By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Americans by Choice
Author: Gavit, John Palmer
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Americans by Choice" ***


  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

  Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
  placed at the end of the book. Many of the Tables have associated
  footnotes, which have been kept at the bottom of that table and
  labelled as a ‘note’ rather than a footnote. These note anchors are
  denoted by {number}.

  Some Tables were very wide; these have been split into two or more
  parts, with the first column of the first part being repeated in the
  other parts. When relevant, the first two columns have been repeated.

  In those Tables with ‘court number’ from 1 to 29 as a header, court
  number 11 is always missing; this is not an error, it is absent in
  the original text.

  Some other minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.


[Illustration: (decorative icon)]

_Americanization Studies_

  Frank V. Thompson, Supt. of Public Schools, Boston

  John Daniels

  Robert E. Park, Professorial Lecturer, University of Chicago
  Herbert A. Miller, Professor of Sociology, Oberlin College

  Peter A. Speek, in charge, Slavic Section, Library of Congress

  Michael M. Davis, Jr., Director, Boston Dispensary

  Sophonisba P. Breckinridge, Professor of Social Economy, University
  of Chicago

  Robert E. Park, Professorial Lecturer, University of Chicago

  William M. Leiserson, Chairman, Labor Adjustment Boards,
  Rochester and New York

  John P. Gavit, Vice-President, New York _Evening Post_

  Kate Holladay Claghorn, Instructor in Social Research, New
  York School of Social Work

  SUMMARY. (In preparation)
  Allen T. Burns, Director, Studies in Methods of Americanization

_Harper & Brothers Publishers_





  [Illustration: (publisher colophon)]



  Copyright, 1922
  By Harper & Brothers
  Printed in the U. S. A.

  _First Edition_



The material in this volume was gathered by the Division of Health
Standards and Care of Studies in Methods of Americanization.

Americanization in this study has been considered as the union of
native and foreign born in all the most fundamental relationships and
activities of our national life. For Americanization is the uniting
of new with native-born Americans in fuller common understanding
and appreciation to secure by means of self-government the
highest welfare of all. Such Americanization should perpetuate no
unchangeable political, domestic, and economic regime delivered once
for all to the fathers, but a growing and broadening national life,
inclusive of the best wherever found. With all our rich heritages,
Americanism will develop best through a mutual giving and taking of
contributions from both newer and older Americans in the interest
of the commonweal. This study has followed such an understanding of


This volume is the result of studies in methods of Americanization
prepared through funds furnished by the Carnegie Corporation of New
York. It arose out of the fact that constant applications were being
made to the Corporation for contributions to the work of numerous
agencies engaged in various forms of social activity intended to
extend among the people of the United States the knowledge of their
government and their obligations to it. The trustees felt that a
study which should set forth, not theories of social betterment,
but a description of the methods of the various agencies engaged in
such work, would be of distinct value to the cause itself and to the

The outcome of the study is contained in eleven volumes on the
following subjects: Schooling of the Immigrant; The Press; Adjustment
of Homes and Family Life; Legal Protection and Correction; Health
Standards and Care; Naturalization and Political Life; Industrial and
Economic Amalgamation; Treatment of Immigrant Heritages; Neighborhood
Agencies and Organization; Rural Developments; and Summary. The
entire study has been carried out under the general direction of Mr.
Allen T. Burns. Each volume appears in the name of the author who
had immediate charge of the particular field it is intended to cover.

Upon the invitation of the Carnegie Corporation a committee
consisting of the late Theodore Roosevelt, Prof. John Graham Brooks,
Dr. John M. Glenn, and Mr. John A. Voll has acted in an advisory
capacity to the director. An editorial committee consisting of Dr.
Talcott Williams, Dr. Raymond B. Fosdick, and Dr. Edwin F. Gay has
read and criticized the manuscripts. To both of these committees the
trustees of the Carnegie Corporation are much indebted.

The purpose of the report is to give as clear a notion as possible of
the methods of the agencies actually at work in this field and not to
propose theories for dealing with the complicated questions involved.



  Publisher’s Note                                                   v

  Foreword                                                         vii

  Table of Contents                                                 ix

  List of Tables                                                   xvi

  List of Diagrams                                                 xxi

  Introduction                                                   xxiii


  I. OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL                                          1

  These Are Our Voters!                                              2
  Primitive Attitudes Toward Immigrants                              3
  Legal Position of the Alien                                        5
  What Is an “American”?                                             7
  The American Has No Racial Marks                                  10
  Not Racial, but Cultural                                          12
  Essentials of “Americanism”                                       14

  II. NEW MEMBERS AND AN OLD GAME                                   17

  Factors in Immigration                                            18
  Politics Welcomes the Irish                                       21
  They Always Have Been Democrats                                   21
  Early Germans Became Republicans                                  24
  Effects of the Gold Craze                                         25
  Vast Naturalization Frauds                                        25
  First Choice in Politics                                          30
  The Politician Close to Humanity                                  33
  Political Aspects of Social Clubs                                 35
  Politics a Great Americanizing Force                              37


  Roots of Political Society                                        42
  Influence of Emigration to America                                43
  The Right to Emigrate                                             44
  The Subject _vs._ the Active Member                               45
  Essentials of Citizenship: Ancient--and American                  46
  Bases of American Citizenship                                     49
  Common-law Definition Taken for Granted                           50
  Concerning Americans Born Abroad                                  51
  Children Born at Sea                                              52
  Question of Dual Nationality                                      53
  Countries Denying the Right of Expatriation                       54
  Conditional Recognition                                           55
  Naturalization Treaties With the United States                    55
  Great Britain                                                     56
  Germany                                                           57
  Citizenship Takes No Account of Sex                               62
  “A Woman Without a Country”                                       63
  The American Under Three Jurisdictions                            64

  IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATURALIZATION LAW                         69

  Our “Charter Members”                                             69
  First Naturalization Laws                                         70
  Efforts Toward Uniformity                                         73
  Bars Up Against Alien Anarchists                                  77
  Various Presidents Discussed Naturalization                       77
  Definite Reform at Last                                           80
  Naturalization Commission Appointed                               80
  What the Law Requires                                             83

  V. THE LAW IN OPERATION                                           89

  Restrictions of Race                                              92
  Limitations Regarding Age                                         95
  The Declaration of Intention                                      96
  “Declaration Invalid”                                             98
  Should Declaration Be Abolished?                                 102
  Naturalization Judges Favor Its Retention                        105
  The Seven-year Limitation                                        107
  The Certificate of Lawful Entry                                  109
  The Vexatious Question of Names                                  112
  The Petition for Naturalization                                  115
  Ninety Days’ Interval Before Hearing                             119
  The Final Hearing in Court                                       119
  Must “Speak” the English Language                                120
  Attached to the Constitution                                     123
  In the Matter of “Continuous Residence”                          124
  The Absurdity of the “Incompetent Witness”                       126
  Judges Denounce the Absurdity                                    129
  Depositions of Witnesses                                         133
  “Good Moral Character”                                           135
  The Final Ceremony--Oath of Allegiance                           137
  Ceremonies of Initiation                                         138

  VI. PERSONAL EQUATION IN NATURALIZATION                          143

  A Function of Local Courts                                       145
  “Personal Equation” of the Judges                                147
  Bird’s-eye View of the Questionnaire                             154
  General Trend of Judges’ Opinions                                158
  The Clerks of the Courts                                         161
  The Question of Adequate Clerical Force                          163
  When the Clerk Pockets the Fees                                  164
  Forms of Petty Graft                                             165
  “Personal Equation” in the Naturalization Service                167
  A Scrupulously Honest Service                                    169
  Need of Unifying Influence                                       170
  “Nothing to Litigate!”                                           171
  Confused State of the Educational Test                           173
  The Craze for “Americanizing” Somebody Else                      177
  Extra Responsibilities Self-sought                               180
  Enormous Arrearage in Bureau’s Work                              186
  The Aliens Support the Bureau                                    189
  Fitness of Candidates                                            193
  “Personal Equation” of the Public                                195


  Paucity of Dependable Information                                199
  Vast Arrearages in Examinations                                  202
  Report of Immigration Commission of 1907                         204
  Legend of “The New Immigration”                                  204
  Disparity in Numbers Among Racial Groups                         206
  The Factor of Length of Residence                                208
  The Factor of Language                                           214
  Length of Residence and Earning Power                            215
  Voting on “First Papers”                                         217
  What Becomes of the Declarations?                                218

          PETITIONERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES                         225

  More Than a Fifth of All Petitioners                             226
  From Twenty-eight Representative Courts                          226
  In a Reasonably Normal Year                                      227
  The Racial Groups Are Typical                                    228
  Relative “Civic and Political Interest”                          231
  How Did These Petitioners Fare?                                  231
  As Regards “Immoral Character”                                   234
  The Showing as to “Ignorance”                                    235
  Time-intervals in Naturalization                                 236
  How Do the Racial Groups Compare?                                238
  They Are Young People                                            241
  Relative Age and “Political Interest”                            242
  The Real Racial Distinction                                      243
  Race and Relative Age at Arrival                                 244
  At the Beginning of Married Life                                 247
  As for “Stability of Residence”                                  247
  Intellectual Equipment and Occupation                            250
  General Conclusions                                              252

  IX. CITIZENSHIP VIA MILITARY SERVICE                             255

  Position of the Alien Soldier                                    256
  Revolutionary Legislative Action                                 258
  Citizens at Heart, but “Enemy Aliens”                            260
  All Safeguards Abandoned                                         263
  All Race Restrictions Removed                                    265
  Ordinary Naturalization Disputed                                 265
  Statistics of Alien Registration                                 267
  Aliens and Military Service                                      269
  Foreign Born Eager to Serve                                      272
  Austrians Who Were Not for Austria                               274
  There Was Human War-time Psychology                              275
  Diplomatic Requests for Exemption                                276
  Reciprocal Conscription Among Cobelligerents                     278
  Of German Descent, but Loyal Americans                           278
  Desertion, Among Aliens and Citizens                             279
  War’s Test of “the Melting-pot”                                  281
  An Old Practice with a New Significance                          282
  What Some Judges Thought of It                                   283
  Here Was “Attachment to Our Principles”!                         285
  Assimilating the Enemies of Tyranny                              287
  Episodes of Military Naturalization                              288
  Those Who Went Without Citizenship                               292
  A Great Composite Record of Loyalty                              294

       AMERICAN POLITICS                                           296

  Regardless of Qualifications                                     298
  Unmarried Women Have Male Rights                                 298
  Dangers of “Derivative Citizenship”                              299
  Children of Aliens Here American Born                            301
  “Derivative Citizenship” Almost Equals the Direct                302
  Woman Suffrage Was Widespread                                    303
  Applicants Came as Young Married Men                             304
  The Mother Must Be “Americanized”                                305
  Must Learn Politics by Political Activity                        307
  Few Women Seek Naturalization                                    309
  Some Courts Notice the Wives                                     311
  Obstacles of Distance and Expense                                312
  Woman Suffrage Opens a New Era                                   314
  Opinions of Naturalizing Judges                                  315
  650,000 “Derivative Voters” Extant                               317
  Largely an Ignorant Vote                                         318
  Political Indifference Not Peculiar to Foreign Born              320
  Many Were Called, but Few Responded                              321
  Foreign-born Women Without Political Experience                  323
  They Are Good Material                                           324
  How the Women Can Be Reached                                     327
  A Specific Example--It Works                                     330
  What the Children Did                                            333

  XI. THE FOREIGN-BORN VOTER IN ACTION                             335

  Divided by Racial Traditions                                     338
  Aliens Not Without Political Influence                           339
  There is no “Foreign Vote”                                       340
  Old Evils Abolished                                              341
  Corruption Was Not an Importation                                343
  Home-grown in Adams County, Ohio!                                344
  Who Is the Buyer of Votes?                                       345
  Attempts to Find the “Foreign Vote”                              347
  Response to Progressive Ideas                                    354
  Some Results from Cleveland                                      357
  “Civic Interest” in Grand Rapids                                 365
  Municipal Voters’ League of Chicago                              369
  Some Other Instances                                             373

  XII. THE FOREIGN BORN IN RADICAL MOVEMENTS                       377

  The Socialist Press                                              380
  Dues-paying Socialist Members                                    381
  Racial Groups of Socialists                                      383
  The Socialist Vote                                               385
  German Influence in Socialism                                    387
  Jews in Socialism                                                390
  Effect of the War on Socialism                                   391
  The Single-tax and Agrarian Movements                            393
  The Nonpartisan League                                           397
  Ultraradical Movements Nonpolitical                              401
  The “I. W. W.” and the Homeless Worker                           403

  XIII. SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS                                410

  No Lowering of Standards                                         416
  A Function Administrative or Judicial?                           420
  Physical Conditions and Dignity                                  422
  Function of the Naturalization Bureau                            425

  APPENDIX                                                         429

  INDEX                                                            435


  TABLE                                                           PAGE

  1. Immigration from Ireland and Germany Each Year,
  1820-1840                                                         22

  2. Aliens Naturalized 1856-1867 in two Courts in New
  York City                                                         26

  3. Applicants for Naturalization in Supreme Court, New
  York City in October, 1868                                        28

  4. Number of Replies from Judges in Each District                149

  5. Appropriation for the Naturalization Service for each
  fiscal year, 1908-1919                                           185

  6. Receipts from Naturalization fees and disbursements,
  1907-1920                                                        190

  7. Number of Declarations of Intention and Petitions
  for Naturalization issued, 1907-1920                             201

  8. Per Cent that fully Naturalized Male Employees are
  of Total Male Employees who were twenty-one
  years of age and over at Time of Coming and who
  have been in the United States ten years or over,
  compared with the per cent that Male Employees
  in the United States ten years or over are of those
  here five years and over, by race                                207

  9. Per Cent of Foreign Born Male Employees Reporting
  Citizenship who have been in the United States
  each specified period of years, by race                          209

  10. Present Political Condition of Foreign Born Male
  Employees who have been in the United States five
  years or over and who were twenty-one years of age
  at time of coming, by race                                       211

  11. Average weekly earnings of male employees, by race
  and specified industries                                         216

  12. Per Cent of Foreign Born of Voting Age having First
  Papers and also per cent in states Permitting
  Aliens to Vote on first papers, compared with certain
  states not Permitting Aliens to Vote on first
  papers for 1900 and 1910                                         218

  13. Number of Declarations filed each year 1908-1912
  with Average Number and Ratio of Petitions consummating
  in five-year period ending each year                             220

  14. Yearly Number of Declarations Filed 1908-1912 and
  Number of final Petitions for Naturalization Assumed
  to have been based upon those Declarations                       221

  15. Ratio of Declarations of Intention to Petition for
  Naturalization by States                                         223

  16. Comparison by Races of (1) Naturalization Petitioners
  Studied, (2) Unnaturalized Males twenty-one
  years of age or over in nine cities and in the
  country as a whole, in 1910                                      229

  17. Comparison of Causes of Denial for the years 1908-1918
  and 1913-1914                                                    232

  18. Racial Distribution of Petitioners Denied 1913-1914,
  and the Per Cent Denials for six Principal Causes                233

  19. Per Cent of Denials due to “Immoral Character,” by
  Race                                                             235

  20. Per Cent of Denials due to “Ignorance,” by Race              236

  21. Average Time Elapsing between Arrival and Declaration
  of Intention; between Declaration and Petition
  and between Petition and Naturalization                          237

  22. Average Interval before filing Petition after Attainment
  of twenty-one years, for those arriving at
  ages, 1-14, by Race                                              239

  23. Average Interval before filing Petition after Arrival
  at Ages 16-20, by Race                                           240

  24. Average Interval before filing Petition after Arrival
  at Ages twenty-one or over, by Race                              241

  25. Number and Per cent of Petitioners for three age
  groups                                                           242

  26. Racial Distribution of Petitioners for the age periods
  “over twenty-one” “15-20” and “1-14”                             246

  27. Number of Declarations made in “Other” States                249

  28. Principal Occupations Represented in Petitions for
  Naturalizations filed in seven Cities 1913-1914,
  ratio between Number of Petitioners and total of
  Foreign Born White Males in those Occupations in
  those Cities in 1910                                             251

  29. Number and Per Cent of Petitioners in Each Occupation        252

  30. Allegiance of Aliens Registered under the Selective
  Service Act                                                      268

  31. Fitness for Service of Alien Registrants                     269

  32. Neutrals withdrawing from the Service                        273

  33. Diplomatic Requests for Discharge of and Total
  Registration of Aliens by Country of Birth                       277

  34. Comparison of Reported Desertions of Alien and
  Citizen Registrants                                              281

  35. Years in which full and partial Suffrage was Granted
  to Women, by States                                              303

  36. Maximum Enrollment in Citizenship and English
  classes, in United States in 1919                                322

  37. Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in
  1913, Dix in 1910 by Voters of Native Parentage                  350

  38. Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in
  1913, Dix in 1910 by Russians and Austrians                      350

  39. Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall
  in 1913, Dix in 1910 by the Irish                                351

  40. Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in
  1913, Dix in 1910 by Germans                                     352

  41. Per Cent of New York City Vote Cast for McCall in
  1913, Dix in 1910 by Italians                                    352

  42. Per Cent of Socialist Vote in New York City in 1910
  and 1913 by Nationality                                          353

  43. Distribution of Dominant Nationality in ninety-two
  precincts in Cleveland                                           358

  44. Distribution of Democratic and Republican Votes in
  Cleveland in 1913-1915 among Certain Racial
  Groups                                                           361

  45. Per Cent of Certain Races Exercising Second and
  Third Choice                                                     362

  46. Vote Cast in precincts of Varying Racial Make-up in
  Three Wards of Grand Rapids, 1918, 1919                          366

  47. Per Cent of Women Registered in thirteen Michigan
  cities                                                           368

  48. Number of Socialists paying dues each year from
  1903 to 1915                                                     382

  49. Ranks of Race Groups in Relative Socialist Strength          384

  50. Socialist Vote for President from 1880 to 1898               385

  51. The Socialist Vote for President by States from 1900
  to 1920                                                          386

  52. Per Cent Circulation of the German Press in nine
  states                                                           388

  53. Socialist Vote for President in nine states from 1900
  to 1916                                                          389

  54. Membership of the Nonpartisan League by states
  in December, 1918                                                398

  55. Distribution of Petitions Studied, by Courts                 429

  56. Sex and Marital Condition of Petitioners                     430

  57. Petitioners’ Children Under twenty-one years of age          431

  58. Age of Petitioners at Arrival and Time Elapsing
  between twenty-one years of age (or later arrival)
  and Petition, 1913-1914                                          432

  59. Number and Per Cent of Petitions Denied for each
  Cause, by Courts                                       _Facing_  432

  60. Number of Petitions Denied for each Cause, by
  Country of Birth                                       _Facing_  432

  61. Distribution of Petitioners, by Country of Birth and
  Courts                                                 _Facing_  432

  62. Distribution of Petitioners, Length of Time from
  Arrival to Petition, by Country of Birth               _Facing_  432

  63. Distribution of Petitions, by Occupation and Courts          433

  64. Average Number of Years from Date of Arrival to
  Date of Petition, by Occupation                                  434

  65. Number of Petitioners, by Country of Birth and
  Occupation                                             _Facing_  434

  66. Ratio between Naturalization Petitions filed in 1913-1914
  and Total Foreign Born White Males ten
  years of age and over in 1910, by Occupation for
  seven cities                                           _Facing_  434


  DIAGRAM                                                         PAGE

  1. Average interval before filing petition after attainment
  of twenty-one years (or time of
  arrival, if arriving after twenty-one years)
  for petitioners arriving at ages of one to
  fourteen, fifteen to twenty, and twenty-one
  years and over                                                   242

  2. Average interval before filing petition after arrival
  at age twenty-one or over by races.
  The bars which are in black represent
  countries from which the subject people
  constituted almost entirely the immigration
  to this country                                                  245


It would require a very long list of names to give specific mention
of all those who have rendered substantial aid in gathering the
information on which this volume is based. The Commissioner of
Naturalization, Mr. Richard K. Campbell; the former Director of
Citizenship, Mr. Raymond F. Crist, and the chief examiners under
their direction, have done all in their power to afford information
and other assistance. Several hundred judges of naturalization
courts in all parts of the country, took pains to answer our
questionnaire and personal letters on special questions. Students of
immigration and naturalization problems have been ungrudging in their

The tedious and painstaking work of compiling the information
contained in more than 26,000 petitions for naturalization, analyzed
in the statistical chapters of this book, was done more especially
under the direction of Professor Raymond Moley, then at Western
Reserve University, Cleveland; Hornell Hart, of Cincinnati; Professor
S. C. Kohs, of Reed College, for Portland, Oregon; Professor T. T.
Waterman, of the University of the state of Washington, for Seattle,
and Professor L. H. Hawkins, of Clark University, for Worcester,
Mass. Aside from the service of these volunteer assistants, thanks
are due in more than perfunctory manner to the members of the staff
of the Americanization Study who devoted long hours to this exacting

Professor Moley compiled most of the material used in the chapter on
the legal aspects of citizenship, and afforded information of the
utmost value woven into other parts of this volume.

The thanks of the author are due in particular to his personal
associates in the work, Mr. Paul Lee Ellerbe, formerly Chief
Naturalization Examiner at Denver, and Miss Elizabeth Miner King,
then of the staff of the New York Evening Post, now Mrs. Harold
Phelps Stokes, of Washington, D. C.






From the point of view of citizenship there are two kinds of
Americans--those who are American involuntarily by birth, and those
who are _American by choice_.

This book devotes itself to those who have become Americans not
by birth, but of their own free will and accord, by that process
of voluntarily adopting a fatherland known as Naturalization. It
endeavors to tell generally what happens to them in that process,
and something of what they do and contribute to our _political_
life after they have been admitted to active membership in our body

The subject is one much talked about--especially since the
beginning of the World War--and little understood save by those
who administer, or who in some way profit by, the operation, the
shortcomings, and confusions of the existing law and the system which
has grown up under it. That system is handicapped and beclouded by
public indifference and by the survival of ancient attitudes and
limitations, and bedeviled by the theories and prejudices of persons
and interests who, innocently or willfully--often with impeccable
intentions--stand in the way of progress or adhere for various
reasons to ideas and methods long since outgrown, or in the light of
to-day actively mischievous.


It is a current fashion of unthinking persons, contemplating the
seething masses of immigrants congested in our cities and in certain
rural sections, beholding the polyglot store signs and newspapers,
sensing the existence of languages, manners, and customs unfamiliar
and perhaps grotesque and even outrageous to their own habits and
ideas of propriety, and reflecting vaguely upon the real and supposed
evils of our political methods and machinery, to exclaim:

“And these are the people who corrupt our politics! These are the
voters who elect our presidents!”

Many who should know better indulge in such absurdities, and even
cite statistics to support them. A characteristic manner of reasoning
would read something like this:

“In 1910 there were 13,000,000 foreign-born persons in the United
States, and only a little more than 3,000,000 of them were

Leaving the unreflecting hearer to forget that of the 13,000,000
only about half (6,646,817) were males of twenty-one years and over;
that more than half a million (570,772) had declared their intention
to become citizens; that there was no report as to the citizenship
of more than 775,000; so that the alien population of voting age,
and of the then voting sex, known to be unnaturalized, was only
about one-sixth of the total foreign born, or 2,266,535. This was
bad enough in all conscience, and the Woman-Suffrage Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States certainly has aggravated it,
since through it married immigrant women were made possible voters
through the naturalization of their husbands. But nothing can be
gained by exaggerating the facts, or constructing mare’s nests by
inferences from false assumptions. It is worth while to examine the
conditions, to observe the extent to which the foreign born actually
do participate in our political processes, and on the basis of such
facts as are available, to judge the effect that foreign birth does
tend to have upon the quality of that participation.

There is no disposition here to overlook or minimize the menace to
our social and civic life involved in the presence of vast masses of
undigested, unassimilated population of whatever race or kind--even
of our own people, herded in colonies, dominating large communities,
illiterate as regards our history and ideals, ignorant of our
language, traditions, and customs. It constitutes a social problem
of great magnitude and intricacy--though probably by no means so
menacing as it is our fashion to believe. But it is not one directly
affecting our political life or the operation of our political
machinery to any such degree as it is the custom to declaim. There
is little substantial evidence in these days that the foreign-born
voter, as such, is a source of corruption or other evil influence in
our politics.


Whether it is called an instinct, native in animal psychology, or an
inheritance of mental habit and tradition handed down from remote
times of family and tribal necessity, the fact is that we all regard
the stranger with a suspicion, diminishing perhaps as we broaden with
years, experience, and culture, but never entirely lost. Exceedingly
few are those great souls who have no trace of it. Especially if the
stranger wears a differently colored skin, expresses his thought
by unfamiliar vocal sounds and inflections, practices customs of
clothing, eating, marriage, religion, different from our own; lives
in houses of peculiar shape and use--these things all partake, for
the average person, of the outrageous and the dangerous, and usually
subtly offend those habits of group taste which we somehow feel to
have their roots in essential morality and the nature of things.

From time immemorial, all states and communities have laid special
disabilities and limitations upon the alien--all based ultimately
upon this habitual suspicion of those who belong to another tribe or
clan. As Edwin M. Borchard says:[1]

  The legal position of the alien has in the progress of time
  advanced from that of complete outlawry, in the days of early Rome
  and the Germanic tribes, to that of practical assimilation with
  nationals, at the present time. In the Twelve Tables of Rome, the
  alien and enemy were classed together, the word “hostis” being
  used interchangeably to designate both. Only the Roman citizen had
  rights recognized in law.... The Germanic tribes, in the early
  period, were hardly more hospitable to the alien than were the
  Twelve Tables of the Romans.

With the extension of trade and travel, and especially with the
upgrowth of the feudal system, however, the utility of intercourse
with peaceable strangers, and the advantage of adding their personal
prowess, capacity, and assets to the resources of the community, came
to be more and more recognized, and the stranger within the gates was
accorded an increasing measure of tolerance, not to say welcome. But
this tolerance was at best of a very limited character; practically,
it was not much more than a rigid systematizing of the ways of
making the immigrant useful and contributory. It is not the province
of this report to dilate upon this branch of the subject. Suffice it
to say that to this day, over nearly the whole earth, the alien is
still subject to marked limitations, and that the exploitation of him
is neither a modern nor an American invention.

