this Bureau [says one print of this bill] shall be the Americanization of persons seeking American citizenship by naturalization, and of native and naturalized citizens, for the purpose of arousing a higher regard for the privileges and responsibilities of American citizenship in the minds of all citizens and permanent residents of the United States, and the administration of the naturalization laws and Americanization work throughout the United States.

The bill would have authorized the Director of Citizenship, therein provided for at a salary of $5,000 a year,

to make diligent investigation into the conditions and environment of permanent residents and citizens; to ascertain their sentiments of loyalty to the United States, their progress in the knowledge of American institutions, and the use of the English language; their relations of a social and commercial nature with their neighbors and fellow citizens, and to promote the betterment of that loyalty, knowledge, use, and relationship, and afford them such advice as may be of benefit to them and tend to increase their regard for our institutions of government, and to do such other things as may be prudent and wise in laying a foundation for a strong sense of loyalty and dedication to our institutions of government on the part of all permanent residents, candidates for naturalization, and citizens; and to show their progress in the adoption of the language and customs of the United States in reports from time to time upon the work of the Bureau to Congress and the Secretary of Labor, together with recommendations to Congress for further legislative measures to enlarge the province and effectiveness of said Bureau for the Americanization of such citizens and permanent residents, and to insure their attachment to the institutions of the United States.

The bill was not so much to create a new bureau, as to transmute the Bureau of Naturalization; the Commissioner of Naturalization was to become a subordinate of the Director of Citizenship, the entire personnel, machinery, and functions of the present Bureau of Naturalization being absorbed in the Bureau of Citizenship and Americanization.

That the scope of this revolutionary creation, with its extension of jurisdiction over all citizens, their social and commercial relations with each other, and their personal loyalty, was no inadvertence of exuberant language, is clear to an examination of an earlier version of the measure, which specifically confined the supervision and missionary espionage to “naturalized” citizens, “including the attitude of such citizens whose native tongue is foreign... and their relations of a social and commercial nature with their neighbors and fellow citizens who are natives of this country or who have become thoroughly Americanized.” But even so early the scheme was designed “to the end that there shall be a thorough assimilation of all who permanently reside within the jurisdiction of the United States.”90

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this proposal is that it has the specific approval of the then Secretary of Labor, Mr. William B. Wilson, in a letter dated September 12, 1918, to Senator King, in which, over his official signature, it is declared that “the measure has been carefully considered,” and that the Department approves “the main objects of the proposed legislation.” That letter refers directly to the first draft of the bill, last quoted above.91

However that be, and whatever might have been the views of the Secretary of Labor upon further consideration of the proposed legislation, the ambitious scheme died aborning. But it had a resurrection in another form, equally abortive, though still exhibiting the appetite of the Bureau for enlarged responsibility. At the instance of the Bureau there was inserted in one of the tentative drafts of the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill before Congress in the spring and summer of 1919 92 the following provision for an enormous addition to the jurisdiction, duties, and responsibilities of the Bureau of Naturalization:

... The authority to promote instruction in citizenship and English, now being exercised under the supervision of the Director of Citizenship, is hereby extended to include soldiers and sailors and all persons of the age of eighteen years and upward, and those in penal institutions.... In discharging this responsibility, the Director of Citizenship shall disseminate information regarding the institutions of the United States government in such manner as will best stimulate loyalty in those institutions, and secure the aid of civic, educational, community, religious, racial, and other organizations, and shall compile statistical information as to aliens in their relations to citizenship, and for expenses incidental thereto, including the rental or purchase of motion pictures and the transfer of any motion-picture negatives from branches of the government organized especially for war activities, remaining in the possession of the government, and such transfer to be without charge upon any appropriation. Credit for such transfers shall be given on the records of the Treasury Department in the final accounting by such specially organized branches of the government.

A fairly large order! This adventure, like the previous one, failed of consummation; but, nevertheless, there was (until a very recent time when the illegality of the whole business was brought to attention) a Director of Citizenship, even though Congress had given him neither status nor powers, and he was in being only by a vigorous stretching of legislation intended, if one may judge by what it says, for quite another purpose.

Section 11 of the law of May 9, 1918, devoted entirely to the subject of naturalization of alien enemies, contains a provision:

... that the President of the United States may, in his discretion, upon investigation and report by the Department of Justice, fully establishing the loyalty of an alien not included in the foregoing exemption [relative to the apprehension of alien enemies], except such alien enemy from the classification of alien enemy, and thereupon he shall have the privilege of applying for naturalization; and for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this section, including personal services in the District of Columbia, the sum of $400,000 is hereby appropriated, to be available until June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and nineteen, including travel expenses for members of the Bureau of Naturalization and its field service only, etc.

Out of this emergency appropriation, made under stress of war conditions, for the declared purpose of dealing with enemy aliens, the Bureau provided for a large extension of its work, and for much-needed augmentation of its efficiency in the field, and for establishing the extra-legal position of Director of Citizenship, with more or less obvious functions. This would explain the somewhat cryptic allusion in the proposed amendment to the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill quoted above, to the “authority now being exercised by” rather than imposed by law upon “the Director of Citizenship,” etc.

But just because it was an emergency appropriation, the new Congress showed no disposition to renew it, and in its absence the whole extra-legal structure under the direction of the Director of Citizenship was imperiled, and in order to save it from complete destruction very serious economies became necessary. The bearing of so large a windfall upon the general work of the Bureau may be inferred from this list of the appropriations for the Naturalization Service in each fiscal year since, and including, that ending June 30, 1908, during which the service was established:

TABLE V

Appropriations for the Naturalization Service for Each Fiscal Year from 1908–1919

———
———
1908{1}	$193,000
1909{1}	150,000
1910	150,000
1911	152,861
1912	175,000
1913	200,000
1914	225,000
1915	250,000
1916	275,000
1917	275,000
1918	305,000
1919	675,000
———
———

note 1: The field force was under Department of Justice during 1908 and 1909.