As for political rights, let alone any degree of participation in
the functions of government, no nation ever has contemplated the
possibility of such a thing--until a few of the American states,
clamoring for population from any corner of humanity, offered
virtually full political participation to the alien immediately upon
his mere declaration of intention to apply for citizenship--some
day! Until the excitement of the World War brought public attention
to the whole question of the position and influence of the foreign
born in America, this anomaly remained in force in at least a dozen
states: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Oregon.
Since then it has been abolished by constitutional amendment or other
legislation in all but two--Arkansas and Missouri.[2]


Thus far, from the point of view of international law and custom, it
has been left to each nation to regulate the privileges of, and the
restrictions upon, the alien, with the exception that certain nations
strong enough to enforce it have established in certain countries
held by them to be less than fully “civilized,” the principle of
_extra-territoriality_, by virtue of which their nationals must be
tried before special tribunals supervised by representatives of their
own nation. Generally speaking, and subject to the rule that aliens
of all races must be treated alike under processes of law, a nation
may deprive the alien of liberty of action, may prohibit or restrict
his ownership of property, may forbid or delimit his employment in
certain kinds of work or enterprises, and may expel and deport him,
at its pleasure. In other words, the status and rights of an alien
are determined almost absolutely by the municipal law in the country
in which he is domiciled. The only limitations upon this power are
those established by treaties, and by the general spread of humane
ideas, and the growing feeling--discouraged, perhaps, but by no means
halted, by the World War--of the solidarity of the human race.

In the United States, the rights of the alien include personal
protection, protection of property already acquired, and the use of
all means of redress and judicial protection enjoyed by citizens.[3]

The alien’s plight in this country has been complicated by the
peculiar relation subsisting between the Federal government and
that of the individual states. For it has frequently happened that
the government of the United States has been practically unable
to enforce the rights of aliens created by treaty when traversed
by state law. On more than one occasion threatening diplomatic
situations have been created by the existence of this condition.

This ancient feeling toward the alien, and the treatment, legal,
extra-legal, and illegal, to which he has been subjected in
respect of his person, his family, and his property, undoubtedly
have affected substantially his sentiments toward this country.
Disillusionment about the atmosphere and ways of the “Land of
the Free” is responsible for our loss of the citizenship of many
desirable immigrants. The man who will not submit quietly to
injustice is of the material of which our best citizens from the
beginning have been made. The kind of aliens who can accept without
resentment some of the things to which those of foreign birth and
speech have been subjected within our borders during very recent
times, are not fit to be Americans![4]


We are concerned just now, however, with the alien, not in his
general legal or social relations, but as material for active
membership in our community as an American citizen, as a voting
participant in the sovereignty held in this country by the people. As
such, he comes to a position unique in all the world. It is not yet
true--perhaps it will be very long before it can be true--that there
is absolutely no bar to any person on account of race; for the law
and its interpretations exclude from citizenship Chinese, Japanese,
and certain people of India not regarded as “white”--although the
blacks of Africa are expressly admitted. Nevertheless it may be said
broadly that, regardless of race, the immigrant can come to America
and win his way upon his own merits into the fellowship of what all
the world calls “Americans.”

Now, what is “an American”? What is it that makes a nation of us if
not a distinctive race? What is it that the immigrant joins, body and
soul, when he becomes “an American”?

Every little while somebody arises with ashes upon his head and
bemoans the threatened disappearance of what he is pleased to call
“the American type.” He never describes it--it is exceedingly
difficult to learn what may be meant by the phrase. This is not
strange, for there is no such thing if a racial type is meant. There
never has been any such thing.

Perhaps we know what the expression might mean in New England--a
combination of English, Scotch, or Welsh, who in turn would be bred
of Dane, Pict, and Scot, Saxon and Norman and Kelt, with perhaps a
strain of French, or maybe of Dutch. In Pennsylvania very likely
it would be English Quaker--or Plattdeutsch. The French-Spanish
combination in the Gulf region, the Scandinavian or German in the
Middle West and Northwest, the Spanish-Mexican along the Rio Grande
and in Southern California, and so on, are “American” by a title
as good as that of those who trace their descent from the Pilgrim

John Graham Brooks[5] remarks that “our piebald millions” are now
so interwoven with all that we are “that to silhouette the American
becomes yearly more baffling.” Says he:

  The early writers have no such misgivings.... In 1889 I met
  a German correspondent who had been four times to the United
  States.... He said he brought back from his first journey a
  clearly conceived image of the American. He was “sharp-visaged,
  nervous, lank, and restless.” After the second trip this group of
  adjectives was abandoned. He saw so many people who were not lank
  or nervous; so many were rotund and leisurely, that he rearranged
  his classification, but still with confidence. After a third trip
  he insisted that he could still describe our countrymen, but not
  by external signs. He was driven to express them in terms of
  character. The American was resourceful, inventive, and supreme
  in the pursuit of material ends. “My fourth trip,” he said, “has
  knocked out the final attempt with the others. I have thrown them
  all over like a lot of rubbish. I don’t know what the American is,
  and I don’t believe anyone else knows.”

Prof. Franklin H. Giddings, in an informal address at Columbia
University, undertook, albeit somewhat casually, to point out the
characteristics which should mark a good American. He must be loyal,
must “play the game”; must have a local pride not only in the quality
of his country but in his home community, feeling and exemplifying
a moral and civic responsibility for the betterment of conditions
actuated by a wise and constructive idealism. Recognizing, no doubt,
in the very saying of this, that these things would mark the good
citizen of _any_ nation, he protested that after all was said, and
despite the difficulty of precise definition, there was something
distinctive, perceptible, and, in fact, perceived by the discerning;
real, however subtle and elusive, distinguishing the true American
from all other folk--“a certain sensitiveness to the finer values of
life; an admiration for these things.”

Well, certainly the ideal American is, and has, and does all of this;
certainly all Americans ought to be, and have, and do all of it! But
in all candor and fairness it must be acknowledged that it would be
invidious and altogether insupportable to claim it or _any_ of it as
in any proper sense racially distinctive of America.


We cannot isolate any physical characteristics; we cannot segregate
any particular racial descent; one may search in vain for any
definable hereditary mental or spiritual characteristic that will
fit or typify all, or even many, of the “piebald millions” who
inhabit and vote, attain success and honor, and, at need, enlist
or be conscripted for war, in the varied jurisdictions of our
tremendous stretch of territory between the ancient French-Canadian
colonies of Maine and the Philippines; between the Virgin Islands and
Alaska. Even local adherence to our slogans of liberty, democracy,
consent-of-the-governed, and all the rest of our ecstatic vocabulary,
no longer insulates or distinguishes us in the world. The upspringing
democracies of the Old World, to which we have given example and
inspiration as well as emancipation from old autocracies, swear by
all these phrases as exuberantly as we, and may even outstrip us
in the political incarnation of the ideals which hitherto we have
regarded as so peculiarly our own!

If, then, we can distinguish “the American” neither by any physical
attribute of race nor by adherence to political forms and formulæ,
what is there left for us to conserve and to boast about--as our very

Let us come straight to the fact that this absence of exclusive
racial marks is the distinguishing physical characteristic of the
American. True of him as of no other now or ever in the past, is the
fact that he is, broadly speaking, the product of _all_ races. It is
of our fundamental history and tradition from the beginning that in
America all peoples may find destination, if not refuge, and upon a
basis of virtual race equality mingle, and for good or ill, send down
to posterity in a common stream their racial values--and their racial
defects. Whether we like it or not, this is the fact. We are not a
race, in any ethnic sense. At most, we are in the very early stages
of becoming one.

Prof. Ulysses G. Weatherly, of Indiana University, said:[6]

  Every great historical race is a composite of originally separate
  elements merged into a unity whose ruling characteristic is an
  increasing integration of culture rather than of blood. This
  process of merging is believed by Gumplowicz to constitute the very
  essence of world history.

And he quotes Gumplowicz, in _Der Rassencampf_, to this effect:

  Throughout the whole history of men stretches a continuous process
  of amalgamation which, beginning with the smallest primitive
  synthetic groups and following a race-building law to us unknown,
  binds together and amalgamates small, heterogenous groups into
  even larger unities, into peoples, races, and nations, perpetually
  bringing them into conflict against other similarly constituted
  and amalgamated peoples, nations, and races, and through this
  conflict into ever new fields of conquest and culture, which again
  consolidates and amalgamates the heterogenous elements.

The American people has been and is being made by exactly this
process. We are in the midst of the making of the “American.” It does
not yet appear what he shall be, but one thing is certain, he is
not to be of any particular racial type now distinguishable. Saxon,
Teuton, and Kelt, Latin and Slav--to say nothing of any appreciable
contribution by yellow and brown races as yet negligible in this
aspect of the question--each of the races that we now know on this
soil will have its share of “ancestorial” responsibility for the
“typical American” that is to be.


Leaving for the long future, then, the evolution of the hereditary
type, is there so soon something “home grown,” some “integration
of culture,” that is peculiarly our own? Every American knows in
his heart that however subtle and elusive, however difficult of
definition, there is something real that distinguishes “America.”

In the attempt to fix the boundaries for the new Poland, the Peace
Conference sought in vain for some limits of language or of political
unity on which to base their demarcation. It came down at last to a
simple question:

“_Do you want to be Poles?_”

And the question was enough.

Who doubts the answer to the question: _Do you want to be American?_
There is something more than love of home, something higher than
the liking of a cat for the warm place under the familiar stove,
that stirs the heart of every normal American when he sees the Stars
and Stripes. The alien who declares it his intention to become a
citizen of the United States may not be able to put it in words,
but he means, and he knows that he means, something real and vital,
recognizes a substantial distinction, when he says that _he wants to
be an American_!

There must be, there is, there has been always, in the midst of the
racial chaos which to-day constitutes perhaps our greatest social
problem, something that may be called nationally even if not yet
racially _American_; something indigenous on this soil as on no
other. It belongs to us. Up to a time beginning a quarter of a
century ago, when the so-called “new immigration” from Southeastern
Europe and southern Russia set in in full flood, and now anew in
the experiences of the World War, it was and has again become, a
thing shared by all of our racial groups and elements--_peculiarly
American_. It answers the test set forth by Professor Weatherly in
the paper already quoted, of the completion of the nationalizing
process: “... when the things of the spirit are held in common
and cherished by all, even if some specific ethnic or linguistic
differences survive.” Or, in the words which he attributes to Renan:

  To have a common glory in the past, a common will in the present;
  to have done great things together, to desire to do still
  greater--these are the essential conditions for being _a People_.

Professor Weatherly repeatedly emphasizes the great point--that “it
is not sufficient that peoples should merely have undergone similar
experiences” in order to be knit into a nation; “they must have
undergone them _together_.” Most of the great modern nations, as he
says, have passed through the same processes of social change, “but
in actual adjustment to such change each has had its own separate

Twenty-five years ago it was true that the term “American” meant
one who, of whatever racial descent, represented something very
definite, of tradition, experience, and achievement--and of promise,
too--“a common glory in the past, a common will in the present”;
“great things done together, and a desire to do still greater”; unity
determined not by external facts alone, but by sentiment.

Now, dimly as we yet realize it, it is true again. A baptism of
blood and suffering, of sacrifice and self-denial, and of common
experience in a vast world emergency, and out of it a vision of
better understanding and a great work before us to be done, have
gone far to restore that unity of appreciation of “great things done
_together_” and of will to do still greater which was our common
glory--and was getting lost. We had, we have now, a right to be
both proud and jealous of the heritage left us by our fathers of
many races, and now watered by the blood of our own generation, and
to look with concern, if not with dismay, upon what might portend
a swallowing up of this moral, this sentimental unity, in a great
inundation of newcomers, who, however well intending as individuals,
have not shared our tradition and experience, and who seem not to
have been fitted by any experience of their own to assimilate either
the tradition of our past or our aspiration for the future.


There are essentials distinctively American upon which we can base
our definition of “America” and typify her in the human being who
by spirit, vision, and vigilance best represents our tradition and
our aspiration. Such a definition will hold against the world--even
against those of our own household who neither exemplify nor
understand it. The sum total of these essentials is not paralleled
now, nor in history, anywhere else on earth. For of America alone it
may be said:

That however lamely and insufficiently we have lived up to it, _our
country is traditionally the refuge for the oppressed of every land_.

That here the individual has found a fuller freedom to seek his
happiness in his own way. More than any other nation, America has
never recognized a political autocracy, has reckoned Man above every
consideration of property, class, or dynasty.

That here only has _the individual male from the beginning been
deemed the ultimate political unit_--“one man, one vote.” The
country-wide adoption of Woman Suffrage extends this concept to
include women.

That however crudely we have practiced it, we have aspired
_to estimate essential justice and the common sense of right
relationship--fair play between man and man--as the final standard
and appeal of human conduct, over against every claim of precedent
and authority_.

That from the outset of this nation, the distinguishing spirit of
America has been _a protest against Militarism and the domination of
the professional soldier, against compulsory military service in time
of peace_. Our army and navy, always thought of as instrumentalities
of last resort, reserved almost wholly for defense against aggression
from without, have on principle been always under the control and
direction of _civilians as such_, and in peace time have been
recruited by voluntary enlistment. This one fact of freedom from
military conscription has been the distinction of America which, more
than any other thing, has attracted Europeans to our fellowship. They
have fought for us and with us, but always with the American motive,
embodied in the final great fact, which is America’s alone:

That when _we have gone to war, our civilians armed and fighting
with the devotion, courage, and effectiveness inspired only by the
sense of a righteous cause, it has always been for liberty_. At the
beginning, in 1776, and again in 1812, we fought England to free
ourselves. In 1845, despite the motive of the Slave Power to extend
the area of slavery, so far as the motive of the people in general
was concerned we were fighting Mexico to free our fellows in Texas.
In 1861 we fought a great civil war to maintain our free Union and
to liberate the negro slaves. In 1898 we fought Spain to free the
Cubans, and notwithstanding this, our sole sin of imperialism, in
the long run we shall have freed also the Filipinos. In 1917 we
participated, no doubt decisively, in the struggle to free Europe
from the threat of domination by the military autocracy of Germany.
“To make the world safe for democracy”--that was the appeal which
brought the hearts of the American people into the war. Of no other
great nation can it be said that _it never went to war except for

This is “America.” This ensemble of tradition and significance is
what makes native and newcomer alike want to be an American. This is
what stirs our hearts when we see the Stars and Stripes. We prize
these things not alone because they are ours, not alone because in
their power and glory they are peculiarly, exclusively American; but
still more because they are worthy to be prized, and because they
promise the ultimate incarnation of the dreams of men of good will
since ever man first lifted his eyes from the ground and visioned



It would be too much to say that the average immigrant from any
country visions when he leaves his home the “America” outlined in
the previous chapter, or even that he perceives it when, at some
time after he arrives, he files his declaration of intention to
seek citizenship. Doubtless in the ordinary case he comes merely
to improve his personal, social, and economic condition; to put it
bluntly, to get a better job. Nevertheless, we should do ourselves
and our long-standing reputation in the world a great injustice if we
did not recognize and take pride in the fact that the people of all
races turn their faces hither not only with hope of opportunity to
better their condition, but with a stirring of soul at the thought
of what they believe awaits them in a land of wider liberty. That
they do not always find us living up to our boast, so far as they are
concerned, is the defect not of our tradition or, in the long run, of
our intention, but of our practice.

At the outset the immigrant does not think about citizenship at
all. The statistics gathered by this Study show conclusively that
the average alien waits more than ten years before applying for
citizenship. That even if he comes as early as sixteen he waits until
he is twenty-eight before he files his final petition. And the vast
majority of the men come between the ages of sixteen and thirty--just
at the time of life when, it would seem, active participation in the
political life of the country ought to be most appealing.


The alien does not come with any direct interest in citizenship.
He comes to improve his status. And this motive has two aspects;
the impulse is twofold--a push from behind and a pull from in
front, sometimes one, usually both. The statistics displaying
the fluctuations of what Prof. Frank J. Warne calls “The Tide of
Immigration” are luminous in their reflection of this purely human
fact. In order to see it stand forth, one must keep it vividly
in mind that these tables of statistics are not mere exhibits of
mathematical digits, but lists of human beings, inspired by motives
precisely like our own. The 148,093 subjects of His Britannic
Majesty--mostly Irish--who came to America in 1848 were, _each_ of
them, a specific individual human soul, impelled by the fact that
the potato famine, or whatnot else at home, interfered with the
adequacy of his meals; and attracted by the belief that he would find
things better in America. The one lone Russian recorded in that year
presumably represented precisely the same interplay of motives. The
heavy German immigration in 1852, 1853, and 1854 was made up of men,
women, and children who found conditions intolerable because of the
repressions ensuing upon the revolutionary movement of ’48. And so
on. On the other hand, the shrinkages in the figures in various later
periods, in a general way, coincide with the times of industrial
depression, unemployment, etc., in this country; things were not
so attractive here as to offer substantial improvement upon the
situation at home.

The six sources whence we have derived the bulk of our new population
are Great Britain and Ireland; the three Scandinavian countries of
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark; Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and
Russia--in the seventy-eight years from 1840 down to and including
1918, when immigration virtually stopped owing to the conditions
created by the World War. Immigration since then has been subject to
influences so different from those prevailing before, and as yet so
little understood, that intelligent comparisons would be perilous.[7]

Students of immigration have usually built their generalizations upon
totals of inflow, frequently overlooking the striking disparity of
time and numbers among the various racial groups. Yet there is much
significance in this disparity. Professor Warne, for example, in the
_Annals of the American Academy of Political Science_ (1920), in an
analysis generally of the upward and downward curves of immigration
from all countries during the century since 1820, says:

  By studying the yearly figures ... and relating them to events of
  industrial or economic history, we are able to understand what
  is probably the most significant of all the operating forces or
  influences at work behind this great movement of population across
  the Atlantic. For illustration, the number of immigrant arrivals
  strikingly decreased from nearly 482,000 in 1854 to 200,877 the
  following year, a decrease of more than one-half. This falling
  off reflected the effects of the greatest financial panic ever
  experienced in the United States up to that time.

Well enough for a generalization based on totals; but it is not
to be overlooked that at that very point the then comparatively
small immigration from Italy more than doubled between 1853 and
1854, jumping from 535 to 1,263, and remained above 1,000 with the
exception of one year, until 1860. Again Professor Warne:

  The ensuing industrial depression was followed closely by the Civil
  War, and it was not until 1873 that the yearly inflow again reached
  as large a volume, the number being nearly 460,000.

But it was precisely during the hottest and most critical years
of the Civil War that German immigration increased. It had been
relatively low between 1854 and 1865 (in which latter year it was
58,153), but jumped in 1866 to 120,218, and (with the exception of
1871, when it fell to 82,554) remained high until and including 1873,
when it almost touched 150,000. It would seem that something must
have been going on in Germany to drive these people out against the
adverse economic conditions prevailing here.

  The year 1873 [continues Professor Warne] marks another panic, and
  a striking decrease the following years in the number of alien
  arrivals is again recorded.

But the Austrian, Italian, and Russian immigration, which had been
relatively insignificant up to 1869 and 1870, was higher in 1870-75
than ever before, and with minor ups and downs increased more or
less steadily up to the very high figures of the past two decades,
which gave rise to the widely believed legend entitled, “The New

The question of means of livelihood, of a better job, is doubtless
the chief factor, but it is not the only factor. Any job at all in
a free country is better, for any man worth his salt, than a far
better-paid job under conditions of oppression. The man who leaves
his homeland to adventure even under adverse conditions, because
he cannot tolerate political tyranny, used to be regarded _per se_
as fit for American citizenship. He is still fit, even though he
belong to the traditional “New Immigration”; even though of late
we have tended rather to discourage the idea that personal liberty
is valuable in and of itself. It is still true that along with our
fame as a land where economic opportunity is to be found, the men and
women of other lands are attracted by what they still believe to be
our atmosphere of liberty.


The Irish immigration was earliest in the field, and first to profit
by the hit-or-miss methods of naturalization which prevailed in the
old shiftless days. They occupied socially at the outset very much
the same position that the “New Immigration” has occupied during the
past twenty years; but the American politician, to whose mill any
kind of a biped who might vote was grist, welcomed it, and quickly
taught the Irishman the methods of the game.

How solidly the Irish were installed before the Germans began to
arrive in large numbers appears in Table I, showing the two streams
of immigration between 1820 and 1840. Prior to 1840 there was no
appreciable inflow from any other countries. It should be added that
it was not until 1854, and then only for that one year, that the
German immigration overtook the Irish. It did not again equal it
until 1867.



  1820      |   3,614 |     968
  1821      |   1,518 |     383
  1822      |   2,267 |     148
  1823      |   1,908 |     183
  1824      |   2,345 |     230
  1825      |   4,888 |     450
  1826      |   5,408 |     511
  1827      |   9,766 |     432
  1828      |  12,488 |   1,851
  1829      |   7,415 |     597
  1830      |   2,721 |   1,976
  1831      |   5,772 |   2,413
  1832      |  12,436 |  10,194
  1833      |   8,648 |   6,988
  1834      |  24,474 |  17,686
  1835      |  20,927 |   8,311
  1836      |  30,578 |  20,707
  1837      |  28,508 |  23,740
  1838      |  12,645 |  11,683
  1839      |  23,963 |  21,028
  1840      |  39,430 |  29,704


The traditional fidelity of the Irish to the Democratic party began
forthwith. The elements in the population which were Whigs, and
afterward became Republicans tended, on the whole, to be the more
prosperous folk of the community; also they were largely of the
Protestant faith. Very early in our political history, therefore,
there came to be, to some extent, a division in which both social
standing and religion played a part. Most of the Irish were poor, and
nearly all of them were Roman Catholics. The Democratic party was
rather the party of the poor and the foreign born, and when the great
influx of Roman Catholic Irish injected also the religious issue, it
was only natural that a kind of racial allegiance should attach the
Irish to the Democratic party. The Know-Nothing and Native American
agitations of the middle of the last century deepened the rift, and
confirmed the Irish in their political faith.

Gustavus Myers says, in his _History of Tammany Hall_:[8]

  About the year 1840 ... Tammany began to be ruled from the bottom
  of the social stratum.... The policy of encouraging foreigners,
  at first mildly started in 1823, was now developed into a system.
  The Whigs antagonized the entrance of foreign-born citizens into
  politics, and the Native American Party was organized expressly to
  bar them almost entirely from the enjoyment of political rights.
  The immigrant had no place to turn but Tammany Hall. In part to
  assure itself this vote, the organization opened a bureau, a
  modest beginning of what became a colossal department. An office
  established in the Wigwam, to which specially paid agents or
  organization runners brought the immigrant, drilled into him the
  advantages of joining Tammany, and furnished him the means and
  legal machinery needed to take out his naturalization papers....
  Tammany took the immigrant in charge, cared for him, made him feel
  that he was a human being with distinct political rights, and
  converted him into a citizen. How sagacious this was, each year
  revealed. Immigration soon poured in heavily, and there came a time
  when the foreign vote outnumbered that of the native-born citizens.

It is true, but irrelevant, that in an earlier day Tammany had been
as anti-foreign as anybody--originally it was decidedly aristocratic
in tone. Myers recites how, on the night of April 24, 1817, two
hundred Irishmen marched to the Wigwam “to impress upon the Committee
the wisdom of nominating (for Congress) Thomas Addis Emmett, as well
as other Irish Catholics on the Tammany ticket in the future.”

All this had long since become ancient history by 1840. Long before
that time the Irish devotion to the Democratic party in general, and
to Tammany Hall in particular, had become deeply rooted.


The Germans, who, as has been shown, formed the second great wave in
the “tide of immigration,” began to come in formidable numbers about
1836, passing the 30,000 mark in 1845. While they were, on the whole,
better educated and possibly more intelligent than the Irish, they
were handicapped, as the Irish were not, by difference of language;
so that for the practical purposes of the native American politician
they were equally ignorant. And the mass of the immigrants of both
races were peasants without experience in relation to political

Very many of the Germans, however, had fled from the repressions
at home preceding, accompanying, and following the revolutionary
movements about 1848; they were to a great extent Protestants, and
they were naturally opposed to slavery--though this is not to say
that the Irish ever favored it. Generally speaking, Germans reacted
favorably to the Republican party.

Both races took American politics as they found it. Let it not be
supposed that corruption was the exclusive invention or hall mark of
Tammany Hall! Even in England, at this time, politics was a dirty
business. The Whigs did their best to beat Tammany at the game in
which it had become expert. Myers says:[9]

  In the fall election of 1838 the Whig frauds were enormous and
  indisputable. The Whigs raised large sums of money, which were
  handed to ward workers for the procuring of votes. About two
  hundred roughs were brought from Philadelphia, in different
  divisions, each man receiving $22.... Ex-convicts distributed Whig
  tickets and busily auctioneered. The cabins of all the vessels
  along the wharves were ransacked, and every man, whether or not a
  citizen or resident of New York, who could be wheedled into voting
  a Whig ballot, was rushed to the polls and his vote smuggled in.

This was the election which made William H. Seward Governor of the
state of New York!


The whole situation was intensified during the years when corruption
reached its greatest heights by the conditions ensuing upon the
discovery of gold in California. The port of New York welcomed ships
from the west coast bringing gold, and ships from across the Atlantic
bringing immigrants. The “bulge” in the curve of immigration from
Great Britain and Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia in the period
1849-54 undoubtedly represents preponderantly the reaction abroad to
the tales of gold to be found on the street corners of America.

And the immigrant stepped into an atmosphere of corruption in every
field--including politics. The whole country was more or less money
mad. The effect of the gold craze, as Myers (page 154) says, “was a
still further lowering of the public tone; standards were generally
lost sight of, and all means of ‘getting ahead’ came to be considered
legitimate. Politics, trafficking in nominations and political
influence, found it a most auspicious time.”


It is hard to realize now the public attitude of those old days on
the subject of naturalization. There was a fabulous amount of virgin
territory to be opened; new communities needed population, and
especially muscle labor; lavish inducements, including the right to
vote, were held out to anything in the form of a man who could be
brought to help in the task. It was many years before citizenship
came to be regarded as a precious thing, to be guarded with
scrupulous vigilance. And as both of the great political parties were
guilty of crimes against the ballot box, it was taken for granted
that they were inevitable in politics.

The vexatious technicalities which now seem so unjust to many an
applicant for citizenship are, after all, only reaction at the other
extreme to the incredible laxity which characterized the process in
the early years. The population of what was then New York City was
only 515,547 in 1850; 813,669 in 1860; and 942,292 in 1870; but in
the eight years, 1860-67, inclusive, more than 67,000 aliens were
naturalized in that city alone. The naturalizations in New York City
in each year from 1856 to 1867, inclusive, in only two courts--the
Superior Court and the Court of Common Pleas--an average of more than
9,000 a year is shown in the following table:



  YEAR                            NUMBER
  1856 (Presidential election)    16,493
  1857                             8,991
  1858                             6,769
  1859                             7,636
  1860 (Presidential election)    13,556
  1861                             3,903
  1862                             2,414
  1863                             2,633
  1864 (Presidential election)    12,171
  1865                             7,428
  1866                            13,023
  1867                            15,476

  [note 1: John I. Davenport, _The Wig and the Jimmy_, p. 12.]

These figures are taken from a curious pamphlet, published in 1869
by John I. Davenport, who was United States Commissioner and Chief
Supervisor of Elections for the Southern District of New York, under
the cryptic title, _The Wig and the Jimmy_, which tells in detail the
story of the debauching of naturalization by these two courts. The
year 1868, however, saw the scandal reach unprecedented heights. Says
Mr. Davenport:[10]

  ... Notwithstanding that the yearly average of naturalizations
  had been but about 9,000; that the greatest number naturalized in
  a single year never reached 16,500; that three years had elapsed
  since the close of the war in which 35,927 aliens had been made
  citizens, a yearly average of 11,975, or an excess of 3,000 per
  year above the annual average for twelve years; that the addition
  of such excess to the diminished numbers naturalized in 1862,
  1863, and 1864 would preserve the ratio, and account for those
  who from fear of being drafted had refrained from applying during
  those years of the war; that the rebellion had reduced the alien
  population of New York City, many of whom enlisted, were killed,
  died from disease, or after the war found homes elsewhere; and,
  finally, that the yearly average of emigration (_sic_) from and
  including 1847 to 1860--a period of 13 years--had been 197,435,
  while for the four years from 1860 to 1863 inclusive--and none who
  arrived subsequently could be legally naturalized in 1868--the
  yearly average of alien arrivals had been but 100,962, or an
  annual loss of one-half, yet orders were early in September passed
  along the Democratic line to prepare on a gigantic scale for the
  naturalization of aliens during the coming month. The Supreme
  Court also determined for the first time to engage in the work
  of making citizens. In accordance with this known determination,
  there were printed for the use of the courts ... a total of 30,000
  applications and 30,000 certificates for the Superior Court, and
  75,000 applications and 39,000 certificates for the amateur court

The Court of Common Pleas, which save for a year or two previous
had done the larger share of the work of naturalization, did but
little in 1868, its total for the year being 3,145, of which 1,645
were in October. Justice requires the further statement that there
was no evidence whatever of any fraud in this court, although all
its judges were elected as Democrats, while proof was abundant that
the duty entrusted to it of making citizens of the United States was
discharged throughout with marked propriety and dignity.

In the Supreme and Superior Courts only were frauds proven. To what
extent we will now consider. The following table was sworn to as
being the daily number of applications for naturalization on file in
the Supreme Court Clerk’s office for 1868:


  OCTOBER, 1868

  October  6           6
     “     7           8
     “     8         379
     “     9         668
     “    10         717
     “    12         723
     “    13         901
     “    14         523
     “    15         857
     “    16         721
     “    17         633
     “    19         955
     “    20         944
     “    21         773
     “    22         675
     “    23         587
       Total      10,070

The significance of these great totals of applications for
naturalization within a few days before election appears in Mr.
Davenport’s summary of the behavior of the judges:[11]

  But the essential aid rendered by these judges need not be further
  detailed. It was mainly comprised of one or more of the following
  derelictions of duty:

  I. Hasty and incomplete examination of applicants and witnesses.

  II. Total neglect at times to examine the one class or the other.

  III. Through negligence, imposition, which might easily have been
  guarded against, or direct complicity, the issue of certificates in
  the names of persons who never appeared in Court, applied therefor,
  produced a witness, or took an oath.

  IV. Similar issue of certificates to applicants, persons of assumed
  or fictitious names and others, upon the oath of residence and
  moral character of persons of assumed and fictitious names, or of
  known criminals and persons of immoral character.

  V. Similar issue of certificates upon “minor applications” when
  the persons to whom such certificates issued were known, or could
  readily have been ascertained to be, unentitled thereto on such

  VI. Total neglect or refusal to commit known disreputable
  persons and others whose business it was for pecuniary or other
  consideration to act as witnesses, and who in such capacity
  repeatedly appeared before them.

  VII. The conducting of naturalization proceedings in a secret
  manner, by causing citizens and others to be denied admission to
  the court-room, or ejected therefrom when observed.

The Judiciary Committee of the New York State Assembly, in a report
upon the first notorious election frauds made to that House of the
state legislature thirty years before, or on April 6, 1838, already
had registered the fact that this was no post-war state of affairs,
and depicted the situation of which the frauds of 1868 were only one
year’s fruit:

  Men vote who do not reside in the ward, often not in the state;
  aliens are frequently brought to the polls and their vote imposed
  upon the inspectors, although many of them have not been a week in
  the country; and voters are not infrequently taken from poll to
  poll, voting in three or four different wards at the same election.
  These are the frauds constantly practiced at our elections, to the
  disgrace of the state, and to the manifest wrong of the country.

It was partly the sense of the great public danger lying in such
conditions, partly the growing anti-foreign feeling, and altogether
an improving public morality, that beginning about 1870 and
increasing as the years passed, brought about the cleansing of public
elections and the reform embodied in the naturalization law of 1906
which has totally abolished the situation into which the immigrants
of the mid-century and earlier stepped as into a swamp. Still
survives in some quarters the notion that the alien is hurried from
the ship to the ballot box, and that he pours therein some corrupting
influence brought with him from abroad. The latter never was true; he
has accepted and taken advantage of the situation which we ourselves
created and suffered for generations to exist. The former was true
during three-quarters of a century, but it is true no longer, and has
not been true for nearly two decades.


Bear it in mind that the chief motive of the newcomer is the
same as that which usually leads men to go anywhere--the desire
to “better himself.” It is notable that a very large number of
immigrants arrive with the notion that the Republican party is the
“party of prosperity,” of the “full dinner pail,” high wages,
and the other advantages which have been the widely advertised
slogans of that party. Without passing upon the question of the
truth of these slogans, one may note that what actually happens is
that the immigrant’s real search is for that connection, political
or industrial, which involves employment and other advantages of
a material kind. As soon as the conditions permit, he joins the
penumbra of the political organization which has jobs to distribute,
which controls public contracts and the wages that go with them.
That means Tammany and the Democratic party in New York City; in
Philadelphia it means the Republican organization, which in its day
has followed and in some respects surpassed Tammany in all the ways
of political corruption and machinism. In other cities it has been to
this party or that, as the dominant color shifted, that the immigrant
has swung.

As long as the naturalization process was the sport of corrupt
politics, the political organizations gave early attention to
the alien. With the institution of the present stringent law
and practice, however, and also with the vast magnitude of the
flood--swamping all the machinery which had been devised to absorb
the immigrants--the politicians up to a recent time ceased to pay any
attention to them. One of the results of this has been a considerable
increase in the lapse of time between the arrival of the immigrant
and his first steps in the direction of citizenship. One of the most
enterprising of the younger leaders of Tammany Hall said to the
present writer some months ago:

  We don’t pay any attention to the alien until he comes to us for
  some favor--a job, a peddling license, some help when his boy is
  arrested, or assistance in getting out his naturalization papers.
  There’s too many of ’em. When they do come, we do what we can for
  them, and naturally we say: “Well, how about it? Are you going to
  see the Democratic organization only when you want something? Why
  aren’t you a citizen? Get yourself naturalized and then come along
  with us.”

All of which is very natural and human, and a good illustration of
the way in which the politician gets his hold upon the individual
voter--newcomer or native.

The war created a new interest in the alien, brought new pressure
upon him to become a citizen. Private concerns demanded at least
“first papers” as a condition for employment; labor organizations
intensified their insistence upon citizenship, or at least
declaration of intention, as a prerequisite to membership; laws were
passed in many states increasing the disabilities of aliens. And
the political organizations generally have returned, but in a far
better spirit, to the former search for voters among the foreign
born; creating committees and bureaus to assist the alien in getting
naturalization, and resuming the old “hand-picking” methods of
getting the foreign born into active participation.

Little attention has been paid to the extent to which the
politicians use private jobs as a part of their patronage. Not
only the petty employments in saloons and even brothels have been
at the disposal of the local leaders; but places for unskilled
labor with street-railroad corporations and other public utilities
needing the franchises and privileges in the public streets, have
been utilized as the coin-current of local political traffic. Not
infrequently a merchant finds that the stringency of the enforcement
of ordinances regarding his buildings, blocking sidewalks with his
merchandise, etc., is considerably mitigated after he has acted upon
the suggestion of a district leader as to the employment of some
person as truck hand or watchman. And the writer well remembers
one occasion, many years ago in Chicago, when the street-railroad
companies were keenly interested in an aldermanic election, wherein
the polling places in certain doubtful wards were blocked by long
lines of obviously foreign-born laborers, few if any of them voters,
who did not attempt to vote, but monopolized the line for blocks,
effectively slowing down the voting so as to prevent the real voters
from getting to the polls at all!


The secret of the whole business lies in the fact that political
machines, and the political bosses of all sizes and grades who make
up their staffs, are powerful and long-lived in just the measure
to which they grow out of and identify their activities with the
rank and file of the community--clear down to the bottom. The
vote of a new-made citizen born in Galicia or Syria or Portugal
is just as good for his purpose as that of a Son of the American
Revolution--vastly more so if (as sometimes happens) the new voter
will follow his “advice” and the old one will not! Furthermore, their
vitality, especially in the poorer sections, is commensurate with the
_constancy_ of their activities; that is, their practical utility to
the people all the time, for all purposes. As William Bennet Munro

  The work which the party organizations lay out to do, and in large
  measure actually perform, is extensive and exacting. It does not,
  as in Europe, all fall within the few weeks which precede an
  election; it is spread over the whole year.

And he goes on to describe, aptly, why this work is “spread over
the whole year,” and how it comes about that the boss, little or
big, acquires so great an influence in his bailiwick. What he says
applies most aptly to the so-called “poorer districts,” where the
foreign-born voters live in the greatest numbers:

  It seems usually to be forgotten that the evolution of the boss
  follows the law of natural selection, which in this case secures
  the survival of the man who is most resourceful in using to
  full advantage the conditions that he finds about him. To gain
  even a ward leadership and to hold this post requires industry,
  perseverance, and, no end of shrewd tactfulness. He must not be
  content with doing the work that comes to him; he must look for
  things to do. As his work consists mainly in doing favors for
  voters, he must inspire requests as well as grant them. Therefore
  he encourages voters to come to him for help when they are out of
  work, or in any other sort of trouble. When a voter is arrested,
  the ward or district leader will lend his services to secure bail
  or to provide counsel, or will arrange to have the offender’s fine
  paid for him. Then there are the day-to-day favors which the local
  boss stands ready to do for all who come to him, provided they are
  voters or can influence voters.

Picturing the boss thus as the district philanthropist, the
description goes on to enlarge upon the more sinister uses to which
the power thus gained is devoted, in punishing disloyalty. And this
is even more effective upon those relatively unfamiliar with the
niceties, the ins-and-outs, of public administration:

  If a word from the boss will get one man employment, a word will
  also, very often, procure another employee’s dismissal. At a hint
  from him, the small shopkeeper, the peddler, the pawnbroker, the
  hackman, can be worried daily by the police or by the health
  and sanitary officials of the city on baseless or imaginary
  pretexts--tactics in which, as the history of almost every larger
  city shows, the machinery is unrelenting and vindictive.

The affirmative side of the district leader’s activity is the one
that makes most impression upon the neighborhood. Almost every sort
of reformer, who would bring to the foreign-speaking district a
sense of the need for voting for a different sort of alderman, for
example, lives in another part of town, represents another stratum of
society, comes into no sort of natural touch with his foreign-born
fellow citizen. But the latter knows the district leader--last winter
he got a job, a little coal, a bed in a hospital for his wife; his
boy was let off by the police after a piece of reckless mischief;
or there was some other human favor; and all the return he is asked
to make--cheap enough, to be sure--is that on election day he shall
vote as the district leader who helped him in his need asks him to
vote. What difference does it make to him? Show him a difference,
convince him that something real, something that he can understand,
is involved, and he will respond. But nobody shows him. “Uptown,”
whence comes the reformer whom he does not know, and whose motives he
has no substantial reason to respect, does not understand his life
or its problems; does not even live in the ward. The district leader
does. He is his neighbor, and he sees him almost every day.

Then, too, the political organization meets him on the social side,
provides a club, which in the intervals between elections gives
entertainments, has pool tables, provides cigars; used to provide
liquor. A spirit of fellowship grows up; the new foreign-born voter
gains acquaintance at the natural point of contact between his daily
life and the politics into which he is being introduced. The result
is obvious.


The spontaneous groups of foreign-speaking people of nearly every
race, which have sprung up everywhere in response to the varied needs
of the strangers within our gates--social, insurance, musical,
athletic, etc.--necessarily and naturally take on political aspects.
As President Wilson said once, “politics is human nature”; there
is nothing sinister about this fact. It is wholesome that groups
of folk, coming together spontaneously about a nucleus of common
interest, should consider together and act together, in regard to
such public matters as they think concern them. The only thing that
is really dangerous in a republic is stolid indifference; it is on
_that_ that corruption and injustice feed.

In the matter of helping their fellow countrymen to secure
naturalization, these organizations perform a service of value and
importance both to the alien and to the country. Many of these
racial societies devote much attention to old-country politics,
and form nests of propaganda and even more concrete activity whose
effects are felt not so much in this country as “back home.” And
when, as in the case of Ireland, Poland, Italy, and so on, the
issues of foreign politics are made the bone of contention in
American political contests, these German-American, Italian-American,
Polish-American societies may become exceedingly active in our own
affairs, and project lines of division which may greatly complicate
the politician’s task, and sometimes stand him upon his head.[13]

It is not too much to say that the power of Tammany Hall in politics,
and that of every other important political organization in
Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, or elsewhere--including
those dominant in rural districts--grows out of intimate association
with the people _in their daily lives_, and could grow out of nothing
else. “Power and patronage,” says Professor Munro, “provide a cycle
hard to break.” True; but “power and patronage” is only a phrase.
Behind it lies the fact that the politician gains and holds his power
because he deserves it; through his organization of the machinery,
always “on the job,” through which human beings, with wives and
children to feed, clothe and shelter, get the means to do it. The
small, unskilled job in the employ of the city, or of business which
can be helped or harmed by political or official action, is the
coin-current through which the politician controls--so far as he does
control--the rank and file of the foreign-born voters. This, and the
small and larger personal human favors that he is in a position to

Here, with the first economic “toe-hold” that the immigrant gets in
America, begins his introduction to our life and to our politics.


Politics, local politics--the ordinary interest of the ordinary
citizen; the day’s work and the day’s life, are great Americanizing
forces, and they are working every minute. The immigrant generally,
especially he of the so-called “new immigration,” comes here without
much if any experience in public affairs. All the life of all
the generations from which he comes has been passed without real
participation; government in the old country went on over his head,
in a rarefied stratum which he never entered and of which he knew
little. That is one reason why, on the average, it takes more than
ten years for him to come to the point of asking for citizenship.

Of late some of the very people who declared that the immigrant
comes here with only “sordid motives” have favored pressure upon
him to become a citizen by means of refusing him employment unless
he does become one. The great increase in declarations of intention
during the past three or four years has been due almost entirely to
the restrictions adopted formally or informally all over the country
confining employment, even in privately owned industries, to those
who have at least taken out “first papers.” Even in the Bureau of
Naturalization there was for a time more than a tendency to pursue
this policy of forcing citizenship upon aliens. It was abandoned
because no government can kidnap the subjects or citizens of another
without getting into difficulty. There is still a good deal of
confusion of thought about this matter.

The importance of it lies in the fact--obvious to any right thought
about it--that we want for our new citizens _only those who come of
their own accord and free will_. We want, moreover, only those who
are right-minded. The effort to stamp out the use of every mother
tongue but one, to obliterate all affection for the old home in
Scandinavia, Bavaria, Dalmatia, Bohemia, not only is futile; we do
not want for our fellow citizens the kind of people who can turn
their back without a qualm upon the memories of childhood.

      Breathes there the man with soul so dead
      Who never to himself hath said,
        This is my own, my native land!
      Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned
      As home his footsteps he hath turned
        From wandering on a foreign strand?

What sort of an American could be made out of one able in any
circumstances--worst of all under repressive compulsion--to turn his
back upon the tongue, the traditions, and the associations of his
fathers? We are not such ourselves, and in our sane minds we do not
want those who join us to be such. The process of real assimilation
is a process slow in its nature, reaching not forms and words, but
sentiments of the highest and most subtle kind.

You cannot beat love of country into any worthwhile person with a
club--or with a law.



There is, indeed, such a thing as a “man without a country,” and it
is only a few years since the United States, even if inadvertently,
legislated so that there may easily be now a woman without one. But
the laws of nations make no provisions for the existence voluntarily
of anyone who may regard himself as “a citizen of the world.” With
the vanishment of _terra incognita_ in the final achievement of human
exploration at the two poles of the earth, virtually every foot of
the surface of the globe has come, at least constructively, under the
dominion of some government. And with it every man, woman, and child
on earth has acquired or had thrust upon him a legal nationality
of some sort, from which, generally speaking, he can escape only
by choosing or having thrust upon him another--however feeble or
tenuous its grasp, however slight or contemptuous his perception and
recognition of it.

The Great War emphatically registered this fact, with its ruthless
inclusion of friend, neutral, and foe within some category of
practicable citizenship. In the United States the Selective
Service Act, and other legislation as well--to say nothing of the
extra-legal practices indulged in under cover of the popular state
of mind--permitted no human being to regard himself as immune to
effective classification under some sovereignty. The “conscientious
objector,” the “philosophical anarchist,” and every sort of
philosopher, however much he previously may have imagined himself
free to abjure allegiance to government, found that his property, his
food, his sons, his own very personal flesh-and-blood, were, after
all, not his own, but were subject to conscription by the state.
However much his spirit might be of fellowship with the saints of his
cult or religion, in all material respects he must render unto Cæsar
the things that Cæsar said were Cæsar’s.

From the most primitive times this has been so, even if in the
America of the happy-go-lucky times of peace it has been lightly
regarded or scarcely realized at all. The “gang spirit,” under the
sway of which men always have held loyalty to the local clan to
be one of the chief of obligatory virtues, is of the essence and
fabric of group life, and is the tap-root of patriotism. It embodies
an allegiance both to blood and to locality. Through the warp of
all political history are woven two kindred threads representing
these two allegiances; sometimes one, sometimes the other--in later
development something of both. The lawyers speak of them as the _Jus
Sanguinis_, the Law of the Blood, and the _Jus Solis_, the Law of
the Soil, and distinguish between them; but both represent the claim
of the community upon the loyalty and, if need be, the sacrifice and
bodily service of the individual.

A classic illustration of the deeply embedded feeling that man cannot
separate himself from the virtues, the sins, and the limitations of
his clan, his country, is the tragedy in the valley of Achor, related
in the Old Testament Book of Joshua,[14] wherein it was held that the
sin of Achan the son of Zerah was _ipso facto_ the sin of all Israel.
And for the offense of one man,

  ... Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah,
  and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his
  sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his
  sheep, and his tent, and all that he had; ... and all Israel stoned
  him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned
  them with stones.[15]

This, with a vengeance, was a dramatization of the _Jus Sanguinis_,
the Law of the Blood, by virtue of which an individual acquires
nationality and civic responsibility through the blood of his
ancestry, regardless of the place of his birth!


The principle was a natural consequence upon the nomadic life of
families and tribes, of primitive groups wandering often in strange
and even hostile territory, to whom in absence of fixed abode and
boundaries locality was of little importance, but tribal solidarity
and unity of purpose and allegiance were vital to defense, to group
survival. The family, and after it the clan or group of blood-related
families, were the beginnings of political society.

Throughout ancient times the Law of the Blood persisted; the law
of citizenship in early Greece and Rome was based upon the idea of
family inheritance. But with the dissolution of the Roman Empire
and the rise of feudalism, the _Jus Sanguinis_ gradually gave way
to a standard of citizenship based upon locality--to _Jus Solis_,
under which a child became _ipso facto_ a citizen or subject of the
jurisdiction within which he was born, more or less regardless of
the nationality or allegiance of his parents. This was a natural
concomitant of feudalism; as the conflicts between military
chieftains and groups divided the land into relatively definite
jurisdictions, and the tenure of territory and the stability of
boundaries and peace in the realm depended almost wholly upon
military strength, it was to the interest of both lord and vassal to
maintain the largest possible forces for defense, and conservation of
population depended chiefly upon birth. Even to the peasant subject,
maintenance of almost any _status quo_ was comparatively worth while
for the sake of the peaceful enjoyment of such home and happiness as
were his lot.


Beginning with the period immediately following the French
Revolution--which, it should be remembered, was only the most violent
and impressive of the upheavals of that general epoch in many parts
of Europe--a distinct reaction toward the _Jus Sanguinis_ appeared.
This is variously accounted for; but most historians attribute it
to a desire on the part of the older countries of Europe to offset
the serious loss of subjects threatened by emigration to America,
which had begun to tempt adventurous souls by the opportunity for
individual liberty and initiative and escape from the tyrannies of
feudalism and religious autocracy.

Whatever the reason, the nineteenth century witnessed on the one hand
the return of the nations of the Old World to the Law of the Blood,
and on the other the development in the New World of the Law of the

This is a theoretical statement. In point of fact, in the designation
of the mode of acquisition or loss of citizenship, no two of the
nations of the world are exactly in accord; the most hopeless
confusion exists; but with a constant and increasing effort to
harmonize the procedure, and now with a good hope that in the coming
days some measure of uniformity may become practicable. In matters of
secondary importance, such as the international postal regulations,
telegraphic communication and sanitary co-operation, it has been
virtually impossible thus far to bring about a common policy. How
much more difficult must it be to harmonize the principles of
citizenship, involving, as that does, intricate historical and
political considerations--immensely complicated by the shifts of
boundary due to the war--and the very bases of national existence in
the control by the community of the allegiance and the industrial and
military service of subjects and citizens?


Nevertheless, all countries have in some measure practically
recognized the right of the human individual to emigrate, though
there have persisted laws and decrees expressing the attempt to
retain legal jurisdiction and allegiance. The strength of these
efforts depends largely upon whether the basic theory of citizenship
has its roots in the _Jus Sanguinis_ or the _Jus Solis_. For it
may be said generally that the nations of the world are divided
roughly in this regard by their adherence to the one theory or the
other, though we look almost in vain for a pure example of either;
in some countries there are interwoven lines of both, and in many
it is almost impossible to determine which prevails. For practical
purposes, and subject to such modifications as may be made in the
era of readjustment upon which the World War has launched us, we may
depend upon the following general classification:

_The Jus Sanguinis_ dominates in Austria, China, Finland, France,
Germany, Hungary, Japan, Monaco, Norway, Persia, Rumania, Serbia.

_The Jus Solis_ prevails in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, and in

_The Jus Sanguinis combined with the Jus Solis_ is found in Belgium,
Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Russia, Spain, Turkey.

_The Jus Solis modified by the Jus Sanguinis_ prevails in most of
the states of the Americas, and in Bulgaria, Denmark, Egypt, Great
Britain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland.


In thought and writing on the subject of citizenship, two concepts
of the word “citizen” persist, and usually are treated as to such
an extent interchangeable as to produce a fatal confusion. For they
are not interchangeable. They differ in essence, and it is of the
utmost importance that they should be clearly distinguished. In the
distinction lies all the difference between Liberty and Autocracy.
Something, if not all, of this difference lies in the distinction
between the Law of the Blood and the Law of the Soil.

The first and commonest of these concepts is that which must have
colored the thought of the feudal lord as he looked upon “his”
people, belonging to him because they belonged to the soil which his
sword controlled. This concept contemplates the citizen or subject as
invested with the character of a national body politic, bound by an
obligatory allegiance to it and its political institutions because he
is there, born there, or led there by the circumstances of his life.

The other concept, which we like to think constitutes the basis
of what we call “America,” for it is of the essence of anything
worthy of the name of Democracy, contemplates the citizen as a
_participant_ in the fact of sovereignty, one who owns an undivided
and indivisible share in the community title, and whose right
and duty it is to take a definite part and acknowledge a definite
responsibility in the business of government. In this study of
naturalization and political life of the foreign-born citizen it is
with this second concept that we have most to do.


What, then, are the essentials of that citizenship to which an alien
aspires and addresses himself when he seeks to become an active
member in the American community whose members are something more
than mere chattels of the sovereign?

“There is nothing that more characterizes a complete citizen,” says
Aristotle, “than having a share in the judicial and executive part
of the government.... He, and he only, is a citizen who enjoys a due
share in the government of that community of which he is a member.”
But Aristotle was speaking from the point of view of a community in
which not all individuals there resident were the sort of citizens
he was talking about. According to that great Greek the best-ordered
states did not include in the term “citizen” mechanics or others who
worked for wages, and utterly unmentionable in any such connection
was the great mass of slaves who had virtually no human rights at
all. Aristotle’s “citizen” was one of the relatively few endowed
with political rights and responsibilities. In the Greek city-states
and in the early Roman Republic, citizenship was at first restricted
to certain of the older houses (_phylos, gentes_), but with the
development of economic intercourse the few dominant families
gradually lost their exclusive power, and other free inhabitants were
included in participation in the affairs of state.

In Rome the right of citizenship was conferred at first upon the
leading families in allied cities, and later upon whole communities.
By the year 100 B.C., nearly all Italians were citizens. But the
Empire brought about great restrictions in this matter; a gradual
narrowing of the limitations took place; along with a great
extension of the name “citizen” came a great decrease in the actual
participation of the “citizen” in the business of government; so that
by the time the Emperor Caracalla was extending something called
“citizenship” to all Roman subjects, he actually was doing little
more than to make certain intolerable taxes universal.