A further instance of the desire for additional powers, which characterizes the “personal equation” of the Naturalization Bureau, appears in a bill which was before Congress in the winter of 1919–20,93 introduced by Representative Johnson of the state of Washington, which would have provided, among other things:

Sec. 4. That the promotion of the public schools in the training and instruction of candidates for citizenship, now being carried on by the Division of Citizenship Training of the Bureau of Naturalization, is hereby extended to include all persons of the age of eighteen years and upward, who shall attend classes of instruction conducted or maintained by any civic, educational, community, religious, racial, or other organization, under the supervision of the public-school authorities, and the provisions of the ninth subdivision of Section 4 of said Act are hereby made applicable to this added authority. In discharging this additional authority the Director of Citizenship is also authorized to disseminate information regarding the institutions of the United States government in such manner as will best stimulate loyalty to those institutions, making use of the means heretofore provided, and through the use of motion pictures. The motion pictures and motion-picture negatives in the possession of the various branches of the government shall also be available for these purposes. In this work the aid of civic, educational, community, religious, racial, and other organizations may be secured by the Division of Citizenship Training, in which statistical information shall be compiled as to aliens in their relation to citizenship. The foregoing shall apply to the residents of the Panama Canal Zone.

Enormous Arrearage in Bureau’s Work

From the very beginning of the activities of the Bureau, it has complained of its inability properly to perform its functions because of lack of clerical force; at the same time pointing out very appropriately that it was a good deal better than self-sustaining from the financial point of view.

Commissioner Campbell, in his annual report to the Secretary of Labor, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1911, said:

At all times the clerical force has been insufficient, even with the aid of temporary assignments from other offices of the Department, to keep up with current work. This has resulted in large undisposed accumulations of official papers; mortifying delays in making responses to letters from private individuals and public officials, the continuous exaction of labor from the clerks for long periods after the conclusion of the ordinary official hours, on holidays, and even on Sundays; and, consequently, impaired the accuracy and quality of the work actually accomplished.

The report for 1913 declares that such increase of personnel as had been allowed had “not been sufficient to accomplish anything in the way of bringing up the arrearages which have been steadily accumulating ever since the service was organized in 1907.” These arrearages were described as consisting of “unindexed and unexamined certificates of naturalization and declarations of intention,” and this condition prevailed, notwithstanding an average daily overtime estimate in hours, as equivalent to full time, of more than two persons (2.36). The report for 1914 acknowledged an increase of nine clerks, but stated that “the arrearages of work continued to increase.” So it goes on, the following report (1915) disclosing an arrearage of 346,762 declarations of intention and 395,719 certificates of naturalization unindexed, and thousands more of each unexamined. In the following year’s report is acknowledged the “elimination of the practice heretofore pursued of indexing separately the declarations, petitions, and certificates,” it having been found impossible, even with four more clerks, “to reduce the work that has fallen into arrears.” Yet in that same year’s report begin the ecstatic descriptions of a very wide expansion of activities in the field of education.

The seriousness of this curtailment of records at Washington—all but fatal to the individual alien who wants to prove something about his naturalization case by reference to such records—took on a public aspect with the operation of the Selective Service Act (the so-called “draft law”) when aliens, desiring exemption as such, began to assert to the local exemption boards that they never had declared intention to become American citizens. “The assistance of the Bureau is constantly invoked by the draft boards throughout the country for official report on the claims to exemption from military service by aliens who profess to have made no declaration of intention to become citizens,” says the opening page of the Commissioner’s report of July 1, 1918, notwithstanding the more ingenuous—not to say more truthful—confession of a year before that “The unavoidable abandonment of indexing declarations has made it impracticable to furnish information sought in regard to aliens claiming exemption from military service.”94

At the date of that report, there were, unexamined, in the Washington office 247,373 declarations and 480,553 certificates; one year later—owing, perhaps, largely to the vast and sudden addition of alien soldiers naturalized, and the business incidental thereto, if not quite as much to the absorption of the Bureau in its increasingly ambitious educational campaign—the arrearages had passed the half-million mark, with 628,713 declarations and 578,944 certificates of naturalization unexamined.

Not even by means of a complete, current, and up-to-date index of declarations could the Naturalization Bureau have proved whether or not any given alien ever had filed a declaration whose existence would indubitably entitle the United States to his military service, unless it included the absolutely impossible feature of a reference to every old, as well as new-law declaration. But such an index as might have been kept of declarations under the “new law” would have helped enormously. As it was the field force did its best, and ran down many cases through the records in the district offices and local courts.

The Aliens Support the Bureau

In point of fact, the Bureau of Naturalization is, as the Commissioner more than once has pointed out, completely self-supporting. Bare good faith to the petitioner for naturalization would seem to demand that the money he pays in in fees should be used by the government to afford adequate service in his behalf. In every year, except 1918–19, since the present system was established, the receipts from naturalization fees have, by a wide margin, exceeded the amount appropriated for the Naturalization Service; the amount representing that margin has simply gone into the general receipts of the United States, subject to appropriation by Congress. Those receipts, and the margin referred to, which might well have been devoted to improving the Naturalization Service, have been, according to the Commissioner’s reports, as follows:

← Back to Americans by Choice