So the old Greek and Roman idea of “citizenship” will not answer our
purpose. We have, however imperfect our realization of the fact,
something quite different to offer, something vastly greater to

In the modern world citizenship has come to mean membership in a
political community. It involves the status of an individual with
reference to a particular state. And that status is determined by
the laws of the individual states, for everywhere it is stoutly
maintained that the right to determine how and when a person may
become and remain a citizen is one of the first prerogatives of
sovereignty. In a number of recent works on citizenship the question
has been raised whether the bond of citizenship is by nature
contractual. The affirmative is held by Prof. Andrew Weiss of the
University of Paris; he declares it to be “generally recognized that
the bond of nationality is a contractual one; and that the bond
uniting to the state each of its citizens is formed by an agreement
of their wills, express or implied.” This view is rejected as unsound
by various English and American publicists.[16] These writers assert
that whatever may be the theory of the origin of the state, the fact
is that the relation of the citizen to the state is a relation _sui
generis_, and that the admission of a person to membership in a state
is an act of sovereignty. The law of the state is supreme.

The reasonable fact is that there is an element of truth in both of
these contentions. The great increase in facilities for international
communication and travel has made emigration a common thing, and
the law in practice, whatever it may be in letter, has recognized
in varying ways the fact that the human individual can, does abjure
his “contract” with the state where he has lived, and seek admission
to one which for this reason and that he thinks likely to be more
salubrious for the pursuit of what he regards as his happiness. For,
after all is said, the fact remains that men stay here or go there in
that pursuit. A crowd goes home when it begins to rain not because
the crowd is getting wet, but because each individual of it, in his
separate personal eachness, so to speak, has water running down his
neck and desires to find a place where he can get dry. Waves of
emigration represent countless individuals each of whom believes that
elsewhere, or in some particular place, he can be more comfortable in
the practices and activities which constitute his life by day and by
night, and maybe find a broader and richer field in which to grow and
raise his family.

The offer of just this kind of opportunity has induced many hundreds
of thousands of human beings from all parts of the earth to dissolve
the bond, contractual or what you will, between themselves and the
land of their birth or previous habitation, and come to these shores.
We have invited them, and devised elaborate machinery by which to
welcome them into our fellowship. Not only has the invitation been
definitely expressed; we have opened wide gates in our bars, and
placed premiums upon entrance therein.


The bases of citizenship in this country are two, established in the
Constitution of the United States and the legislation and decisions
explanatory thereof:

I. Every person, of whatever race descended, born in the United
States and subject to its jurisdiction, including children of
American fathers born abroad, is _ipso facto_ a citizen of the United

II. All other persons eligible for citizenship in the United States
must acquire that citizenship through the legal process known as

It was in the great case of Wong Kim Ark[17] that the Supreme Court,
in 1897, established the right of _citizenship by birth on this soil,
regardless of race or descent_. The question in this case involved
a child born in California, of Chinese parents who, because of
their race, could not themselves become citizens. In this decision,
a classic in the law of American citizenship, the court set forth
the following fundamental principles to be observed in determining
citizenship by birth in the United States:

1. The Constitution of the United States must be interpreted in the
light of the Common Law, under which every child born in England,
even though of alien parents, was a natural-born citizen.

2. The qualifying words in the Fourteenth Amendment, “and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof,” exclude two classes of persons--children
born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of
diplomatic representatives of a foreign state. (The latter, from
the earliest times, both under the laws of England and in decisions
of American courts, had been recognized to be exceptions to the
fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the national

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,[18] adopted in 1868,
incorporated no new rule or principle into American law. Neither did
the Civil Rights Act, passed in 1866 as a Reconstruction measure,
although it was the first statutory definition in the United States
of citizenship by birth. That Act says:

  All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any
  foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the
  United States and of the States where they reside.


The English Common Law, then, is the original source of our
definition. That definition, taken over with the formation of the
American Republic out of the English colonies, was so familiar, so
much a part of the nature of things political, that nobody thought it
necessary to formulate it--or a new one.

  By the Common Law of England, every person born within the
  dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign
  parents--and in the latter case whether the parents were settled
  or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English
  subject; save only children of foreign ambassadors ... or a child
  born in hostile occupation of any part of the territories of

When the Constitution of the United States was made, a “citizenship
of the United States” was recognized but nowhere defined, and it was
nearly a century before it found specific statutory expression in the
Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Meanwhile, not only
the courts, but the Executive, invariably recognized the validity of
the Common Law Rule, and the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1897 merely
restated it once for all.[20]


There are certain elaborations and modifications of the two great
principles mentioned above, serving both to confirm and circumscribe
them. Children born abroad of American citizens in the foreign
service of the United States government are citizens of the United
States, and like citizenship comes by birth to children “born out of
the limits and jurisdiction, whose fathers were or may be at the time
of their birth citizens thereof.”[21] But the father must have been a
citizen at the time of the birth of the child, and must have resided
actually in the United States; that is, it will not do for him merely
to have acquired citizenship abroad by the fact of the citizenship of
his father without ever having resided in this country.

If the father loses his citizenship after the birth of the child, it
has been held that such child upon attaining his majority may revive
his right to citizenship by establishing residence here. And by
virtue of legislation enacted in 1907, these foreign-born children of
American parentage are required, upon reaching the age of eighteen,
to register their intention to become residents, and to remain
citizens, of the United States, and upon attaining majority to take
the Oath of Allegiance to the United States.

The Department of State has been very liberal in interpreting this
provision, allowing the declaration of intention to be made at any
time after the person concerned has reached the age of eighteen,
and before he has taken the oath, which may be at any reasonable
time after his majority. The main question raised is that of good
faith. Arises here the principle of “election of nationality”; many
countries accord to a person thus in danger of what might be called
“dual nationality” the right to choose. This is the case in France,
Spain, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Mexico, Chile, and Costa
Rica. In Portugal, Italy, and France, failure to exercise this choice
operates as a choice of citizenship there; in Spain, on the other
hand, silence is construed as a choice of the foreign nationality.
This is the purport of the American practice.[22]


It is commonly believed that children of foreign parents born on the
high seas under the American flag are as a matter of law “born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but this is
not clearly the case. As Borchard puts it, the child “is probably
an American citizen under our law and may also be a foreign subject
_jure sanguinis_.” Hence he would, upon attaining majority, have a
right of election.


Can a person gain a new citizenship without losing the old? The
aspirant for American citizenship is required in both his declaration
of intention and his final petition for naturalization to abjure in
most specific fashion not merely all other allegiances, but most
particularly that from which he has come. But the sovereignty thus
repudiated is not always willing to be abjured, and international
diplomacy has been in the past much occupied with the tangles growing
out of the question of “dual nationality.” For one not uncommon
example, the child of alien parents born in the United States and
thereby under our law a citizen of this country, may be taken in
childhood back to his father’s native land, and upon reaching
military age may be summoned to military service. The United States
has not been prone to defend such persons when their actual residence
in the old country was clear, but it has been maintained that upon
the attainment of his majority such a person has the right to elect
and re-establish his American citizenship.

The most common difficulties arise practically, however, from the
fact that under the terms of his declaration to become a citizen
of the United States, the alien repudiates his allegiance to his
fatherland and its sovereignty, but does not gain, and cannot gain,
for at least two years in any circumstances, a new citizenship. He
has in most specific fashion flouted the government he had, but the
government he desires to have will not protect him. For his practical
uses, it is a question whether he has now _two_ nationalities or
_none_! Moreover, there have been countries and times in which the
right to change allegiance was altogether denied.

In their attitude on the subject of voluntary expatriation the
nations differ widely, and are divisible in this matter under three
heads: those which deny the right altogether, those which permit it
under certain conditions, and those which place no bar in the way.


Under the old regime, the Russian imperial government laid a heavy
penalty upon the Russian subject who returned to Russia after having
been naturalized abroad without the imperial consent.[23]

Turkey, under a law proclaimed in 1869, prohibited the naturalization
of its subjects abroad without the permission of the Turkish
government. The penalty provided was imprisonment or expulsion.[24]
In practice, however, expulsion has been the only penalty inflicted,
and the United States has contented itself with an occasional protest.

The practice of Greece is not entirely clear-cut or consistent.
A law enacted in 1914 requires the permission of the government
before naturalization abroad; in practice this is not given to those
who have not discharged their legal obligations as to military
service.[25] The practical effect of this attitude on the part of
Greece has been shown chiefly in the failure of Greeks in this
country quite generally to seek naturalization.


The obligation which these countries commonly require as a
prerequisite to permission is that of military service for the
required period. Perhaps the best example of this group is France,
which has provided by law that its nationals may divest themselves
of their French citizenship provided they are thirty-one years of
age, and thus may be presumed to have complied with the conditions
of military service.[26] The other countries requiring similar
conditions are Italy, the Netherlands, Serbia, and Switzerland;
the usual penalty being liability to arrest upon return, and the
compulsory fulfillment of the military requirements. But Switzerland
provides for an annual tax in lieu of the military requirement.

The United States government has repeatedly sought through diplomatic
channels to secure mitigation of penalties inflicted by these
countries on its naturalized citizens; in many cases with a greater
or less measure of success; but it has been unable to secure by
treaty with any of these countries an unconditional recognition of
the right of expatriation.


The first naturalization treaties which this government negotiated
embodying recognition of the right of expatriation were the so-called
“Bancroft Treaties” of 1869, with the states of the North German
Confederation--Bavaria, Hesse, Baden, and Württemberg. In the four
years following similar treaties were concluded with Belgium, Great
Britain, Sweden, and Norway, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, and Ecuador.
Since then treaties of like import have been effected with Haiti,
Portugal, Peru, Honduras, Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Brazil,
and Costa Rica.[27] These treaties provide, in substance, for
expatriation at will, but stipulate that subjects liable for offenses
committed prior to emigration shall continue liable for the same, and
that two years’ continuous resumption of residence in the country of
origin shall be presumptive evidence of renewed citizenship in the
old country. Under our own law, this loss of acquired citizenship
by two years’ continuous residence in the country of origin is
specifically recognized. And it is also generally provided that upon
return to his former country a naturalized American shall be liable
to punishment for the “evasion of an existing or accrued liability to
military service”; but he is protected against the exaction of what
was at the time of emigration merely (by reason of youth) a _future_
liability to serve.[28]


Until the year 1870, England held tenaciously to the doctrine of the
indelibility of national allegiance. Everyone was free to emigrate at
will and live where he pleased, but wherever he went, and whatsoever
he might do in the attempt to acquire another citizenship, he was
an Englishman still, in the eyes of the British law inalienably a
subject of the British crown. Although the author probably did not
realize it, there was a certain grimness underlying the lines in

      But, in spite of all temptations
      To belong to other nations,
          He is an Englishman!

And although the War of 1812 between the United States and Great
Britain was chiefly provoked by the insistence of England upon her
slogan, “Once an Englishman always an Englishman,” and her refusal to
mitigate her policy with regard to British-born sailors naturalized
by the United States, the theory continued to be stoutly declared
as a matter of principle, though perhaps with diminishing emphasis.
Hall says, however,[29] that by 1876 it “had become an anachronism.”
And after the report of a British royal commission on the subject,
Parliament enacted a statute providing that a British subject might
lose his British nationality by naturalization in another country.
This long-maintained attitude of Great Britain undoubtedly goes far
to account for the failure of many persons of English birth, long
resident in this country, and for all practical purposes except
political participation Americans, to seek formal adoption into our
body politic.


Most of the discussion of our citizenship relations with Germany
has centered latterly about the German Citizenship and Nationality
Law, better known as the “Delbrück Law,” enacted in July, 1913--a
year before the outbreak of the Great War. Attention has focused
especially on Section 25 of the statute, which reads as follows:

  A German who has neither his residence nor permanent abode in
  Germany loses his citizenship upon acquiring foreign citizenship,
  provided the foreign citizenship is acquired as a result of his
  own application therefor or the application of the husband or
  legal representative; but in the case of a wife of one having a
  legal representative, only when the conditions exist under which
  expatriation may be applied for according to Sections 18 and 19.

  Citizenship is not lost by one who, before acquiring foreign
  citizenship, has secured on application the written consent of the
  competent authorities of his home state to retain his citizenship.
  Before this consent is given the German consul is to be heard.

  The Imperial Chancellor may order, with the consent of the Federal
  Council, that persons who desire to acquire citizenship in a
  specified foreign country may not be granted the consent applied
  for in paragraph 2.

It was charged, and widely believed in this and other countries at
war with Germany, that this law was a device, deliberately conceived
by the German autocracy with the war in view, to enable Germans
living in other countries malevolently, or with ulterior motives and
mental reservations, to acquire naturalization there and go through
the forms of allegiance, without in fact ever losing, or being able
to lose, their German citizenship. The text of the statute certainly
gives more than plausible color to such an interpretation.

It may well be doubted whether in normal conditions, and apart from
the suspicion of Germany’s every motive, which is justified by her
conduct prior to and during the war, this statute would have received
any such interpretation in the eyes of the rest of the world; it is
difficult to divorce thought of things German from the world’s state
of mind for which Germany has only herself to thank. Nevertheless,
it is probable that the law was of normal origin, and apologists
for it assert that its design was to meet conditions existing with
reference to Russia, Italy, and France, all of which in some measure
denied the right of expatriation in absence of specific treaty.
Section 36 of the Delbrück Law definitely declares that “existing
treaties are not affected by this Act.” And when the law was under
consideration in the Reichstag, the representative of the German
government, upon being interrogated as to the effect of Sections
25 and 26 upon the Bancroft treaty between the United States and
Germany, replied, in so many words, that the German government was
obliged to look upon every German naturalized in the United States
as an American and nothing else.[30] Space is not available here for
further discussion of the real significance of the Delbrück Law;
suffice it to say that it is the subject of considerable difference
of opinion among the authorities.[31] But it may be said, in general,
that the best American authorities seem to be of the opinion that the
specific renunciation of each and every former allegiance required by
our naturalization process makes it substantially impossible for the
disputed section or any other enactment to operate as creating a dual
allegiance. Such allegiance could exist only in theory at most; in
no practical way could any foreign government enforce it as against
any person living in America. The United States, under the Bancroft
treaty and its own naturalization law, would not tolerate such an
interpretation, and as the “War Encyclopedia” of the American
Committee on Public Information said, “it would be impossible for
a German applicant for citizenship in the United States to avail
himself of this section [Section 25 of the Delbrück Law] without
committing perjury.”

So far as the “declarant” of any nationality is concerned, it
should be added that our Department of State has always sought to
maintain that a declarant is in a position different from that of
the ordinary alien, has extended a limited degree of protection, and
now issues passports under the authority of an Act passed March 2,
1907--provided he has resided in the United States for three years;
at the same time protecting itself from imposition by such persons
by limiting the validity of such passports to a term of six months,
and providing that an extended residence or domicile abroad shall
be construed as an abandonment of the declared intention. Moreover,
the naturalizing judges and the Bureau of Naturalization examine
with great strictness the reasons for any absence whatever from the
country after the declaration, and usually construe “intention” with
regard to continuous residence with emphasis against the applicant.
Many judges permit no absence, however brief, some going so far as to
rule against any absence from the very county in which the applicant
resides. And during the European War the issuance of such passports
to natives of the belligerent countries was altogether suspended.[32]

The United States was early committed not only by specific utterances
and practices, but by the whole psychology and tradition of its
being, to the principle of free expatriation; nevertheless, great
confusion existed in the interpretation of the right as it related
to efforts of American citizens to become citizens or subjects of
other countries. The policy was finally crystallized in the Act
of March 2, 1907, which provides definitely that “any American
citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been
naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, or
when he has taken an oath of allegiance to any foreign state.” This
is the Act which, in the same section, provides for the extension
of naturalization by presumption upon two years’ residence in “the
country from which he came,” or upon five years’ residence “in any
foreign state.” But it is provided that “such presumption may be
overcome on the presentation of satisfactory evidence to a diplomatic
or consular officer of the United States, under such regulations as
the Department of State may prescribe.” It is stipulated, however,
that “no American citizen shall be allowed to expatriate himself when
the country is at war.”

During the Great War many American citizens imperiled, and in fact
technically lost, their American citizenship by entering the military
service of the various belligerent nations. After the entry of the
United States into the conflict this was remedied by the enactment of
Section 12 of the Act of May 9, 1918, in which it is provided that

  ... any person who, while a citizen of the United States and during
  the existing war in Europe, entered the military or naval service
  of any country at war with a country with which the United States
  is now at war, who shall be deemed to have lost his citizenship
  by reason of any oath or obligation taken by him for the purpose
  of entering such service, may resume his citizenship by taking
  the oath of allegiance to the United States prescribed by the
  naturalization law and regulations; ...

such oath to be taken here or abroad, before any state or Federal
court authorized to naturalize aliens, or before any United States


Basic citizenship in the United States takes no account of sex.
_Every_ child, male or female, white, black, brown, red, or yellow,
“born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
is _ipso facto_ a citizen. And every unmarried woman of that nativity
is, and continues to be such, as long as she remains unmarried. Upon
marriage she takes forthwith, whether she will or no, so far as our
law is concerned, the nationality of her husband--even if he be an
alien. It is the unbroken tradition of our law, and of the laws of
nearly all other nations--in so far as they recognize women as being
individual citizens at all--that the nationality of a wife follows
that of her husband. Of that tradition was born a section of the law
of 1907 which seeks to confer upon any American woman marrying a
foreigner the nationality of her husband. When an alien man becomes a
citizen of the United States by naturalization, his wife, in ordinary
circumstances, becomes a citizen with him; the law says specifically
that “a woman who is now, or may hereafter be married to a citizen
of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized,
may be deemed a citizen.” But, generally speaking, she must, unless
herself American born, be resident in this country. The practice in
this regard has not been wholly consistent; the State Department
has held repeatedly that the naturalization of a husband does not
reach the wife if she continue to reside in the old country; but a
very uniform line of decisions is to the effect that her husband’s
naturalization makes her a citizen wherever she may be, and that
she remains a citizen even after his death unless she takes action
to repatriate herself. The Act of 1907 makes it necessary for such a
foreign-born widow resident abroad to register with a United States
consul within a year after the termination of her marriage; otherwise
her citizenship lapses.

The phrase, “who might herself be lawfully naturalized,” has
given rise to much controversy, and its significance has not been
definitively declared. Some authorities hold it to apply only to the
Oriental races excluded as such from citizenship; others hold that it
should be interpreted to call for an examination of the wife as to
her views on the subject of anarchism, polygamy, etc. But the general
tendency seems still to hold that the family is one, _and the husband
that one_; that, therefore, _any_ sort of wife comes into citizenship
automatically with the naturalization of her husband.


The nonresident American-born wife of a foreigner may, upon his death
or the termination of the marriage in any other legal manner, resume
her American citizenship by registration with a United States consul.
But what of the woman, born an American citizen, married to an alien
who continues to live? The United States statute of 1907 undertakes
to expatriate her--“any American woman who marries a foreigner shall
take the nationality of her husband.” But, in absence of specific
treaty, or of legislation in the husband’s country to that effect,
that pronouncement is without force or validity outside of the United
States; Congress has no power to confer or inflict the citizenship of
any other nation upon anybody. “The operation of this statute might
easily deprive a woman of her American citizenship--even if she had
it by right of birth--and leave her with none.”[33] It seems rather
extraordinary that of all the judges of American naturalization
courts replying to the questionnaire of the Americanization Study,
whose results are discussed elsewhere in this volume,[34] not one
referred directly to this aspect of the citizenship of the American

The person without a country is an alien everywhere his foot may
fall--no matter under what roof or flag he may seek shelter. He is
subject to the local laws and limitations governing aliens; but
he has no homeland whose flag he may call his own; no government
anywhere to which he may appeal for protection; he is dependent
without recourse upon the hospitality, grace, and mercy of the public
authorities and the people of the land where he chances to make his


In notable contrast with this dismal prospect, the American citizen,
native or naturalized, is quite otherwise. He is subject to _three_
concurrent jurisdictions. This fact is a source of great puzzlement
to many an applicant for citizenship, and constitutes one of the
stumbling-blocks which beset him in his initial understanding of our
system of government.

First, the nature of his relation to the United States. In the case
of Minor _vs._ Happersett,[35] decided in 1875, the Supreme Court of
the United States said:

  Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not
  in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States,
  yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
  There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a
  political community, such as a nation is, implies an association
  of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one
  of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed
  by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its
  protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection,
  reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other;
  allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

  For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this
  membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and
  the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words
  “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the
  choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of
  government. “Citizen” is now more commonly employed, however, and
  as it has been considered better suited to the description of one
  living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly
  all of the states upon their separation from Great Britain, and
  was afterward adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the
  Constitution of the United States. When used in that sense it is
  understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and
  nothing more.

  To determine, then, who were the citizens of the United States
  before the adoption of the [Fourteenth] amendment it is necessary
  to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together
  to form the nation, and what were afterward admitted to membership.

The effect of this decision, and of the Fourteenth Amendment whose
meaning it declared, was to determine definitively that National
Citizenship is paramount to State Citizenship. But it did not
entirely absorb the latter into the former. In the famous “Slaughter
House Cases”[36] the Supreme Court three years before had held that
there might be citizens of the United States who were not citizens
of any state, and that the Fourteenth Amendment applied particularly,
if not solely, to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the
United States, _as such_, and did not necessarily limit the right of
a state to inflict disabilities upon its own citizens.

The distinction between the two citizenships was thus stated in the
Slaughter House cases:[37]

  The distinction between citizenship of the United States and
  citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not
  only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being
  a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to
  convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the
  State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that
  he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a
  citizen of the Union. It is quite clear, then, that there is a
  citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State,
  which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different
  characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

  It is therefore decided that while a State may no longer decide the
  question of who shall be or become its citizens, the citizen of the
  United States must, before becoming a citizen of a State, take up
  his residence within the State. The term of residence is nowhere
  fixed, but a permanent residence or domicile is understood, “with
  intent that it shall continue until subsequent removal with the
  intent of abandoning such residence and acquiring another.”

These momentous adjudications did not, however, address themselves
to the matter of political participation. Although a state might
not determine who should constitute its citizen body, there was
no curtailment of its full authority to determine what political
privileges should exist, or who should enjoy them. Neither Federal
nor state citizenship, _per se_, entitles a man or woman to vote
or to hold office; these are matters of state legislation and a
number of states have accorded, and two still accord, to aliens
who have merely declared their intention to seek citizenship, the
right to vote. Moreover, respected authorities[38] hold the opinion
that, while no state can prevent a citizen of the United States
from becoming a citizen of the state, a state may grant its own
citizenship to one who is not--perhaps to one who cannot become--a
citizen of the United States.[39] But the Act of Congress, May 6,
1882, expressly prohibits the naturalization of any Chinese person.

The courts from the beginning have recognized the existence of two
concurrent, if not more or less separable, citizenships. In the
Cruikshank case in 1875,[40] the Supreme Court said:

  The people of the United States resident within any State are
  subject to two governments; one State and the other national; but
  there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one
  possesses the other does not. They are established for different
  purposes, and have different jurisdictions. Together they make
  one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with one
  government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home
  and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable
  to both jurisdictions for one and the same act.... This does not,
  however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers
  in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the
  natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two
  sovereignties and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot
  complain because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a
  form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so
  to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalty
  which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return he can
  demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.

There is still another jurisdiction to which citizens must give
attention, and to the foreigner it is an added perplexity in the
understanding of our system: the purely local laws, ordinances, and
rulings of city, health, police; of country, town, and village; and
sometimes these seem to run counter to one another, and leave him in
a maze of fear and uncertainty--to say nothing of those mysterious
exceptions, exemptions, and immunities which seem to be accorded
for the benefit of those who, by political loyalty or subserviency,
favoritism--and even cash payments upon occasion--have got themselves
“in right,” as the saying goes.

The problems of national solidarity and loyalty raised so acutely
all over the country by the exigencies and conflicts of the war
have made the mass of the people of the United States keen as never
before about the standards and technical tests of citizenship. The
tendency, very marked now, is to establish and uphold the uniformity
of conditions which beyond a doubt shall represent the spirit, if not
the letter, of the law. We are now to consider the machinery and the
process which the aspirant for citizenship confronts as he knocks at
our wicket.



Naturalization, the legal ceremony by which the native or adopted
citizen of one country acquires citizenship in another, is in its
significance and essentials very ancient--it goes back to the blood
transfusion and other primitive ceremonials by which those of other
kin were admitted as brothers to full standing in family, clan,
or tribal membership. It registers and effectuates two distinct
things--a divorce and a new marriage, so to say. There are two
parties to the twofold process: the petitioner, who on his own
account renounces the old allegiance and professes his desire and his
intention to assume the new; and the adopting government which, on
its part, accepts the applicant and upon him confers the standing and
privileges and imposes the responsibilities and obligations attaching
to citizenship under its protection and authority. This is precisely
the nature of the process through which must go every foreign-born
person who becomes an active member of the United States.


As in the case of other new organizations, we had at the beginning
what might be called “Charter Members.” We were not fussy about it.
There was no prejudice then against the newcomer--we “needed him
in our business!” The Constitution of the United States in its
inception took in as a matter of course everybody then resident
here who by any color of law could be construed to be entitled
to membership. Even the provision requiring native birth for the
Presidency limited it only to one natural born, “or a citizen of the
United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”[41]
Martin van Buren was actually the first President born an American
citizen. The seven who preceded him all were born subjects of the
British crown.

Prior to 1700, few immigrants who were not British subjects had
sought homes in the American colonies; the few of other nationality
found no difficulty in being accepted as fellow citizens with those
who preceded them. For obvious reasons, the Colonial governments were
liberal in granting civil rights to newcomers of almost every sort.
It was absolutely vital to the preservation of the new civilization
here that there should be an increasing number of men to assist in
conquering the wilderness and in defending the fringe of settlements
against attack. How could the pioneer nation have maintained itself,
much less have advanced and spread westward until its feet were
stopped by the Pacific, without these adventurous souls of every race?

So the sieve was of coarse mesh.


Generally speaking, except where a colony had legislated
independently in the matter, the British law was in effect. Under
this, an alien might be naturalized by the Act of Parliament, or
given partial rights by grant of the king, in “Letters of Denization.”

Prior to 1740, a number of naturalization laws were passed by
Colonial legislatures. General laws were passed by New York and
Pennsylvania in 1683, South Carolina in 1696, and Virginia somewhat
later. The use of the private Act of Naturalization was very
common, especially in Pennsylvania and New York. The general Act of
Pennsylvania was in fact revoked by Queen Anne, and from that time
until 1840 all naturalizations in that colony were by private or
special legislation.

Probably the first naturalization of aliens in the New World was
the collective acceptance of the Dutch inhabitants of New Amsterdam
(New York) by the articles of capitulation in 1664, by which they
with their territory passed under the British flag. Two years later
Augustine Herman of Prague, with his family, was naturalized by
Act of the Maryland Assembly. This appears to have been the first
naturalization law enacted in America.

The rights conferred by all of these Colonial Acts were limited
strictly to the colony in which each was passed. Political rights
varied in the different colonies, chiefly according to voting
qualifications in force in each. But since most of them provided
for a property qualification, the permission to foreigners to own
land usually carried with it the right of suffrage. However, in some
of the colonies the naturalized citizen was not eligible to public
office. For all practical purposes of social standing, the ownership
of land sufficed, and since that could be passed down by inheritance,
and it was always admitted that a child born on this soil was a
citizen regardless of his racial descent, the restrictions were
hardly irksome at that time.

In 1740 the English Parliament passed an Act for providing for
naturalization in the American colonies[42] of “foreign Protestants.”
Persons naturalized under this statute might enjoy all civil rights
except that of holding certain offices. A residence of seven years
was required, and certain oaths and rites were imposed, including
partaking of the sacrament of the Holy Communion in accordance with
the ritual of the Church of England. Quakers and Jews, however,
were the subject of exemption; Quakers were permitted to affirm,
rather than to swear, and Jews were permitted to omit the words, “on
the faith of a Christian.” This Act remained the basic law of the
American provinces until the Revolution, when all British statutes
were, at least constructively, superseded by Acts of the Congress of
the United States of America.[43]

Among the grievances recited against the government of George III was
the treatment of this subject of naturalization. It is thus set forth
in the Declaration of Independence:

  He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for
  that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners;
  refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and
  raising the conditions of new Appropriation of Lands.

Under the Articles of Confederation, which served the new republic
until the adoption of the Constitution, no specific action was taken
by the Congress to provide for the naturalization, although certain
provision was made for an oath of allegiance for office-holders, and
to facilitate desertion from the British ranks by offers of land
and of citizenship. After the Revolution a number of individual
states enacted naturalization statutes: Massachusetts, 1783-89;
Delaware, 1788; Maryland, 1779; New York, 1789; South Carolina, 1784;
Virginia, 1779-85. These Acts generally provided very easy methods
for the acquisition of citizenship--usually requiring only an oath of
allegiance, without any specific length of residence; though Virginia
required a formal declaration of intention to remain here, and South
Carolina insisted upon a previous residence of at least one year.


The obvious and constant embarrassment arising from different
requirements under diverse jurisdictions was recognized and discussed
before the making of the Federal Constitution. James Madison, for
example, in 1782, urged the necessity of a uniform practice. So
general was the recognition of this need that the Constitutional
Convention took it for granted, and almost without discussion adopted
the provision which still stands, and under which all subsequent
legislation has gained its authority:[44]

  Congress shall have power ... to establish an uniform rule of

And almost immediately (1790), President Washington having urged it
in his message in January of that year, Congress enacted a general
Naturalization Act.[45]

The considerable debate in Congress concerning this measure not
only throws an interesting light upon the policies prevailing at
that time, but shows that while the new government realized the
importance of desirable immigration, there was full realization of
the difficulty of so adjusting the process of naturalization as to
facilitate this while at the same time protecting the essentials of
the American spirit and institutions from the insidious influences
feared from certain types of newcomers. The conflicting attitudes of
the highly liberal Quakers in Pennsylvania and the austere Puritans
of New England--visible in many ways in all the legislation of the
early years in the contrasting jurisdictions of the northern Atlantic
colonies, appears clearly in the debates, from which emerged the Act
of 1790, whose essentials were as follows:

  I. Naturalization to be conferred by any court of record.

  II. A requirement of two years’ residence in the United States, and
  one year within the State.

  III. Proof required of good moral character, and oath to support
  the Constitution of the United States.

This Act was repealed in 1795 by another[46] introducing the
declaration of intention to become a citizen, and extending the
period of required residence from two years to five. This Act has
been the basis of our naturalization system ever since. Its main
provisions were these:

  I. A preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen of
  the United States, to be made at least three years [the present law
  specifies two years] before final application for citizenship.

  II. Naturalization jurisdiction was vested in any “supreme,
  superior, district or circuit court” of the states or of the
  territories northwest or south of the River Ohio, or a circuit or
  district court of the United States.

  III. Five years’ residence in the United States, and one year’s
  residence in the state in which the application was made.

  IV. An oath of allegiance.

Aliens then residing in the United States might be naturalized after
_two_ years’ residence.

This Act was fathered by James Madison, then a member of Congress.

President Jefferson, in his first message to Congress, advocated a
revision of the Naturalization Law, to the end that “the general
character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to
everyone manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and
fortunes permanently with us.”

Accordingly the Jeffersonian Congress of 1802 repealed the Act of
1795, and enacted one[47] which remained substantially in force for
more than a century. Its provisions, in the main, were as follows:

  I. Naturalization jurisdiction was vested in the supreme, superior,
  district and circuit courts (a district court meaning any court
  of record having common-law jurisdiction) in the states and
  territorial districts and in the circuit and district courts of the
  United States.

  II. The Declaration of Intention was still required, with the three
  years’ interval before final application.

  III. Five years’ residence in the United States and one in the
  State was still required.

  IV. Oath of allegiance to the United States, with specific
  renunciation of former allegiance.

  V. Proof of good moral character and attachment to the principles
  of the United States.

Under this Act the children of persons duly naturalized were, if
resident in the United States, to be considered citizens, and those
born elsewhere were to enjoy the same status, provided that the
citizenship should not descend to children whose fathers never
resided in the United States.

An Act passed in 1804 slightly modified the regulation in favor
of aliens residing in the United States between 1798 and 1802, and
provided also that in case a “declarant” should die before his
naturalization had been consummated, his widow and minor children
should be deemed citizens upon taking the prescribed oath.[48]

During the second war with England, in 1813, an Act was passed
requiring the five years’ residence to be absolutely unbroken by any
absence whatever from the United States, and prescribing penalties
for forgery or sale of naturalization certificates.[49] Later in the
same year another law was passed to permit the naturalization of
alien enemies (then Englishmen) who had declared intention prior to
June 18, 1812.[50] Another important amendment was made in 1816.[51]

In 1824, following a period of agitation for earlier naturalization,
Congress passed an Act, the most important provision of which[52]
reduced from three to two years the minimum interval between the
declaration of intention and final naturalization. It is interesting
to note that this agitation for more liberal conditions came, as
might be expected, at the time of the initial influx of aliens to the
Eastern cities, and the beginnings of the political exploitation of
the “foreign vote.”

Further slight changes were made in 1828,[53] and after twenty
years more, in 1848, Congress abolished the restriction of 1813
which forbade any absence whatever from the country during the five
years’ period of “continuous residence.”[54] But during all of
the period between 1820 and the Civil War there was an increasing
“Native American” agitation for narrower, rather than more liberal,
restrictions, even to the point of abolishing naturalization
altogether. Innumerable bills were introduced reflecting this
agitation; but, owing both to the increasing importance of the
foreign-born element in politics, and to the underlying realization
that the nation must have a constant accretion of population, no such
legislation reached the statute books. The three minor amendments
enacted during and immediately after the Civil War were designed to
meet conditions arising out of the state of war.[55]

In 1876 the Act of 1802 was amended so that the declaration of
intention could be made, as it is now, before the clerk of any of
the courts having naturalization jurisdiction.[56] And in 1872 and
1894 provision was made for the easier naturalization of the United
States soldiers, sailors, marines, and merchant seamen, about whose
permanency of residence there was embarrassment.[57]


The assassination of President McKinley, in 1901, by a professed
anarchist brought to a head the feeling against foreign
ultra-radicals, and resulted in the enactment in 1903[58] of the
restriction against the admission to this country of persons
believing in the abolition of organized government or the removal
of public officers by violence. This test is widely applied now
by judges and by the Naturalization Service in the examination of
applicants for citizenship.


The importance of the subject of the absorption of foreign-born
persons into our life is reflected all through the records of the
government; allusions to it may be found in a large proportion of the
messages of the Presidents to Congress. John Adams found occasion to
express abhorrence of “intrigues of foreign agents to alienate the
affections of the Indians and to arouse them to acts of hostility.”

The liberal sentiments of Thomas Jefferson appeared in his early
recommendation of a revision of the law requiring fourteen years’
residence: “Shall we refuse the refuge extended to our fathers,”
said he, in substance, “to the unhappy fugitives from distress
arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on
this globe?” But at the same time he remarked that for admission to
certain offices of trust, a residence should be required sufficient
to develop character and an appreciation of the design of our

James Madison’s interest in the subject was exhibited throughout his
administration, and especially in his activities on the floor of

President Buchanan insisted upon the full status for naturalized

  Our Government is bound [said he] to protect the rights of our
  naturalized citizens everywhere to the same extent as though they
  had drawn their first breath in this country. We can recognize no
  distinction between our native and naturalized citizens.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson touched upon the question of the
French and Russian claims upon immigrants who came here merely to
escape military service; Lincoln pointing out that there should be
a time limit beyond which the United States would not attempt to
protect persons who came here for that reason and then returned to
their native countries claiming to be American citizens; Johnson,
on the other hand, emphasizing the effect of naturalization in
absolving the individual from all former allegiance. President
Grant urged Congress to define the conditions of expatriation,
and to regulate by law the status of children of aliens becoming
naturalized, and that of American women marrying noncitizens. He also
drew attention to the growing evil of fraudulent naturalization,
and urged the establishment of a system of uniform certificates and

President Arthur also called for a central bureau of registry, and
for a general revision of the naturalization law, pointing out that
much of it now had only historical interest, that the provisions
regarding children of naturalized parents were ambiguous, and that
the constitutional authority to establish “an uniform rule” called
for a clear definition of the status of “persons born within the
United States subject to a foreign power, and minor children of
fathers who have declared their intention but have failed to perfect
their naturalization.”

President Cleveland devoted a good deal of attention to the subject.
He, too, emphasized the need of centralized Federal control over the
records, and repeatedly called for a general revision of the law,
insisting that the “privilege and franchise of American citizenship”
should be granted with scrupulous care. He gave warning against “the
easy and unguarded manner in which certificates of naturalization can
now be obtained,” and the growth of a class of persons who availed
themselves of it for political purposes.

Benjamin Harrison emphasized the need of an investigation of the
moral character of the applicant for citizenship, to make more
certain the existence of a “good disposition toward our government”;
calling also for a more particular system of court hearings, with
proper opportunity for representatives of the government to appear.
He declared that “avowed enemies of social order” should be denied
not only citizenship, but even domicile here. He also adverted to the
evils of fraudulent naturalization.


It was the growing realization of this general condition, of the
notorious ease with which naturalization could be acquired; the
wholesale issue and sale of fraudulent certificates; the debauching
of elections through the manipulation of the “foreign vote,” and
the general cheapening of the franchise, that brought the subject
to a head. It was common knowledge that these frauds were prevalent
wherever there were large numbers of foreign-born people, and
that both of the great political parties vied with each other in
exhausting ingenuity to devise methods for the exploitation of the
alien population. Which party excelled in the business depended
almost entirely upon which was dominant in any particular community.
The situation was a scandal in any event, and the sober sentiment of
the nation realized increasingly that something must be done about it.


It was not until the administration of President Roosevelt,
however, that definite steps were taken. During the years 1903-05
the Department of Justice became very active in unearthing and
prosecuting violations of the naturalization laws. Hundreds of
cases of fraudulent naturalization were discovered, and nearly
seven hundred convictions were obtained. A special examiner of the
Department of Justice, A. C. van Deusen, made an extensive report on
the subject in 1905.[59]

By Executive Order, March 1, 1905, President Roosevelt created
a special commission, consisting of Milton D. Purdy, Assistant
Attorney-General representing the Department of Justice, chairman;
Gaillard Hung, chief of the Bureau of Citizenship in the Department
of State, representing that department, and Richard K. Campbell,
attorney for the Immigration Bureau in the Department of Commerce
and Labor (now Commissioner of Naturalization in the Department of
Labor), “to investigate and report on the subject of naturalization
in the United States,” and to recommend changes in the naturalization
laws.[60] The commission’s report is invaluable in any study of the
subject of Naturalization Law and Procedure.

The average citizen scarcely realizes how completely the
Naturalization Law of 1906, which was the fruit of the labors of
this commission, has revolutionized the whole business. Whatever
may be the defects of the law, or of the practice which has grown
up under it, they are in the main due to “leaning over backward”
in the honest effort to clean and keep clean the flow of new blood
into our citizenship. Generally speaking, it is to be said that the
enforcement of this statute has abolished most of the evils of fraud
and exploitation which before that were a scandal and a menace in
American political life.

By this act the Naturalization Service was established and an
absolutely new era initiated. As Mr. Campbell, who forthwith
became chief of the Division of Naturalization in the Bureau of
Immigration,[61] said in his report for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1908, the process of becoming naturalized as an American citizen

  ... has acquired (even after so short an operation of the
  new system) a formality and dignity which is in some measure
  commensurate with the importance of the Act and the gravity of
  its consequences; it is no longer possible to “railroad” aliens
  in groups to the naturalization courts, in defiance of the law
  and in disregard of even an appearance of propriety; the courts
  which have jurisdiction are no longer such as are “devoted largely
  to the trifling and indecent affairs of the community,” and the
  conferring of citizenship is, in this respect, no longer “ranked
  with disturbing the peace or keeping an unlicensed dog,” as it was
  expressed by a judge of a court in describing the conditions under
  the old law.

And in his seventh report, for 1913-14, to the Secretary of Labor,
Mr. Campbell remarked that:

  To those who will take the trouble to compare the chaotic and
  disorderly conditions which characterized the procedure for
  more than a century of our national existence with the dignity,
  uniformity, and regularity of the present system, it must appear to
  be a matter of inexplicable carelessness that the reform should so
  long have been delayed.

In the same report, the Commissioner of Naturalization points to one
reform embodied at least potentially in the present system, which
alone would have justified it:

  There is, too, for the person naturalized, a security of title
  to his political or national status never before enjoyed by him.
  The title to citizenship is the recorded order of the court. The
  certificate is simply the conclusive evidence of such order. If
  there was no written record made, as was often the case, or if that
  record was destroyed, as happened not infrequently, the title to
  citizenship hung by the slender thread of a piece of paper carried
  by the owner and subject to all the risks attendant upon such
  possessions. If lost, to all practical intents his citizenship was
  also lost. Now the duplicate written record, one in the court and
  one in the Bureau [of Naturalization], is an ample defense against
  all such accidents.

It _would_ be, indeed; but what if in course of time these records in
the Bureau should have come into such condition, owing to inadequate
clerical force and increasing absorption of the Bureau in other
activities, that the record there could not be traced!

However, any criticism or consideration of the present system, to be
intelligent or fair, must take into account, first, the incredibly
chaotic conditions which formerly prevailed, and second, the fact
that never--not even now--has the naturalization system, as a problem
in public administration, received even superficial attention of the


Before we proceed to consider the naturalization process as in action
it has affected annually upward of one hundred thousand human beings
seeking admission to citizenship in the United States, let us see the
principal provisions of the law with which they come into contact.
Section 4 of the Naturalization Law[62] provides that an alien may
be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following
manner “and not otherwise.”

  First. He shall declare on oath before the clerk of any court
  authorized by this Act to naturalize aliens, or his authorized
  deputy, in the district in which such alien resides, two years
  at least prior to his admission, and after he has reached the
  age of eighteen years, that it is his bona fide intention to
  become a citizen of the United States and to renounce forever
  all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
  state, or sovereignty, and particularly, by name, to the prince,
  potentate, state, or sovereignty of which the alien may be at the
  time a citizen or subject. And such declaration shall set forth the
  name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last
  foreign residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name
  of the vessel, if any, in which he came to the United States, and
  the present place of residence in the United States of said alien:
  _Provided_, however, that no alien who, in conformity with the law
  in force at the date of his declaration, has declared his intention
  to become a citizen of the United States, shall be required to
  renew such declaration.

  Second. Not less than two years, nor more than seven years, after
  he has made such declaration of intention he shall make and file,
  in duplicate, a petition in writing, signed by the applicant in his
  own handwriting and duly verified, in which petition such applicant
  shall state his full name, his place of residence (by street and
  number, if possible), his occupation, and, if possible, the date
  and place of his birth; the place from which he emigrated, and the
  date and place of his arrival in the United States, and, if he
  entered through a port, the name of the vessel on which he arrived;
  the time when, and the place and name of the court where he
  declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States; if
  he is married he shall state the name of his wife and, if possible,
  the country of her nativity and her place of residence at the time
  of filing his petition; and if he has children, the name, date,
  and place of birth and place of residence of each child living at
  the time of the filing of his petition: _Provided_, That if he has
  filed his declaration before the passage of this Act he shall not
  be required to sign the petition in his own handwriting.

  The petition shall set forth that he is not a disbeliever in, or
  opposed to, organized government, or a member of or affiliated
  with any organization or body of persons teaching disbelief in,
  or opposed to, organized government; a polygamist or believer
  in the practice of polygamy; and that it is his intention to
  become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely
  and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
  potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the
  prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he at the time
  of filing of his petition may be a citizen or subject; and that it
  is his intention to reside permanently within the United States;
  and whether or not he has been denied admission as a citizen of
  the United States, and, if denied, the ground or grounds of such
  denial, the court or courts in which such decision was rendered,
  and that the cause for such denial has since been cured or removed;
  and every fact material to his naturalization and required to be
  proved upon the final hearing of his application.

  The petition shall also be verified by the affidavits of at least
  two credible witnesses, who are citizens of the United States, and
  who shall state in their affidavits that they have personally known
  the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period of
  at least five years continuously, and of the State, Territory, or
  the District of Columbia, in which the application is made, for a
  period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of the
  filing of his petition, and that they each have personal knowledge
  that the petitioner is a person of good moral character, and that
  he is in every way qualified, in their opinion, to be admitted as
  a citizen of the United States.

  At the time of filing his petition there shall be filed with the
  clerk of the court a certificate from the Department of Labor,
  if the petitioner arrives in the United States after the passage
  of this Act, stating the date, place, and manner of his arrival
  in the United States, and the declaration of intention of such
  petitioner, which certificate and declaration shall be attached to
  and be made a part of said petition.

  Third. He shall, before he is admitted to citizenship, declare
  on oath in open court that he will support the Constitution of
  the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces
  and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
  potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly by name to
  the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was
  before a citizen or subject; that he will support and defend the
  Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies,
  foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the

  Fourth. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court
  admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately preceding
  the date of his application he has resided continuously within
  the United States five years at least, and within the State or
  Territory where such court is at the time held one year at least,
  and that during that time 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. In addition to the oath of the applicant, the testimony
  of at least two witnesses, citizens of the United States, as to
  the facts of residence, moral character, and attachment to the
  principles of the Constitution shall be required, and the name,
  place of residence, and occupation of each witness shall be set
  forth in the record.

  Fifth. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship
  has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders
  of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall,
  in addition to the above requisite, make an express renunciation
  of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his
  application is made, and his renunciation shall be recorded in the

  Sixth. When any alien who has declared his intention to become a
  citizen of the United States dies before he is actually naturalized
  the widow and minor children of such alien may, by complying with
  the other provisions of this Act, be naturalized without making any
  declaration of intention.

Section 8 of the Naturalization Law gives still further requirements:

  That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a
  citizen of the United States who cannot speak the English language:
  _Provided_, That this requirement shall not apply to aliens who
  are physically unable to comply therewith, if they are otherwise
  qualified to become citizens of the United States: _And provided
  further_, That the requirements of this section shall not apply to
  any alien who has, prior to the passage of this Act, declared his
  intention to become a citizen of the United States in conformity
  with the law in force at the date of making such declaration:
  _Provided further_, That the requirements of section eight shall
  not apply to aliens who shall hereafter declare their intention
  to become citizens and who shall make homestead entries upon the
  public lands of the United States and comply in all respects with
  the laws providing for homestead entries on such lands.

The final hearing must be public, in open court, and the judge must
pass upon the petition personally:

  Section 9. That every final hearing upon such petition shall be had
  in open court before a judge or judges thereof, and every final
  order which may be made upon such petition shall be under the
  hand of the court and entered in full upon a record kept for that
  purpose, and upon such final hearing of such petition the applicant
  and witnesses shall be examined under oath before the court and in
  the presence of the court.

Attention needs to be drawn especially to the following section,
which, however innocuous in appearance, has given rise to a vast
deal of vexation and injustice, and has caused the exclusion from
citizenship of a large number of persons otherwise perfectly
qualified and desirable:

  Section 10. That in case the petitioner has not resided in the
  State, Territory, or the District of Columbia for a period of
  five years immediately preceding the filing of his petition he
  may establish by two witnesses, both in his petition and at the
  hearing, the time of his residence within the State, provided that
  it has been for more than one year, and the remaining portion of
  his five years’ residence within the United States required by law
  to be established may be proved by the depositions of two or more
  witnesses who are citizens of the United States, upon notice to the
  Bureau of Naturalization.

It will become evident as we proceed that the interpretation which
has been placed by the courts and the Naturalization Service upon
the distinction between the phrases, “two witnesses,” “at least two
witnesses,” and “two or more witnesses,” has in practice caused
a palpable absurdity from the point of view of common sense, and
inflicted crying hardships and wrongs from the point of view of bare
justice. Upon the humanity and good sense of the court, interacting
with the same on the part of the representatives of the government,
has depended to a very great degree the sensible interpretation of
these and other provisions of the law; but in general both are bound
by its letter, and in many instances they have been forced to reject
petitions which, on the sane merits of the case, should have been



Commissioner Campbell, in his annual report for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1914, described in some detail the operations of the
field service of his Bureau in the handling of the applicant for

  The headquarters of the various districts are located in the
  large cities, where the greatest number of aliens apply for
  naturalization, and in the public buildings or in close proximity
  to the courts.[64] In many of the cities where the examiners are
  in the same building with the court, it is the practice of the
  alien to appear with his witnesses first in the office of the chief
  examiner. Here an examination is made in advance of any work in the
  office of the clerk of court. The examiners, specially trained in
  the work, first ascertain whether the alien arrived in the United
  States prior to the passage of the Act of 1906. If he arrived
  prior to the passage of the Act, the examiner then ascertains,
  before assisting him in taking the second step in the process of
  naturalization, whether the alien has a declaration of intention
  that has matured.[65] If he has arrived subsequent to the passage
  of the Act, he ascertains whether the alien has been notified by
  the Bureau that the certificate of arrival required by law to
  be filed with the clerk of the court at the time of filing the
  petition for naturalization has been placed there by the Bureau.
  It may be stated here that when an alien applies for a certificate
  of arrival, the Bureau notifies him when it has been obtained and
  forwarded to the clerk of the court selected by the alien in which
  to file his petition for naturalization, and he is directed to
  proceed with the filing of his petition at the earliest practicable

  Upon learning that the certificate of arrival has been obtained,
  the examiner interrogates the candidate to learn his qualifications
  for citizenship and records the results of his examination. He
  then examines the witnesses to be reasonably certain that they are
  American citizens, that they are credible and of good character,
  that they have personally known the applicant for the statutory
  period, and can intelligently testify both as to his residence
  and good behavior during the period required by the statute to be
  ascertained and shown to the satisfaction of the court.

  The examiner also sees that the blank form furnished by the
  Bureau for setting forth the statements required to be embodied
  in the petition for naturalization is correctly prepared. When
  the examiner finds affirmatively in all of these respects, he
  marks the filled-out blank with his initials and sends it with the
  petitioner and his witnesses to the office of the clerk of the
  court, where nothing further is to be done than the simple clerical
  work of filling in the petition, original and duplicate, from the
  blank, securing the signatures and affidavits of the petitioner
  and his witnesses, filing the triplicate copy of the declaration
  of intention and the certificate of arrival with the petition, and
  notifying them as nearly as may be of the date of the hearing.

  This method prevails in large cities where the examiners are
  located in the buildings with the courts. The advantage to the
  residents of these large cities, in the saving of time and money
  to the petitioners and their witnesses, is readily discerned when
  it is considered that probably fifty thousand applicants for
  citizenship annually might follow this course if the conditions
  in each large center admitted of its being done. The advantage
  to be derived from having the candidate and his witnesses appear
  before the naturalization examiner in advance of his appearance
  before the clerk of the court were early recognized by one of the
  United States district courts, where a large number of petitions
  for naturalization are filed annually, and an order of court was
  entered accordingly. In other courts, while the practice has not
  received this formal recognition, the consistency with which it
  is observed is none the less definite. This practice prevails in
  at least one city where the office of the chief examiner is not
  located in the building with the court.

Further emphasizing the advantages of this practice, the Commissioner
remarks that it enables the examiner to dispose of a large number
of cases, and tends to obviate denials on such grounds as “that
the petitioner is already a citizen”; “incompetent witnesses,”
“insufficient residence,” “no certificate of arrival,” “declaration
invalid,” “premature petition,” etc.--“unless, as is sometimes the
case, a petitioner is obstinate and insists on taking his chance
of admission by the court against the advice of the examiner.” The
Commissioner goes on to say:

  In some cities, by reason of the lack of proximity of the office of
  the examiner to that of the clerk of the court, the system does not
  prevail of having the candidate appear first before the examiner,
  ... but efforts have constantly been made to augment the prevalence
  of the practice, and since the great bulk of the naturalization
  work is in the large centers ... the plan described, with the
  restricted means provided therefor, admirably accomplishes the
  effective disposal of the mass of work arising under the operation
  of the law wherever it has been adopted.

Referring to the work in regions apart from the great cities, the
Commissioner said, in his report for 1912-13:

  In a few of the districts there are what may be called
  sub-stations, where an examiner is located by his chief to attend
  to work in the vicinity of such sub-station, ... to reduce the
  travel expense and to bring the service in actual personal contact
  with the public and the courts as intimately as possible.

For the rest, and the far-outlying, sparsely-settled regions, where
a person desiring citizenship must travel with his witnesses perhaps
even hundreds of miles not once, but twice in any event, and in some
cases several times, to and from the court having jurisdiction over
the territory in which he lives, the situation is not so simple.
To persons completing by the essential of American Citizenship
their title to a homestead on the public lands--necessarily and
characteristically in such sparsely settled regions--this item
of travel, expense in both money and time for three persons, to
say nothing of other hardships and exasperations involved in the
meticulous technicalities of the law and practice, not infrequently
is a raw tragedy. Neither provision by Congress nor administrative
arrangement or concession in enforcement by the Naturalization Bureau
or the courts has materially mitigated the hardships involved in such


Not every alien, whatever his character or good disposition toward
the “good order and happiness” of the United States, or his
willingness to “support and defend the Constitution and bear true
faith and allegiance to the same,” can become a citizen of the United
States. He, or she, must be either white, or black--or, in the case
of the American Indian, red. And if black, he, or she, must be of
_African_ descent. A long series of decisions has been necessary to
define exactly what races are excluded; with the result that it is
now, for practical purposes, well established that naturalization
cannot, under existing laws, be granted to Chinese, Japanese,
Hawaiians, Burmese, or the black or brown natives of India.

It is not our province here to discuss the merits either of the
racial limitation or of the somewhat vague definition that has
been arrived at; it must suffice to outline the situation. The
Naturalization Law of 1870 limited naturalization to “aliens being
free white persons; and to aliens of African nativity and to
persons of African descent.” This was enacted in the tense days of
Reconstruction after the Civil War, and was a natural but wholly
unnecessary fling at the South. All American negroes are citizens
of the United States by virtue of their birth in this country,
and those who come here from Africa are likely to be incapable of
passing the naturalization tests. Congress never has enacted a
clear definition of the term, “white person,” and endless confusion
has existed. Hawaiians, Afghans, Chinese, Syrians, Turks, and Fiji
Islanders, all have been admitted by some courts and excluded by
others. The Commissioner of Naturalization at one time directed the
field force to oppose vigorously the admission of any Asiatic. A
non-Mongolian Turk, married to a white woman literally Caucasian,
would be surprised to have his son excluded as not a white person;
but such folk, and many others white by any common-sense definition,
were excluded, the courts usually accepting as the judgment of
experts the contention of the naturalization examiners; until finally
the ruling was rescinded, and the matter has since then been left
largely to the discretion of the courts, which have substantially
settled the question so far as it may be settled in absence of a
clear constitutional or legislative definition, such as exists
specifically in the Act of 1882 excluding the Chinese by name. As the
law and decisions stand now, the same definition which will admit
an African deckhand or cook excludes a Japanese prince or a Hindu
university graduate.[66]

As for the Filipinos, it was held, in 1915, by the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia, that a Filipino is neither an alien nor an
African, and that, therefore, he did not come within the provisions
of the law limiting naturalization to white aliens, or black ones of
African descent; that the Filipino then before the court could and
would be naturalized under the section providing:

  That all the applicable provisions of the naturalization laws of
  the United States shall apply to and be held to authorize the
  admission to citizenship of all persons not citizens who owe
  permanent allegiance to the United States, and who may become
  residents of any State or organized Territory of the United States.

In another case (not, however, involving clearly the question of
racial color) a native of the Philippine Islands, of full Spanish
paternity, but of half-breed blood on his mother’s side, was admitted
by the same court.[67]

There was a dubious situation regarding Porto Ricans; for it was
held at first that, when the United States acquired Porto Rico and
the Philippines by the Spanish War, these peoples came under the
“protection” of the United States, but did not thereby acquire status
as citizens. The Act of Congress, March 2, 1917, cleared up this
situation, however, declaring permanently resident Porto Ricans to be
citizens, unless they owed allegiance to a foreign country, or within
six months after the passage of the Act specifically refused American
citizenship. This Act created the judicial “district of Porto Rico,”
and definitely vested naturalization jurisdiction in the United
States District Court for that district, declaring residence in Porto
Rico to be tantamount, for naturalization purposes, to residence
anywhere else in the United States.

The Act of May 9, 1918, which swept into eligibility for immediate
citizenship upward of two hundred thousand aliens serving in the
army, navy, marine corps, and merchant marine, definitely extended
the privilege to several classes, including Filipinos and Porto
Ricans, regardless of every consideration other than military
service, and it has been interpreted in favor of even Chinese and
Japanese in those branches of the national war employ.[68]


The present law says clearly that an alien may not make a declaration
of intention until he is eighteen years old. The old law contained
a provision to the effect that anyone who arrived in the United
States before the age of eighteen could, after he had been here the
required five years, become naturalized by virtue of one proceeding,
which was held to constitute both declaration and final petition.
Otherwise, nothing was said in the old law regarding the age required
for declaration; an alien must be twenty-one, however, in order to
be naturalized. There was a good deal of uncertainty and confusion
on this point, both the Naturalization Service and the courts
taking varying and inconsistent positions from time to time and in
various jurisdictions. This is of only academic interest now; but
the situation is still somewhat dubious, because an alien can file
his declaration at the age of eighteen, and in a strict construction
of the law he can file his petition two years later at the age of
twenty. Some courts have so construed it. It is generally customary,
however, for the courts to insist upon the age of twenty-one
before granting citizenship; although one should bear in mind that
citizenship does not necessarily involve the suffrage, and all states
of the United States require attainment of twenty-one years before
the citizen can vote.


So far as anything in the law goes to prevent, the immigrant can
make his way immediately from the vessel that brings him, after
the immigration authorities have admitted him to these shores, or
across the Canadian or the Mexican border, to the clerk’s office in
“any court having a clerk, a seal, and jurisdiction over actions at
law or equity, or law and equity, without limit as to amount,” and
within an hour of arrival file his declaration of intention to become
an American citizen. Of course, he doesn’t do that--unless in very
rare instances. The available statistics go to show that, in the
average case, he waits nearly seven (6.8) years.[69] But whenever he
files it, it will be good (unless some blunder of the clerk, or some
technical defect which the clerk overlooks, makes it invalid from the
outset) for seven years. It cannot be made the basis of a petition
for citizenship until two years after its date, and there must have
been, before or after its date, at least three years’ additional
residence in the United States to make up the required five years,
and the last year of the five must have been passed “continuously”
within the state or territory in which the final petition is filed.

Mr. Alien would better be very careful that his declaration is
properly made out, on the identical printed form furnished by the
Bureau of Naturalization; he must file it in the office of the
clerk, and not deliver it to him at his house or on the street
corner. He may not hear anything about this at the time; but seven
years afterward he may be brought up standing by the fact that
it is invalid because of just such a defect. In the case _in re_
Brefo (217 Fed., 131-134) it was held, in 1914, that a declaration
otherwise correct, but in typewriting, not on “the form furnished for
that purpose by the government,” was a “legal nullity.” Were such
an enormity permitted, the court said, there would be “an end to
uniformity”; government control and supervision could not exist! And
in the case _in re_ Langtry (31 Fed., 879), as long ago as 1887 the
court declared that the clerk had no authority to take acknowledgment
of declaration of intention at the home of an alien. Numerous other
cases in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida,
have settled the fact that the clerk’s office, or open court, is the
only place where a valid declaration can be filed.

If the clerk is without the proper blank forms, because he neglects
to keep himself supplied, or because the Naturalization Bureau at
Washington fails to heed his request for them, there is nothing for
the would-be declarant to do but go home--perhaps many, or in some
cases as much as two hundred and fifty miles--and subsequently try

As has been said, he must be very particular about the words that
he or anyone else writes on the blank when he does get it. If he
files his declaration in a court which has much naturalization
business, it is likely that the clerk or his deputy will see that it
is letter-perfect; but if it is his fortune to reside in a district
where naturalizations are few, or where the clerk regards the whole
transaction as a nuisance, he may be permitted to make a fatal
mistake or omission and remain in blissful ignorance of that fact for
anywhere from two to seven years--until he goes before the court with
his final petition and finds that because his declaration was from
the beginning technically defective he must file a new one and wait
at least two years more.


This, in fact, has been a very common occurrence. During the period
1908-18, 8.5 per cent of all denials of naturalization petitions in
the United States were on the ground of “declaration invalid”; that
this percentage is made up of figures[70] tragically high in some
districts may be recognized in the fact that in Nebraska it was 23.8,
in Indiana 21.3, in Oregon 18.7, in Kansas 18.6, in Massachusetts
14.4, in Montana 13.2, in Iowa 12.5, in Arkansas and Idaho 11.3, in
Washington 10.9, in Oklahoma 10.4. The petition of an Englishman
applying for citizenship in Colorado was denied upon motion of the
government’s representative, because in his declaration seven years
before he had renounced “King Albert,” when, in fact, the name of the
then potentate of Great Britain was “Albert Edward”![71] As the court
in that case truly said:

  The act of renouncing the allegiance which one owes to a government
  or sovereign, and taking upon himself a new allegiance, is too
  solemn and important an act to be loosely performed, or to be
  surrounded by any uncertainty or doubt. No presumptions are
  indulged with respect to it.... The declaration of intention must
  in all material matters comply with the strict letter of the Act.

The court may not rectify _nunc pro tunc_, as in most other kinds of
litigation, technical blunders made in good faith or inadvertently
by the declarant, or even by the clerk of the court in which the
declaration was filed. All the responsibility lies upon the alien.

In the unreported case of John Pollock, in the Philadelphia Court
of Quarter Sessions, in 1915, the petitioner had honestly believed
himself to have acquired German nationality from the flag of the
German ship on which he was born, en route to the United States, of
Russian parents coming here with intent to abandon their Russian
nationality, and in his declaration had forsworn the German
sovereignty; but the court held that the honesty of his mistake
could not avail him--“Unfortunately it is impossible to amend
his declaration; ... the application must be denied.” Through a
misunderstanding of the intricacies of political geography in the
then Austria-Hungary, a petitioner who actually was born under that
sovereignty erroneously renounced the German Emperor. In that case,
when, three years later, upon his final petition for naturalization,
the court undertook to amend the declaration, its power to do this
was denied upon the government’s appeal.[72]

Five Austrians went in a body to the office of the clerk of the Court
of Common Pleas in Hudson County, New Jersey, to file declarations of
intention. Doubtless they were very glad, and very grateful, to have
the clerk on duty fill out the required blanks for them! Two years
or more later, when they marched proudly and anxiously into court to
complete their citizenship, their petitions were denied--“declaration
invalid,” because, forsooth, as the court in its decision explained:

  ... The clerk who filled out their papers _assumed them all to
  be German_, and noted this in the declaration accordingly. The
  applicants contend that the error was a clerical error on the part
  of the clerk, and that their renunciation also included other
  sovereigns, rulers, or potentates. This, however, is not sufficient
  under the statute.

There are many other cases, in widely separated jurisdictions, to
similar effect, showing, in general, that the courts sustain the
contention of the Naturalization Service that the law does not permit
the rectification of even innocent blunders in the declaration, no
matter by whom or in what circumstances they are made.

Who, then, is to see that the technicalities thus insisted upon in
the enforcement of the law as it reads are duly and truly observed?
Surely not the alien! His care of his own interests is, in the
nature of the case, ill-informed, and under the existing conditions,
improved as they are in comparison with those prevailing in former
times, he is at the mercy not only of the sometimes careless,
begrudging, or perhaps well-intending, but better-informed clerk of
the court, but of many kinds of extra-legal assistants who, whether
with good or with sordid motives, undertake to give, or maybe to
sell, advice or instruction--to say nothing of pretended “influence”
which, anywhere up to seven years later, when the mischief cannot be
remedied, may turn out to have been worse than worthless.

Of vital importance and significance, far beyond what would be
gleaned from a superficial reading of the words, becomes in this
connection what the Commissioner of Naturalization said in his annual
report of July 1, 1912:

  The great bulk of the work of the Division [now the Bureau of
  Naturalization] consists of the examination of the naturalization
  papers filed in or issued out of the courts. It has never been
  possible, with the clerical aid supplied, to keep abreast of this
  work. Concluding the first year with a large number of papers not
  examined, that condition has grown more and more serious.... At the
  present time it must be stated that no examination of declarations
  of intention has been made since October, 1910, and not more than
  30,000 certificates have even been examined. Correction of errors
  in the latter papers, [final] certificates of naturalization, are
  perhaps less necessary, but the declarations are used as the basis
  of petitions for naturalization, and defects in them may result
  in the denial of such petitions and a further delay of two years
  to the applicants for citizenship. Beginning with October, 1912,
  declarations which have not been examined will mature, and these
  aggregate 298,000 in number.[73]

That the Bureau of Naturalization is aware of the desperate
importance of this matter to the aliens appears not only in so many
words in the Commissioner’s own utterances, but in legislation
proposed by the Bureau which would tend to remedy it. In the same
report (1912), after describing the strenuous efforts of the clerical
force to catch up in particular cases with the dates of final
hearings, Commissioner Campbell said:

  To any easy assumption that errors in a declaration may be
  corrected at the hearing of the petition, the answer is
  plain--that no change can be made if the declaration was filed, as
  it frequently is, in a court other than that in which such hearing
  is held. It has also been decided judicially that a declaration,
  complete in every respect, cannot be changed because of even
  conceded error in its averments. It is therefore important that the
  discovery by prompt administrative examination, of a defect, either
  in the way of omission or error, be brought to the attention of a
  declarant and the clerk of the court in which his declaration is
  filed, so that either the paper may be corrected or the declarant
  may file a new declaration, and thus save time, expense, and
  ultimate disappointment.

All of which has the color of mockery in the light of the fact that
at the date of that report there lay in the files of the Bureau
nearly three hundred thousand unexamined declarations, all of which
would mature within the ensuing three months!

The legislative proposals to remedy conditions so far as inadvertent
errors in the declaration are concerned, include, for instance,
a proposed amendment[74] to Section 4 of the Naturalization Law,
providing that

  ... any averment required to be made in the declaration of
  intention that may be shown to have been made erroneously, but
  with no intention to violate or evade the requirements of the
  naturalization law, may be corrected by order of the court in which
  the declaration was filed, or by the court in which it is presented
  as a basis for a petition for naturalization.


Some belated survival of Commissioner Campbell’s earlier belief, as a
member of the Naturalization Commission of 1905, that the declaration
of intention should be abolished as superfluous and as a prolific
source of errors, appears in his concluding paragraph under this
head, wherein, after alluding to the increasingly urgent appeals for
more clerical assistance, which had characterized virtually every one
of his reports since the establishment of the Naturalization Service,
he adds:

  If the object to be obtained does not justify the additional
  expenditure that it involves, then the declaration, as a matter
  of common justice to applicants for citizenship, if not for the
  practical reasons stated ... in the Report of the Commission of
  Naturalization to the President, dated November 8, 1905, should
  be stricken from the law. It may be suggested that the effect of
  such action upon the exercise by alien declarants of the elective
  franchise in certain states would be merely to cut off future
  supplies of such voters.

It is indeed true that many careful, experienced, and judicious
students of the naturalization problem have on many grounds favored
the abandonment of the declaration of intention. The arguments in
this behalf are plausible while there are states in which aliens
holding “first papers” (declarations of intention) are entitled to
vote. As for the others, the reasons to the contrary seem to the
present writer to outweigh them. Regardless of the suffrage, in
many states the declaration entitles the holder to certain property
rights; many employers, and even municipalities, require at least the
declaration before they will permit employment. The best reason of
all, regarded by a majority of the naturalizing judges as of vital
importance, is that the declaration, and the interval of at least
two years which must elapse before the declarant can file his final
appeal for admission to citizenship, afford a period of probation,
not only of substantial psychological value as affecting the alien
himself, but giving the government opportunity to observe the conduct
of the individual and to investigate his antecedents, and the
person’s neighbors and the public generally due notice that he is an
aspirant for active membership in the community.

On more than one occasion Mr. Campbell, who more than perhaps anyone
else might be regarded as an expert on the subject of naturalization,
favored the abolition of the declaration of intention. As late
as 1910, testifying before the Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization of the House of Representatives, he said:

  I think I am on record as advocating the abolition of the
  declaration of intention, anyhow.

That this is no longer his view, or that of the Bureau, appears
somewhat emphatically in the following excerpt of the annual report
bearing his signature, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1917:[75]

  Many theorists in the United States, when there was no Federal
  supervision of the naturalization law, conceived the idea that
  the declaration of intention was a purely superfluous act; that
  the certificate of the declaration of intention was a superfluous
  document. Many of them still retain that idea, having made no
  advance in their studies, or being unacquainted with the experience
  of the Federal administrative force. There is nothing that has
  arisen in the experience of the Bureau of Naturalization, in the
  ten years of Federal supervision, that justifies this idea that the
  declaration of intention should be abolished.

  The Americanization work of the Bureau, based as it is upon the
  declaration of intention, is the only point of contact the Federal
  Government has with the individual alien from the time he lands
  upon our soil. The use of the declaration of intention by the
  Bureau in sending the names to the public schools and bringing the
  aliens of every community into close relationship with them has
  forever settled the question of the value of the declaration of

  This is only a new use to which this “first paper” (an instrument
  which is peculiarly an American institution)[76] has been put.
  If this were the only use to be made of it, it would justify its
  continued existence. As it is, it is used and interwoven into the
  administrative fabric of the Government in its contact with aliens
  throughout the United States. It is a means of identification by
  which the alien makes known his right to take up Government land;
  by which he may secure employment in municipalities and in State
  improvement work; by which membership in many organizations may
  alone be secured. It is the indication of the announced purpose of
  the alien to forswear his allegiance to his sovereign and to choose
  the Constitution of the United States as his new allegiance. It is
  woven throughout the warp and woof of our national laws and our
  social and economic organizations.


Of 323 judges of naturalizing courts all over the United States
who answered definitely on this point the questionnaire of the
Americanization Study, 241 opposed, more or less emphatically, the
abolition of the declaration of intention, only 82 favoring its
abolition on one ground or another, but principally because they were
aware of no good purpose served by it.

One United States district judge rather picturesquely described its

  This country cannot afford to have it said that we are urging
  citizens of other countries to renounce their allegiance and take
  up citizenship with us. That would be wrong from every standpoint.
  On the other hand, if they do want to become American citizens,
  it is our duty ... to help them fit themselves. If you take away
  the declaration of intention you will destroy our opportunity in
  that regard. The young lady who meets a young man and likes him,
  would be very much out of place if, without any other tie between
  them, she began to tell him what she wanted him to do, what she
  wanted him to study, and how she wanted him to study, what she
  wanted him to drink, and how she wanted him to dress. It would
  be very immodest and impolite, to say the least. If that young
  man had made her a proposal of marriage, and she were considering
  it, these suggestions from her would be entirely proper, and she
  would be performing her duty to the young man and to herself. This
  illustrates, I believe, the proper limits within which our country
  can guide, advise, and direct aliens who through the declaration
  of intention have made, as it were, a proposal of marriage, with
  reference to preparation for citizenship.

Sound objections to abolition of the declaration appear also in
connection with the property rights as regards homestead entry and
other matters under both Federal and state laws--a complicated
matter in addition to the great confusion existing by reason of the
laws of those states which conferred the right to vote upon holders
of so-called “first papers.” With the removal of this right, much
of the objection to the declaration of intention disappears. As it
was, under such laws, an alien might file a declaration of intention
every seven years as they expired _seriatim_, and, without any proper
inquiry, judicial approval, or supervision whatever, retain his right
to vote--citizenship for all practical purposes.

Many of the judges would permit no renewal of a declaration after
the expiration of the first; some would substitute registration upon
entry, annual, or even more frequent reports by the alien regarding
his whereabouts and behavior, and constant governmental _espionage_.

The declaration of intention, particularly if it be properly guarded
and solemnized, puts everybody, at least constructively, upon notice
that a new member is applying, and requires the declarant himself
to keep that application in mind for two years. He cannot suddenly
decide, by reason of some special condition or inconvenience, to
apply for citizenship and consummate the process in three months,
as he could do if the declaration were abolished without extending
the interval between petition and certificate. The defects in the
present system are found in the fact that he can file his declaration
anywhere at will, in a form so defective that two years or more
later it nullifies his petition; he can be grafted upon and bled
_ad libitum_ by all manner of exploiters claiming to be able to
assist him. However valuable in theory, in practice it is far too

The declaration should be surrounded by a very much greater degree
of care and solemnity than at present. Not only should it be made
under oath and on properly guarded printed forms; when it is filed it
should be scrutinized and accepted as to substance, and by no means
be subject long afterward to rejection because of clerical or other
technical errors which ought to have been detected at the outset.

The St. Louis office of the Naturalization Service has taken a long
step in this direction, by securing the co-operation of many of the
courts in that district in the establishment of a custom by which
the declaration is accepted for filing only after it has been viséd
by the naturalization officers. This has no authority in law, but it
nevertheless is a wholesome practice, chiefly in the interest of the
alien declarant; incidentally it goes far to put out of business the
various kinds of parasites who exploit the ignorance and helplessness
of the aspirant for citizenship.


The law of 1906 limited the life of a declaration of intention to
seven years. Prior to that there was no limit, and even after the
passage of that Act it was held in practice that it did not apply to
declarations made previously. But in 1913 the question was raised,
in the United States Court in New York City, whether it was not
the intent of Congress to apply the seven-year limitation to _all_
declarations. In 1914 the court ruled that it was. The effect of that
decision was to invalidate all declarations made prior to September
27, 1906, notwithstanding the express provision in the law that “no
alien who, in conformity with the law in force at the date of his
declaration, has declared his intention to become a citizen of the
United States, shall be required to renew such declaration.”

This decision was soon affirmed by the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals; but even then it was not uniformly observed, until January,
1919, when the United States Supreme Court put an abrupt stop to
the practice of accepting “old-law declarations” by affirming the
decision of the District Court at New York.

The effect of this final ruling by the highest court in the land was
tragic. Hundreds, if not thousands, of pending petitions, of aliens
altogether fit from every other point of view, forthwith became
invalid simply because based upon “old-law declarations” blighted
by the newly applied seven-year restriction. In one session of the
State Supreme Court in New York County a batch of more than seventy
otherwise acceptable petitions was denied for this reason alone.
The question of the effect of the decision upon certificates of
naturalization granted theretofore between its date and September 27,
1913, was met by Congress in the Act of May 9, 1918, by the following

  Section 3. That all certificates of naturalization granted by
  courts of competent jurisdiction prior to December 31, 1918, upon
  petitions for naturalization filed prior to January 31, 1918,
  upon declaration of intention filed prior to September, 27, 1906,
  are hereby declared to be valid in so far as the declaration of
  intention is concerned, but shall not be by this Act further
  validated or legalized.


Assuming, now, that our alien is of the proper racial descent, the
accepted age, and that his declaration of intention will pass muster;
that he has lived in the United States for at least two years since
the declaration was filed, and at least three years besides that--a
total of not less than five years in all, including the final fifth
year in the state--what must he do, and what may be done to him,
when he comes up at last with his request for admission to Active

If he arrived in this country since June 29, 1906, he must produce a
Certificate of Arrival. In theory, at least, all arriving aliens are
registered at the port of entry by the Immigration Service of the
Department of Labor. Under existing law they cannot get in at all if
they are of certain excluded races and classes; if they are under
contract to get a particular job; if they are insane or afflicted
with certain diseases; if they are recognizable as anarchists,
polygamists (or believers in either anarchy or polygamy), criminals,
or, in the opinion of the immigration authorities, likely to become a
public charge--a burden upon the community. They must, with certain
exceptions for age and family relationship, be able to read and write
in some language.

Aliens may properly enter the United States only through some
officially designated port of entry, designated by the Commissioner
of Immigration, if an alien enters elsewhere along our enormous
border line he is deemed to be “unlawfully present,” is subject to
deportation, and when he tries to become a citizen he must give a
very good excuse for having “climbed up some other way.” A good many
Canadians and Mexicans have found very embarrassing, eventually, the
fact of their ignorance or evasion of this requirement.

The Act of Congress, approved June 29, 1906, went into effect in most
respects on the 27th of September following, but this provision was
to take effect immediately:

  That it shall be the duty of the Bureau of Immigration to provide,
  for use at the various immigration stations throughout the United
  States, books of record, wherein the Commissioner of Immigration
  shall cause an entry to be made in the case of each alien arriving
  in the United States from and after the passage of this Act of the
  name, age, occupation, ... and the date of arrival of said alien,

Unfortunately for the aliens subsequently embarrassed by the fact,
the books for record of entries were not promptly installed, and in
some instances since they were installed the immigration officials at
the ports of entry have not always been scrupulous in the making of
the required entries.

No certificate is given to the alien at the time of his arrival, even
if he is properly registered; nothing of the sort is required of him
anywhere; he does not have to show it when he makes his declaration
of intention to become a citizen, nor at any other time or for any
other purpose--until after he has been here at least five years and
comes to the point of filing his petition for final naturalization.
Then he must have it--unless he arrived before June 29th, 1906; in
that event it is not required of him.

He is not to go for it to the Immigration Service. He must get it in
the most roundabout fashion. He must address a written application,
through the clerk of the court in which his petition for
naturalization is to be filed, to the Commissioner of Naturalization,
who in turn requests it of the Immigration Service. The Immigration
Service, if it can find the original entry (and sometimes--quite
frequently in fact--it cannot), sends the certificate to the
Commissioner of Naturalization, who sends it to the clerk of the
court, at the same time notifying the alien that now he may proceed
to file his petition.

But what if the arrival entry cannot be found? What if the alien
cannot remember the name of the vessel, or other important facts
relating to his entry, and thus give the necessary clews for the
search? What if it was his misfortune to arrive at a port after the
law took effect and before the registry system was in operation? Both
the Immigration and the Naturalization Service take a good deal of
pains to care for such situations; but frequently without success.
All this involves delay, not only vexatious and discouraging, but
likely to prove fatal in the case of an alien whose declaration
is at the edge of expiration. Not infrequently an application for
certificate of arrival is bandied back and forth between the two
Bureaus for months.

There was a case in 1919 in which the alien described himself
as having arrived on a certain date and vessel at New York; the
immigration records showed no such arrival, and, what was worse,
no such vessel entering New York at that time. After long delay it
turned out that the alien did arrive on that date and vessel, but at
_Boston_, whence, upon admission, he came by a domestic coastwise
vessel from Boston to New York. Many other cases are by no means so

A petition accepted for filing without the requisite certificate
of arrival is regarded as incomplete, and may not be completed
subsequently by attachment of the certificate, but must be marked
“spoiled”; the four dollars paid as fee may be returned to the
petitioner by the clerk, or can be applied to the filing of a new
and sufficient petition. It has been the practice of the Bureau
of Naturalization, after it appears impossible to find record of
the applicant’s admission to the country, to refer him to the
nearest immigration inspector for what is known as a _nunc pro
tunc_ inspection, for the purpose of satisfying the inspector that
the alien should not be deported as “unlawfully present.” If the
inspector is satisfied, he issues what is known as a “provisional
certificate of arrival,” whose acceptance as sufficient for purposes
of naturalization is subject to the discretion of the court. This
would appear a reasonable way out; but in the case of petitioners
living a very long distance from the office of an immigration
inspector, it involves an extra, and perhaps prohibitively expensive,
journey to the distant city for that purpose alone, and this
difficulty has in fact been to some extent relieved by permission to
handle such cases by correspondence and affidavits.


Another obstruction goes to the question of our treatment of the
foreign-born laborer in industry--especially if he bear what we
choose to regard as a “queer” name, difficult for us to spell or
pronounce. The courts have, properly, no doubt, no patience with
assumed names--particularly in a case where the alien cannot remember
the name under which he entered the country. But it is a very common
practice, in concerns employing a large number of immigrants, for
the minor officials of the company, superintendents and foremen, to
attach a name to a job, and insist upon calling the man who occupies
it, “Mike Murphy,” or what not else, because that was the name of
the first incumbent, and it is easier to pronounce than “Bahaoud,”
“Behrensmayer,” or “Przybylski.” This, and the even more common
practice of calling a man by a number, rather than a name, results
in a vast deal of confusion, in a substantial discouragement of
self-respect, and in the ultimate establishment of the neighborhood
identity of a polysyllabic Greek or Armenian, perhaps, with a fine
old Irish name. This will not do in the naturalization court. The
petitioner must come in under at least the same name that he bore
when he entered the country, and there must be no suspicion as to its
not being his own.

But he does not have to keep that name. It is prescribed as lawful
for the court in its discretion, “at the time and as a part of the
naturalization of any aliens, ... upon the petition of such alien,
to make a decree changing the name of said alien.” The fact of which
the court must be convinced is that the petitioner is not attempting
to conceal his real identity for the purpose of escaping payment
of just debts or punishment for crime. Many aliens do thus change
their names, and there have been cases in which the judge virtually
compelled them to do so.

A naturalization judge said to the writer:

  I have heard of a high-handed old judge, somewhere in the
  Northwest, who was in the habit of “suggesting” to every alien who
  came before him with a complicated mouthful of name that he change
  it to “Abraham Lincoln,” “Benjamin Franklin,” “George Washington,”
  or “Grover Cleveland.” No doubt you could find many a Pole or Swede
  naturalized as “Thomas Jefferson” or “Alexander Hamilton,” whose
  father, living in the same town, was known as “Konrad Kowalewski,”
  or “Ole Johanssen.”

Each nationality has in this country name-complications of this
character peculiarly its own. The Swedes, for an example, have
a habit of taking for their own surname the Christian name of a
favorite aunt, uncle, or other relative, upon reaching the age
of twenty-one years. Sven Svensen--which means “Sven, the son of
Sven”--may undertake to compliment his uncle Olaf by calling himself
Sven Olafsen. Suppose he came to this country under the name of
Sven Svensen, before he was eighteen; but for several years before
filing his declaration came to be known to everybody--including
himself--as Sven Olafsen, and regarded his old name as a “childish
thing” of no consequence to anybody. He applies as Sven Olafsen
for his certificate of arrival, the immigration and naturalization
bureaus have great difficulty in finding it, and when it does come
along it is in the name of Sven Svensen. Often names are adopted
in affectionate memory of the town from which the alien comes.
Many Italians, for convenience, drop off a couple of syllables of
awkwardly long names. Among the Greeks a typical case would be that
of one, “Harris,” whose old-country name was Harralabopoulos.

Another kind of complication appears in the case of an alien whose
true name was Isaac Brody; but he came on a steamship ticket issued
to, and in the name of, his uncle, Isaac Boovris, and was recorded
under that name by the immigration authorities. When he filed his
declaration of intention he was advised to file under the name
Boovris, to facilitate his certificate of arrival when that should
be required. When he filed his final petition, after living and
doing business for several years in this country under his true name
of Brody, he asked to be naturalized under that name. The court
refused, requiring him to file a new declaration as Isaac Brody and
wait two years longer, calling attention to the penal statute which
makes it an offense to apply for naturalization under an assumed
or fictitious name; remarking that the court might have changed
the name or amended the petition “if the error in the original
declaration had been clerical, or had been innocent.”[77]

A Pennsylvania court said in the case of one Wicenty Pilipos, who
after arrival informally changed his name to William Phillips:

  We may concede that any person may change his name, and be
  naturalized under his new name; yet, if he does so, he must
  petition the court for that purpose, so that the record will show
  the whole transaction, and identify him as the person who has
  discarded his original name, under which he landed in this country.
  This is especially necessary to prevent any other person from
  perpetrating a fraud, by being naturalized under the discarded


There are other technicalities with which the alien occasionally
collides--such, for example, as the question of jurisdiction where
there is a difference of definition in the term “judicial district,”
or where boundaries may conflict between states, counties, or
other distinct municipalities, with reference to the alien’s place
of residence; or where the court to which he could naturally and
conveniently repair by the shortest line of travel is in another
jurisdiction, and he and his witnesses must journey perhaps even
hundreds of miles to the court to which the letter of the law compels
him to go. Such cases are numerous, but comparatively uncommon. Let
us assume that he has reached the right court, has successfully
unearthed, through the clerk, the Naturalization Bureau and the
Immigration Service, his proper certificate of arrival, and has a
valid declaration of intention. What next?

In large cities or other places reasonably convenient in respect of
distance, the clerk is likely, as the Commissioner of Naturalization
says in his report already quoted, to send the alien to the office
of the Naturalization Service; there is filled out the “Facts Form,”
as it is called, on which the final petition for naturalization
is to be based. The petitioner is closely interrogated as to his
general eligibility, and the principal business is under way. If the
naturalization office is far distant, the petition is filled out by
or in the presence of the clerk.

As required by the law quoted at the beginning of this chapter,
the petition must set forth the full name, residence, occupation;
date and place of birth; port of emigration; name of vessel, if
any; port of arrival; date and court of declaration of intention;
whether married, single, or widowed; wife’s name, nativity, and
present residence; number, names, birthplaces, and residences of
minor children; assurances that the applicant is not a practicing
or believing anarchist or polygamist; intention to renounce former
national allegiance and make permanent residence in the United
States; attachment to the principles of the Constitution; ability to
speak the English language; dates upon which began residence in the
United States and in this state or territory; assertion that this
is his first petition for citizenship, or, if a former petition was
denied, the reasons for denial and the fact that these reasons have
since been cured or removed.

In addition there must be the affidavit of two witnesses (each of
whom must swear that he is himself a citizen of the United States),
who must declare on his oath that he knows the petitioner to have
been a resident of the United States at least since a certain
specified date five years ago, and of the particular state at
least since a certain specified date not less than a year ago; and
that he personally knows the petitioner to be a person of good
moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution,
well disposed toward the good order and happiness of the same, and
generally qualified in every way to be admitted as a citizen of the
United States.

To the petition _at the time of filing_ (that is rigidly required by
the law and the decisions of many courts) must be physically attached
the declaration of intention made at least two years before, and the
certificate of arrival.

For filing the declaration of intention the alien will have paid to
the clerk a fee of one dollar; upon filing his final petition he has
to pay another fee of four dollars. There are strict penal provisions
in the law for the punishment of clerks who charge or collect any
more. Under the law, one-half of each fee is retained by the clerk,
ostensibly for the purpose of reimbursing him for such additional
clerical assistance as the naturalization business may necessitate,
but not always used for that purpose. This subject is discussed

The petitioner, with certain exceptions noted below, must sign his
petition in his own handwriting. It is, however, usually permitted
him to sign it by “his mark,” properly witnessed, and even this was
not required of those who filed their declarations of intention
before the passage of the Act; but lapse of time has made that
no longer a practical exception. It has usually been held that a
signature, even in another language, such as Arabic, is sufficient.
There has often been controversy as to whether the extraordinary
arrangement of marks constructed by the petitioner is in fact a
signature, the author insisting that he has achieved one when it is
utterly illegible to both judge and naturalization examiner. In
this, as in a host of other details, the fate of the petitioner hangs
upon the intelligence and humanity of the judge, who has to choose
between a strict insistence upon the technicality and a more generous
adjudication--in a case, for example, in which a poor old deaf woman
homesteader might lose all she has in the world, simply because he
cannot see an intelligible “signature” in the conglomeration of
hieroglyphics which she intends to represent her name.

The law requires the petitioner to state the name, nativity, and
residence of his wife, if any, and each of his minor children. The
wife, if she herself can lawfully be naturalized, becomes _ipso
facto_ a citizen of this country by virtue of the naturalization
of her husband. It is the practice of many naturalizing courts to
decline to admit to citizenship men whose wives are still in the old
country, seeing danger in conferring the status upon women who may
never come to the United States, or who, coming, may turn out to be

The petition must disavow belief in the so-called principles of
anarchism; under the law no one can be naturalized who himself
believes in or teaches or belongs to any organization or groups
believing in or teaching “the duty, necessity, or propriety” of
abolishing organized government, or “the lawful assaulting or killing
of any officers, either of individuals or officers generally, of
the government of the United States, or of any other organized
government, because of his or their official character.” Some judges
of naturalizing courts recognize little distinction between “anarchy”
and “Socialism.” The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, however,
was more discriminating, reversing the naturalizing court in the
somewhat famous case of Leonard Olsen at Seattle, who was rejected,
ostensibly, on the ground that he was not “attached to the principles
of the Constitution,” but really because he avowed himself a
Socialist. There had been a somewhat similar case in Texas, in 1891,
but the Olsen decision settled the question of the lawfulness of
Socialist views as affecting naturalization.[79]

Both the declaration of intention and the petition for naturalization
are made out in duplicate; the original becomes a part of the record
of the court in the clerk’s office; the duplicate is sent to the
Naturalization Bureau at Washington.


Notice of each petition must be posted in a public and conspicuous
place in the office of the clerk for at least ninety days before
the hearing is had in open court. The Naturalization Bureau will
have been informed directly by the clerk; the purpose of the posting
is, of course, to give the public notice, so that anyone who
desires to do so may appear with objections. In actual effect, the
posting is without much value, because the public does not visit
the clerk’s office except upon business of its own, and there is no
other publication of the petition, save in such rare cases as local
newspapers make it a matter of news. It may be injurious to the
petitioner, because a good many hearings have been postponed simply
because the clerk forgot to post the notice at all!


Petitions may be heard only upon stated days, fixed by rule of the
court, so that the government and the public may attend the open
hearings which are required by the law. This works smoothly and well
enough in the great cities, where most naturalizations take place;
but there are districts, in sparsely settled regions, where there is
but one term of the court in a year; which, in practice, means that
the judge cannot be sure of being at any given point on any days
determinable in advance, except the opening day. In such cases a
great many courts will have but one hearing period in a year--usually
on the first, and perhaps the second, day of the term. Two hardships
may arise from such a situation; the alien and his witnesses may
be uncertain as to the length of time they must wait after a long
journey to the county seat, and if the clerk is careless and fails
to notify the petitioners that their cases are to be heard (a thing
which happens all too often) the judge and examiner are on hand, but
no one appears to be naturalized, and another year is lost before the
cases can be disposed of. That this can be a matter of very serious
import to the alien may be illustrated by the fact that a group of
Poles were classed as “nonresident aliens,” and subjected to the very
heavy income tax collected of such, simply because the clerk of the
court in which their petitions for naturalization were pending failed
to notify them of the hearing day.


The applicant must be able to “speak the English language”--this is
required by the law. It is enforced with a great variety of degrees
of strictness. Many an alien can understand what is said to him in
English long before he has gained facility in speech. Also, in the
majority of cases, especially where he is confronted by a stern and
perhaps hostile judge, or one disposed to treat immigrants with
contempt or ridicule, and a fiercely zealous naturalization examiner
bent upon having the petition denied if possible, he is promptly
tongue-tied by stage fright. It is common for the petitioner to
tell the court, through his witnesses or the interpreter, that he
knows what a certain question means and the answer to it, but cannot
express it in English. Many of the questions call for a simple “Yes”
or “No,” but a frightened or unintelligent applicant, who has learned
certain things by rote, may glibly answer “Yes” to the questions
which ought to be answered by “No,” and vice versa. There was a
fellow in Leadville, Colorado, who for a long time occupied the
status of witness for nearly all the Austrians who applied in that
place for naturalization, and who to a large degree superintended
their training for the examinations. After a while it was discovered
that he had a system by which he dictated the answers to the
questions, kicking the petitioner in the ankle when the answer should
be “Yes,” and nudging him with his elbow when it should be “No.”

Both judges and examiners vary greatly in their interpretation
of what constitutes ability to “speak English.” Some give the
petitioner the benefit of doubt and make large allowance for
natural embarrassment and fright. Others, as one judge frankly
says, “construe everything against the applicant,” on the ground
that citizenship is a precious privilege which should be accorded
to as few as possible, and only to those about whom there can be no
question. The court may accept a grunt, a shrug, a gesture, a shake
of the head, as indicating a sufficient understanding of the question.

Generally the judge is humane. There was a case in Arizona in which
a mild-looking Mexican insisted that he was both an anarchist and a
polygamist--plainly showing that he imagined the terms, about which
he was sharply asked, to represent qualities which he must possess.
The judge knew the man; that he was of good conduct, conventional
ideas, and married to one wife.

“How many women are you married to?” he asked.

“Oh, only one!” cried the man, adding for good measure, “maybe one is
too many!”

“Would you kill a man you didn’t like? Would you blow up a house, or
shoot a sheriff?”

“No, no, no! Me never kill nobody! Me never blow up nobody’s house!
Me never hurt nobody!”

Between the morning and afternoon sessions of the court the Mexican
was quietly interrogated and readjusted, and the court admitted him.
In thousands of cases, not so picturesque, the applicant called upon
for relatively elaborate views about theories of government, and even
more abstruse matters, is either bewildered or on general principles
deems it safer to remain silent; in which case the impression of
the court, and his action upon it, depend very much on the personal
equation, the humanity, and common sense of the judge.

A deaf-mute is exempt from the requirement of ability to “speak”
English; so is an alien who has made entry for a homestead on the
public lands. The latter can make his entry immediately upon filing
his declaration of intention; but he cannot complete his title
until he is fully naturalized. A few courts virtually ignore this
exemption, and require the homesteader to speak English and pass the
other educational tests. Generally the judges are lenient with such

The law does not require the applicant to be able to _read_ English;
but there is an increasing tendency in the courts to require it
regardless of the law. After all, the judge is the final arbiter; he
must be satisfied that the applicant is “in all respects qualified
to be a citizen,” and, if he chooses to regard a person who cannot
make sense out of a current newspaper as not thus qualified, he can
deny the application on general principles. The whole matter of
educational qualifications varies widely in different jurisdictions,
largely because of the absence of a definite standard of knowledge,
intelligence, and general ability established either by Act of
Congress or by the Naturalization Service.


The applicant must be “attached to the principles of the
Constitution,” and “well disposed toward the good order and happiness
of the United States.” Can a man be “attached to the principles of
the Constitution” without having read it? If not, then the vast
majority of the native-born citizens of the United States are not
so “attached,” for it is a matter of the most notorious fact that
very few Americans, not professional lawyers, ever have read it or
could pass the most rudimentary examination upon its substance.
There is, however, a widely prevalent tendency on the part of the
courts to require petitioners not only to swear that they have read
the document, but to pass a pretty stiff examination, either before
the naturalization examiner who may certify the fact, or even in
open court. And it is upon the phrase “attached to the principles
of the Constitution” that the Naturalization Bureau has erected its
whole elaborate and ambitious campaign of education for citizenship.
But its interpretation is so vague and unsettled, so subject to
the whims, theories, prejudices, and intellectual limitations of
the individuals upon whom its enforcement devolves, that it seems
highly desirable for Congress to establish by law definite and simple
requirements embodying the minimum qualification to be demanded of
applicants for citizenship to demonstrate both their understanding of
our form of government and their “attachment to the principles of the

One of the classic anecdotes of the Naturalization Service has
to do with this matter of attachment to and understanding of the
Constitution. In the court of a judge who insisted upon every
petitioner having at least read it, an Irish petitioner at the
morning session of court was ordered to read the Constitution, or
have it read to him, and to come back in the afternoon for further

  “Well, did you read the Constitution to him?” demanded the judge of
  the citizen who was acting as mentor of the petitioner.

  “I did, your Honor; I read it to him--all of it.”

  “Is he ready to swear that he is attached to the principles of it?”

  “He is, your Honor; when I got through readin’ it to him he said he
  thought it was a blame fine Constitution.”

What more could be asked--even of a native?

An Italian petitioner in one of the Southern courts exhibited a
good knowledge of current political history, and at the same time a
realization of his own limitations.

  “Who is the President of the United States?” asked the judge.

  “Mist’ Wilson.”

  “Who is the Vice-President?”

  “Mist’ Marsh’.”

  “If the President should die, who would take his place?”

  “Mist’ Marsh’--he’s ready for that job.”

  “Very good, Tony, and quite correct. Now, let me ask you something
  else. Could you be President of the United States?”

  “Oh, no! no! Judge, please!” cried the dismayed petitioner, “you
  have to excuse me! I’m too busy!”


The fact of continuous residence within the United States for five
years, and within the particular state for one year next preceding
the filing of the petition, must be established to the satisfaction
of the court. To the layman this would seem simple enough; but there
is hardly anything connected with the process of naturalization
about which there has been so much variety of interpretation. What
constitutes “continuous residence”? It is said that a court in Utah
disqualified an applicant because once during the five years he
stepped across the Canadian border far enough and long enough to buy
a sandwich! Shall a man lose his “residence” because of a walk across
the International Bridge at Niagara Falls? Suppose he is a carpenter,
or a farm hand, and goes over into Canada, or Mexico, for the summer
months, or long enough to build a house? Suppose there is an estate
to be settled up in the old country, or that the alien’s aged mother
is dying in Copenhagen or Buda-Pesth, and yearns to see her son once
before she goes. Shall that invalidate his residence? There are many
judges who will not tolerate any absence whatever from the country,
on any pretext.

In the great bulk of practice, however, it has simmered down to
the question of “intention.” Reasonably carried out, as in other
matters, it meets the average case. If the petitioner always, and
everywhere, during the five years maintained his intention in good
faith to become a citizen, and especially if he preserved a specific
residence, both the courts and the Naturalization Service on the
whole have waived the literal words of the requirement. But within
that general situation there are degrees. There are judges who will
permit an absence as long as two years, if “intention” is clear; some
set a limit of one year, others of six months. Generally speaking,
any absence in excess of six months is viewed with suspicion.

There are two reasons, as the law stands, for insistence upon
residence virtually continuous. In the first place there is the
wording and evident intention of the law, which must be obeyed in
spirit, anyway. In the second place, in case of any protracted
absence, the witnesses hardly can know what he has been about, and
certainly cannot swear, as they must under the statute, to the fact
of continuous residence. If the petitioner has been out of the ken of
his witnesses in some other part of the United States, he can prove
good conduct and American residence by depositions; but the law does
not contemplate depositions regarding his conduct on any foreign
soil, however legitimate his reason for being there. And if he has
been in other parts of _the same state_, he cannot prove anything
about it, by witnesses, depositions, or otherwise.


This brings us to one of the most extraordinary provisions of the
law--that regarding the proof of eligibility by witnesses and
depositions--a provision responsible for the exclusion of thousands
of perfectly fit persons, and for a vast deal of wholly unnecessary
hardship and injustice.

During the eleven years 1908-1918 inclusive, according to the
statistics given in the annual reports of the Commissioner of
Naturalization, of 107,484 petitions for naturalization denied,
more than one in four--28,262, or 26.3 per cent--were denied on the
ground of “incompetent witnesses.” The percentage in many states
is very much larger than that: Illinois, 38.3; New Jersey, 37.2;
Michigan, 36.5; Iowa, 36.4; Nebraska, 36.0; Kansas, 35.9; Colorado,
32.8; Arkansas, 32.4; Oregon, 32.2; North Carolina, 31.9; Indiana,
31.1; Wisconsin, 31.0; Missouri, 29.5; New Mexico, 29.3; Kentucky,
28.8; Montana, 28.4; Utah, 27.0. The low states in this respect
are few--Rhode Island, 5.9; New Hampshire, 8.0; Connecticut, 9.0;
Vermont, 9.1; Massachusetts, 9.2; South Carolina, 11.4; Florida, 11.5.

Now, what does this mean in human terms? To begin with, a petitioner
for naturalization may not prove his eligibility, as he would prove
any other set of facts in court, by such an exhibit of evidence
of various kinds as would satisfy a reasonable judge or jury. He
cannot bring a group of neighbors who have known him; his employer,
his priest or pastor; the village school-teacher who teaches his
children; a sheaf of affidavits from people who have known him in
various places where he has lived in the state. His exhibit of
evidence is rigidly and most absurdly restricted, and the restriction
is of no benefit to anybody--except, perhaps, the Naturalization
Service in somewhat simplifying their work of investigation.

His petition must be accompanied by the affidavits of precisely
_two_ witnesses, who must accompany him personally when he files his
petition, and must accompany him again, ninety days or more later,
when his case comes before the court for hearing. _Two, only two, and
the same two._ Only in case one of them dies, or moves out of the
jurisdiction of the court, is he allowed to substitute. Each witness
must be a native or naturalized citizen of the United States, and
must swear to that fact. And each must swear that he has known the
petitioner during the whole period of five years of residence within
the state, or of one year in the state if he lived previously in
other states, and satisfy the court that he has seen the petitioner
frequently enough to know that his residence has been continuous and
his conduct such as to warrant his admission to citizenship. Some
judges require the witnesses to have seen the petitioner virtually
every day, “constantly, as a neighbor”; “at least once a week,” for
five years. The examination of the witnesses is frequently more
severe, if possible, than that of the petitioner himself; for the
law requires them to be “credible.” If a witness can be shown by
the naturalization examiner to be of dubious moral character, the
court probably will deny the petition verified by him, and leave the
petitioner with only one witness. He must have two, and he cannot
substitute a better one!

In a state which has allowed aliens to vote upon their declaration
of intention, innumerable foreign-born persons have in good faith
believed themselves to be citizens. If such a person appears as a
witness for a petitioner, the petition is denied--properly enough,
except that the petitioner might easily produce a substitute who
could not be objected to; but no, he must have not only exactly two,
but _the same_ two, throughout the proceeding. Or, if one or both
of these particular witnesses turn out to be honestly mistaken in
thinking they have known the petitioner for the whole five years; if,
for example, it turns out that they could not have known him more
than four years and nine months--the petition is denied; “incompetent
witnesses.” In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1918, more than 2,300
petitions were denied for this cause, and it is safe to say that,
in a very large majority of the cases, the witnesses were acting in
perfect good faith.

The practice cuts very close. _In re_ Welch (159 Fed., 1014), decided
in 1908, reports a case in which it was shown that a witness had not
known the petitioner for five years at the time of the filing of the
petition, but had known him for five years by the time the hearing
was had. In that case the court permitted amendment of the date of
the petition, but required a fresh posting.

Congress took note of the difficulty an alien might labor under if
he were obliged to move about from state to state during the five
years’ period, and provided that four years of the time, in the event
of inability to bring witnesses who could swear to knowledge of the
whole period, the applicant might prove residence, etc., _in other
states_ by deposition. This helps a good deal, as far as it goes;
but in any event the last year, the year of residence required to be
within the state where the petition is filed, must be covered by “two
witnesses”--_two, only two, and the same two_. Suppose the case (and
there have been many such) of a Methodist minister, an Englishman
if you please, who, during the five years preceding his petition,
has been assigned to two or more pastorates within the same state at
points more or less distant from each other. He could produce almost
any desired array of witnesses to cover his residence in each of the
several places, and affidavits galore; but he must not. There is
virtually no chance at all of his being able to find two, only two,
and the same two, who can testify to personal, neighborly knowledge
of his residence in all places. What, then, of an average immigrant
who has been obliged to shift about in search of employment, resident
all through the year in the state, but never staying long enough in
one place to establish intimate relations with possible witnesses
under such restrictions?


The judges are all but unanimous in their denunciation of this
system. The comment of a United States district judge in the Middle
West represents the sentiments of most:

  I do not think it tends to raise the standard of citizenship or
  to do anyone any good to have the requirements such that, if a
  petitioner has lived in the state for the full five-year period,
  he must prove that entire residence and his good character and
  reputation during that entire period by the two petitioning
  witnesses. The two petitioning witnesses should have known him
  for at least a year, and be able to make a showing for at least
  the last year of the period. I know of nothing so sacred about a
  state line that this great difference should be made between the
  petitioner who moves here from another state and the petitioner who
  moves here from a distant part of the same state.

A Michigan judge gives a striking example of the injustice of the

  The greatest copper mines in the world are in the Upper Peninsula
  of Michigan. The greatest automobile factories in the world are
  in the city of Detroit in the same state. These sturdy miners of
  Houghton and Keweenaw counties in the Upper Peninsula hear of the
  automobile industry in the city of Detroit, and after three or four
  years’ residence up there, move to Detroit and take up residence
  there. Under the present law, they must find two witnesses who
  have known them for the entire five years. You will recognize how
  difficult it will be for them to find two witnesses who knew them
  in the Upper Peninsula, moved to Detroit when they did, and have
  known them ever since. The copper mines of the Upper Peninsula are
  five or six hundred miles from Detroit. Can anyone suggest any good
  reasons why these petitioners in Detroit should not be permitted
  to prove their Detroit residence by two witnesses who sign their
  petitions, and their Upper Peninsula residence by depositions or
  other witnesses? Why punish so unnecessarily the man who continues
  to reside for the full five years in the same state, while we
  justly permit another man, who moves here from another state,
  perhaps a distance of fifty or a hundred miles, to make his proof
  as to that state by deposition?

  Mind you, I would make them prove their residence in the particular
  city or county ... for the full period of their residence there, by
  the two witnesses who signed the petition; and, of course, I would
  require them to have resided in such municipality for at least a

Says one judge:

  In the far West, where the distances are so great and the expense
  of travel such a hardship, the matter might readily be handled
  on a mileage basis, so that the petitioner would prove a year’s
  residence by the witnesses who attest his petition, and a previous
  residence within the same state more than, say fifty miles, from
  the place of holding court, by depositions.

Of 334 judges of naturalizing courts in all parts of the country
who specifically addressed themselves to this question in reply to
a questionnaire of the Americanization Study in the summer of 1919,
only 34 were content with the present system; 289 specifically
favored amendment of the law for the reasons, and to the effect,
substantially as suggested above.

A clerk of the court in Arizona who handles the naturalization
business, and in his letter displays a keen and intelligent interest
in the human aspects of the question, says:

  I have had numerous petitioners who, for ordinary purposes,
  could prove every day of their residence in this state; but for
  naturalization purposes were unable to prove their residence, even
  though the entire five years may have been--and in some instances
  has been--in this one county! I consider it inequitable for the
  reason that the man who travels from mining camp to mining camp
  may reside four or more years in any number of states, and at
  any number of camps in each state; but, if he then removes to
  another state and resides in that state one year, he may obtain
  citizenship. Yet the rancher who resides five years in one state,
  or even in one county, but during the five years resides in two
  different localities of the state, or even on two different ranches
  in one county, may be (and under the present law frequently is)
  deprived of citizenship for the reason that two witnesses, only
  two, and each of these two, must prove the continuous five years’

  I some time ago became convinced that this provision of the law
  was not equitable, and in January, 1919, wrote to our Congressman
  in the hope of convincing him and getting a bill introduced to
  remedy it. He thought it too late in the session to attempt it, and
  that it would be useless to attempt it without the approval of the
  Department of Labor, which approval was withheld.

Nevertheless, it is to be presumed that the Bureau of Naturalization
did approve (since the proposal was embodied in the same bill
containing one of its attempts to secure a notable extension of its
powers)[80] a measure of concession in the matter of witnesses.[81]
A proposed amendment to Section 10 of the Naturalization Law would

  That in case the petitioner has resided in two or more parts of
  the county in which he resides at the time he files his petition,
  and for this cause is unable to procure two witnesses, who are
  citizens of the United States, who are qualified and competent to
  establish the entire period of his residence in such county, he may
  establish his residence at each of the places in such county by the
  affidavits and testimony of at least two witnesses, citizens of the
  United States, to each place of residence, both in his petition and
  at the hearing.

The same bill would have mitigated and, so far as it went, humanized
the restriction upon substitution of witnesses by adding to Section
4 a subdivision providing that

  Where either or both of the original subscribing witnesses to
  a petition for naturalization, or those giving evidence by
  deposition in support thereof, shall be found to be incompetent
  or not qualified to establish the proof of residence, good moral
  character, or other evidence required by law, the petitioner may
  substitute other qualified and competent witnesses at, or prior to,
  the final hearing. The hearing of the petition may be continued
  for this purpose and the names of the substituted witnesses may be
  ordered publicly posted, in the discretion of the court, if such
  posting shall be deemed necessary. Any petition for naturalization
  may be amended to correct manifest errors appearing therein and
  made in good faith.


Mr. Raymond F. Crist, then Deputy Commissioner of Naturalization,
in testimony before the House Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization, prior to the enactment of the Act of May 9, 1918,
stated that the Naturalization Service was habitually represented at
the taking of the depositions by which a petitioner is permitted to
prove his residence in states other than that in which the petition
is filed. This must have been a slip of the tongue, for it is very
far from being in accordance with the facts. Such a course would
be a physical impossibility, especially in the present and past
short-handed condition of the field service. As a rule the notaries
public who attest these depositions are designated by the several
chief examiners; but many of them are in small places, to which
examiners never go. In point of fact, in most cases, the depositions
are not viséd in any way whatever, so far as the naturalization
machinery is concerned, or examined at all until the judge reaches
the particular case. They go direct from the notary to the court in
which the petition is to be heard, in a sealed envelope which is
not expected to be opened until the day of the hearing--unless the
court has, by specific order, authorized the naturalization officer
to open and examine them. A very considerable number of them--one
person familiar with the practice estimated the percentage as high as
75 per cent--are defective in some particular; the same authority
thought at least 40 per cent of them would be so defective as to
render them, under strict construction, inadmissible as evidence.
For example, they will fail to assert that the deposing person has
known the petitioner during the required period of time; or will not
say, categorically, that the affiant is himself a citizen of the
United States. As a rule, it is not until the affidavits are examined
in open court by the judge or examiner that their insufficiency
is disclosed, for the first time, to the petitioner. He may not
be admitted until the papers have gone back for correction, or a
new set prepared. That sometimes means a delay of six months, a
year, or even longer--a very serious matter to a petitioner upon
whose naturalization may depend his title to a homestead. There is
nothing in the law prescribing the method of handling this matter;
it is subject to regulation by the Bureau of Naturalization in its
discretion; and inasmuch as the Naturalization Service declares
itself, and ought indeed to be, the friend of the petitioner,
guarding him against errors which may invalidate his whole effort and
lead to the cancellation of his certificate even after he gets it,
it ought to devise some procedure for examining every deposition.
No petitioner should be allowed to come into court until his papers
have been scrutinized, at least for technical defects. In certain
districts of the Naturalization Service this has indeed been the
practice in an informal way and to a limited extent. It would seem
that it ought to be invariable. The Service has done excellent work
in shutting out all manner of runners, professional witnesses, and
other kinds of pseudo-assistants to the alien; this has left him in
the matter of depositions, as a general rule, without well-informed,
disinterested, or intelligent guidance, with the result that he has
no adequate warning against defects, either important or trivial,
which may vitiate his application. When he comes into court, all
of his papers should be perfect, and all the facts cleared of
technicalities, so that the judge may pass exclusively upon the
merits of the case.

An applicant for naturalization must state in his petition whether or
not he ever has filed a previous petition, and if so, what became of
it. There have been instances in which a former petition was granted,
but for some reason the record of it cannot now be found. In such a
case the petitioner would have the greatest difficulty in getting
proofs of his citizenship. His new petition may be denied on the
ground that he is “already a citizen,” but it leaves the record in an
unsatisfactory condition; although his copy of the order of denial,
stating that he is a citizen, serves fairly well for most purposes to
certify his citizenship.


It is customary for naturalizing courts, in denying petitions, to add
some phrase governing a later renewal; such as “without prejudice to
renewal”; or “with prejudice to renewal before the expiration of five
years from the date of this order of denial.” In absence of such a
phrase the court passing upon the second petition--especially if the
former denial was on the ground of “immoral character”--requires the
lapse of at least five years and exceedingly good proof of reform.
The law requires that the petitioner must show affirmatively not only
that during the whole period of five years immediately preceding
the date of his petition he has behaved as a person of good moral
character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, etc.,
but that he _is_ at the time of the petition such a person. Courts
have been known to deny petitions for acts committed before the
beginning of the five-year period, on the ground that they involved
ineradicable moral turpitude. Judges have shown much liberality on
this point, however; there was a case of an old homesteader who had
spent several years in the penitentiary; but the judge inquired
far enough into the history of the matter to learn that the man
was convicted as the result of a conspiracy on the part of certain
neighbors who wished to get his homestead.

The latitude of the courts in this respect is very wide, and
interesting slants are to be found in the decisions. There was a
saloonkeeper in Chicago who participated in the then general custom
of keeping liquor saloons open on Sunday in violation of the law,
the policy of the city administration at that time being that of
non-enforcement. There came a time when public sentiment required
enforcement of the Sunday-closing law, and thereupon this man
promptly obeyed the orders of the police to that effect. When his
petition for naturalization came up, it was held that the consent
of the authorities to his disobedience of the law was no excuse; a
person who would accept the benefit of an evasion of the law could
not be of “good moral character.”

Said the court:

  If a rule were laid down that it is immoral to knowingly and
  willfully violate the law in a community where public sentiment
  approves the law, but not immoral in a community where public
  sentiment does not approve the law, it would be most disastrous to
  the good order and well-being of society.... That public officers
  charged with enforcement of the law do not do so cannot change
  the effect upon the moral character of a man who willfully and
  habitually violates it.[82]

This was a case in which the government succeeded in canceling a
certificate already granted, and it shows, as do many others, what
a severe gantlet the petitioner must run, and how his past is combed
over before he can show that he is altogether qualified. Gerstein was
required to wait before filing a second petition; the court said:

  The order and decree of naturalization of the Superior Court [of
  Cook County, Illinois] is reversed and the application of appellee
  for citizenship denied, without prejudice to his right to file
  another application _when time has removed the disqualification_.


The law requires that the Oath of Allegiance shall be taken in open
court as the final act of the petitioner before being formally
admitted to citizenship; thereupon the decree is entered and
certificate issued; but the Naturalization Service is forbidden by
its regulations to issue the certificate until the judge’s signature
is upon the order. Sometimes the clerk rattles off or mumbles the
oath very indistinctly, and the petitioners, often a large number of
them, hardly understand a word of the solemn ritual. It is becoming
more common for the judge to require everyone in court to stand while
he delivers the text of the oath loudly and clearly. In some courts
where there are many applicants, and all concerned are pressed for
time, the persons to be naturalized are kept in one part of the room
until the docket is cleared, whereupon the oath is administered to
them in groups of nationality; each nationality group standing with
upraised right hands while the clerk or judge reads the words, and
names the particular “prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty,”
allegiance to whom, or to which, is to be abjured. Sometimes this
ceremony is a very hurried, perfunctory, and undignified performance;
sometimes a very solemn and impressive one. During the high-pressure
process of naturalizing great numbers of soldiers in the army
encampments during the war, it was sometimes the custom to have all
nationalities stand at once, the clerk naming all the sovereignties
concerned in one series, with the presumption that each individual
would mentally isolate the one which he was supposed to have in mind.
There were occasions when this helter-skelter method was pursued for
the benefit of as many as 1,200 petitioners together.


There is a growing movement in favor of having public ceremonies
of “initiation,” in which the whole community is represented, to
welcome the new citizens; to impress upon both the newcomers and the
people to whose fellowship they are being welcomed, the importance
and solemnity of the occasion. An increasing number of judges are
carrying out this idea in their naturalization proceedings; adding
to the formalities required by the law a speech either by the judge
himself or by some representative citizen, or both, in which the
momentous significance of the act in which the alien and the court
have joined is emphasized. Some judges make a practice of giving to
each new citizen a small flag, a special certificate, a leaflet or
brochure setting forth the sentiments appropriate to the occasion.
Much more common is it becoming for public-spirited citizens to
organize a meeting of the same import. Here, for example, is the
program of such a meeting, held in the Music Hall at Fall River,
Massachusetts, on May 7, 1919, following a naturalization session of
the local court, designated as “Reception and Welcome to Fall River’s
Newly Naturalized Citizens”:



  Music                              _Orchestra_

  Singing--“America”                 _Audience_

  Address of Welcome                 _Hon. Henry F. Nickerson_

  Response by a naturalized citizen  _James B. Kerr_

  Selection                          _Orchestra_

  Address                            _Rev. Everett C. Herrick_

  Pledge of Allegiance--_Led by Boy Scouts_:

        “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the
        country for which it stands; one nation,
        indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

  Presentation of Certificates of Naturalization
  _M. B. Irish, Sec. Fall River Immigrant Committee_

  Prayer                             _Rev. Vincent Marchildon_

  Singing--“Star-spangled Banner”    _Audience_

  Informal Reception

Here is another program--of the “Americanization Meeting in honor of
those who were admitted to citizenship April 19, 21, 22, 1920,” held
in the Union High School at Grand Rapids, Michigan, April 30, 1920,
under the auspices of the Grand Rapids Board of Education and the
Americanization Society:


  HENRY E. CROW, President of the Board of Education, Presiding

  JOHN W. BEATTIE, Supervisor of Music, Song Leader

  Song--“America”                    _Audience_

  Address            _Christian Gallmeyer, Mayor of Grand Rapids_

  Folk Games                         _Pupils Sibley School_
                    Directed by _Miss Ila Krumheuer_

  Address                            _Fred J. Schlotfeldt,
                Chief Naturalization Examiner, Chicago, Ill._

  Songs                              _Audience_

  Presentation of Citizenship Certificates
                         _Judge Willis B. Perkins, Circuit Court_

  Pledge of Allegiance to Flag--_Audience, led by Boy Scouts_:

        “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to
        the country for which it stands; one nation,
        indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

  Address to New Citizens            _A. P. Johnson,
                  Publisher Grand Rapids “News”_

  Songs                              _Audience_

  Address                            _Raymond F. Crist,
          Director of Citizenship, Bureau of Naturalization,
                        Washington, D. C._

  “Star-Spangled Banner”             _Audience_

Mrs. Henrietta Briggs-Wall of Washington, D. C., has presented
admirably the spirit of this movement in a pamphlet proposing a
general “New Patriot Plan,” to utilize the Fourth of July throughout
the country for the celebration of the “civic birthday,” alike
of the native born who, during the past year, have attained the
voting age of 21 years, and the newly naturalized foreign born.
“In other countries,” says Mrs. Briggs-Wall, “much ado is made
over the crowning of kings and queens who attempt to rule over
others; there is much more occasion for general rejoicing when newly
enfranchised citizens attain their share in the honors and duties
of self-government.” The plan proposes in general a Fourth-of-July
celebration in every community in America to which the newly
enfranchised shall be invited as guests of honor. The author says,
among other things:

  The natural birthday is remembered by the family; the “civic
  birthday” should be honored by the community.

  Inauguration ceremonies should accompany this newly acquired
  power. These exercises may consist of addresses to them [the
  newly enfranchised], music, a variety of activities for their
  entertainment and instruction; all of which, as an object lesson,
  will promote the patriotism of all the people.

  Prizes may be offered to those who bring the greatest number to
  register in the “Record Book of New Patriots”; also to those
  who may try, if they choose, to write the best essays on “true
  patriotism.” ... The customs and convenience of different
  localities will suggest varying methods.

  It is appropriate that the birthday of freedom, the civic birthday
  of our country, should be chosen to celebrate the civic birthday
  of the citizen. It is the best possible holiday for patriotic
  purposes; the audience is already furnished, and the minds of the
  people are in a receptive mood. It occurs at the time of year when
  picnics, excursions, and out-of-door celebrations of all sorts
  can be easily arranged in honor, and for the pleasure, of the new

Criticism, commendation and reform alike, to be either fair or
judicious, must bear in mind that the naturalization system which
has been built up--and such parts, absurdities, inhumanities, and
bureaucratic excrescences as have grown up--under the Naturalization
Act of 1906 represents when all is said an honest, diligent, and
wholly patriotic effort to make impossible the now almost incredible
scandals of former times; to establish and vigilantly maintain
proper standards of character and intelligence by which to test
those of other nativity who desire to join our fellowship and
participate in our sovereignty; and to fit and educate those who
are admitted for the better appreciation and performance of the
unique privileges and responsibilities of American citizenship. The
remediable evils, some of the more conspicuous of which have been
indicated, seem to be due in part to survival among us of general
race and anti-foreign prejudices, despite our historic professions
and democratic traditions; in part to the mere inertia of custom
and habit characterizing all governmental institutions; in part to
the “personal equation” of those upon whom, in various parts of the
country, falls the duty of administering the law.

The experience of these fifteen years has demonstrated that the law,
as it stands, is on the whole just and effective for its purposes.
Its defects can be remedied; its sound features strengthened and
clarified. It is time to modify it in some respects; to standardize
the tests and conditions enforced under its provisions, to the
end of removing, or anyway diminishing, the opportunity for the
erratic operation of “personal equation” and the theories, whims,
negligences, together with the illegal and extra-legal practices, in
both the executive departments and the courts, of which the aspirant
for citizenship is the hapless victim.



When we speak of the “personal equation” as an important factor in
the adoption or rejection of an alien applicant for citizenship,
we are likely to be thinking chiefly of the personality of the
petitioner; of his character, intelligence, education, social
training and experience; of his general fitness and capacity for
assimilation of our language, customs, traditions, institutional
relations--what we are pleased to call our “fundamental principles.”
But this is only a part, and not always or necessarily the most
significant and controlling part, of the situation. There are other
“personal equations” to be considered. For while it is true in
one sense that the applicant does pass into the maw of a machine,
constructed “of law rather than of men,” and governed by more or less
precise and automatically operating regulations from whose technic
the individuals on either side of the process may not materially
depart, the fact is that there is hardly any other legal process
in our governmental system in which personality--individual ideas,
prejudices, idiosyncrasies--plays so large a part. In no other
activity of the courts is the individual petitioner so entirely at
the mercy of the court, so completely without recourse in the event
of a decision against him.

Strictly speaking, the proceeding is judicial; an _ex-parte_ case
in an important court, in which a petition is filed with the clerk,
comes in due course before the judge in person; evidence is received
for and against the granting of the privilege requested, and the
judge decides in a formal order and decree, pro or contra; the
petition is granted or denied, as the case may be. For every petition
is decided and disposed of in some final way, even though it may
be continued or postponed once or more. It is doubtful, however,
whether anywhere in our judicial procedure--even in the minor courts
where so often farcically unjust “law” is inflicted upon defenseless
persons--may be found a class of cases departing so far in practice
from the apparent simplicity of the theory; where the petitioner is
subject to so heavy handicaps of technicality; to so great an extent
at the mercy of personal whims and mental limitations, of blunders
and negligences--and “red tape”--of persons over whose activities he
has not the slightest control, with very little right or opportunity
to have beside him anyone to protect him from encroachment upon his

The Constitution of the United States gave to Congress exclusive
authority “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”[83] It
might have been inferred that the intention was to make the process
strictly an affair of Federal administration; but Congress did not so
construe or utilize the authority. It established, by the original
statute and subsequent legislation, uniform standards of requirement
as to racial restriction, preliminary period of residence, literacy,
and moral qualifications; but in effect it gave the jurisdiction and
administration of the law back to the states--not in so many words,
to be sure, but by committing the naturalization function to local as
well as to Federal judges in every state and territory. Nothing could
have been devised more surely to subject the operation of the law to
the peculiarities of local conditions and feeling, and to the warps
and twists of personal notion.

From the beginning, in the first general naturalization law enacted
after the new republic got under way, the function of admitting new
members of the nation has been vested in the courts--a _judicial_
power and activity. So it remains to-day. And with the sole exception
of Canada, the United States is unique in respect of this method
of naturalization. England, France, and virtually all of the other
nations vest the power in some ministerial agency.[84]


At first glance it might seem fitting and wise to confine the
function (if to the courts at all) to the _Federal_ tribunals, in
the interest of freedom from local political influence, uniformity
of interpretation and practice, and recognition of the fact that
citizenship is chiefly a relationship to the nation as a whole.
Always, indeed, there has been a considerable body of sentiment in
favor of such a change in the practice. Many of the state judges
would favor it; some for reasons of principle, but most because they
would gladly get rid of a body of duty which to many is irksome and
a distasteful interference with their ordinary matters of litigation
by duties which they regard as properly more administrative than
judicial. No Federal judge will hear of any such addition to their
already great burden of work.

The reasons to the contrary are weighty and thus far have been
controlling. In the first place, after all is said, an individual,
however national his citizenship in the large sense, is politically
a unit of the state in which he resides. He does not vote for any
strictly Federal officer; the only civic relationships which
he bears to the nation as such are those of direct taxation and
national military service--and both of those are of comparatively
recent establishment. He does not vote for President of the United
States, but for a group of Presidential electors who will cast the
vote of his state in the Electoral College. When he votes for two
Senators and one Representative in Congress, he votes for them as
representatives of his own state and Congressional district. The
states, as a rule, have been very jealous of every effort to take the
direct control of the selection of their citizens out of the hands of
officials amenable to local sentiment.

There is another and even better reason, in the fact that the United
States courts are relatively few and far between, and the expense
of time and travel which would be imposed upon applicants, living
elsewhere than in large cities, for having to go (as they do now
twice and often more than twice) to the nearest Federal courts would
be prohibitive upon all aliens but the most prosperous or those whom
some one might have a motive, political or other, for subsidizing in
this way. In not a few sparsely settled regions, even as it is now, a
petitioner must travel, and take his two witnesses, a total of many
hundred miles before he can consummate the process of naturalization
and obtain the precious certificate without which he cannot complete
his title to his homestead.

The existing law, modified in its allusions to territories which
since have become states by the various kinds of legislation relative
to their statehood, thus describes the courts which are to have the
power to pass upon applications for citizenship:

  United States Circuit and District Courts now existing, or which
  may hereafter be established by Congress, in any State; United
  States District Courts for the Territories of Arizona, New Mexico,
  Oklahoma, Hawaii, and Alaska; the Supreme Court of the District of
  Columbia, and the United States Courts for the Indian Territory;
  also all courts of record in any State or Territory now existing,
  or which may hereafter be created, having a seal, a clerk, and
  jurisdiction in actions at law or equity, or law and equity, in
  which the amount in controversy is unlimited.


According to the report of the Commissioner of Naturalization for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, a total of 2,306 courts of
all these kinds have exercised naturalization jurisdiction during
that year, and a list of judges, compiled by the Americanization
Study from information obtained from the Naturalization Service
and from other sources, shows that about 1,450 individual judges,
Federal, state, and local, preside in these courts. A grand total
of approximately 100,000 cases a year--the figure roughly used in
estimating the naturalization business of recent years--would give
to each judge an average of about 70 cases a year; but since in
the great majority of rural districts this business is exceedingly
small--in some cases not more than two or three in a year--and since
the bulk of it is in the large cities and in particular regions, such
as the mining districts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois,
etc., certain courts have a very large number of cases, in some
instances running into thousands.

In the last analysis, the individual judge is, subject to certain
noteworthy restrictions and interferences, the final arbiter in every
case. Upon his “personal equation,” his opinions and prejudices, to a
great extent depends the reception which the petitioner experiences
when he comes into court for the final stage of his initiation as an
American citizen.

Obviously, then, it becomes important to ascertain the general
attitude of the naturalizing judges throughout the country toward
the law as it stands, toward the naturalization process in general,
toward the petitioner for citizenship. In the last analysis the judge
is a human being, moved by human motives, warped by human prejudices,
subject to the same personal, local, and general influences that
condition the emotions and actions of the rest of us toward our
fellow men.

With this in view, the Americanization Study addressed a
questionnaire to each of the approximately 1,400 judges throughout
the country entitled[85] to jurisdiction in naturalization
proceedings in the 2,300 courts over which from time to time they
preside for this purpose. Somewhat less than one-third (423, or about
31 per cent) of the judges thus addressed replied or were accounted
for in some manner more or less complete. Any exact or conclusive
tabulation of the replies would be impracticable because the
questions called for expression of opinions rather than categorical
or statistical answers; a large proportion of the judges left one
or more of the questions unanswered or qualified their answers in
such a way as to preclude the possibility of precise classification.
Nevertheless, the results as a whole are highly significant and
informing--almost as much so in their negative aspects as in the
definite replies evoked.

For example, it is interesting to observe the difference not only in
the ratio of replies received to the number of judges questioned,
but in the character of the replies as regards general strictness
or liberality of attitude, in the various parts of the country. The
first point is to be seen in the following list of naturalization
districts, with the approximate number of judges in each and the
number of them heard from:



  _Boston District._--Comprising the states of Maine, New Hampshire,
  Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island.

  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.

  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

  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).

  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.

  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

  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.

  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).

  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.

  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

  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).

  Washington     |   47     |    15
  Oregon         |   27     |    11
  Montana        |   26     |     7
  Idaho          |   11     |     1
                 |  ---     |    --
        Total    |  111     |    34


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


  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.


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

  _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

  _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

  _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

  _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

  _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

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

  Yes                                               167
  No                                                157
  Noncommittal                                       25

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

  Yes                                               208
  No                                                134
  Noncommittal                                       33

  _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

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

  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

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

  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

  _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

  _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

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

  Yes                                               100
  No                                                225
  Noncommittal                                       34

  _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

  _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

  _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

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

  Yes                                                76
  No                                                202

  _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


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

(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

(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 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

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 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]


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.


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

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.


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

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

  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

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.


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.


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.


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

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

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.


  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

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


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.


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,”

  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

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

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:


  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.


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


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:



        |                  |                       |   DIFFERENCE IN
        |       FEES       |    ADMINISTRATION     |    OVER COST OF
        |                  |                       |   ADMINISTRATION
  1907  |    $65,129.00    |      $29,243.18       |      $35,885.82
  1908  |    166,873.90    |      232,728.05{2}    |      -65,854.15
  1909  |    172,202.13    |      194,428.45{2}    |      -22,226.32
  1910  |    221,766.38    |      176,415.98       |       45,350.40
  1911  |    290,551.52    |      222,831.15       |       67,720.37
  1912  |    338,315.33    |      257,678.99       |       80,636.34
  1913  |    350,716.60    |      290,026.20       |       60,690.40
  1914  |    450,228.55    |      331,517.26       |      118,711.29
  1915  |    441,764.49    |      363,593.11       |       78,171.38
  1916  |    410,272.55    |      389,075.90       |       21,196.65
  1917  |    635,927.52    |      393,240.15       |      242,687.37
  1918  |    507,932.50    |      416,486.84       |       91,445.66
  1919  |    597,087.97    |      812,056.38       |     -214,968.41
  1920  |    664,539.20    |      753,383.83       |      -88,844.63
      Total                                              $842,495.68
  Less deficits                                           391,893.51
  Excess of fees received over cost of administration    $450,602.17

  [note 1: Department of Labor, _Annual Reports for 1920_, p. 799,
  Table 24.]

  [note 2: Included in these expenditures are appropriations to the
  Department of Justice for maintenance of field force prior to the
  transfer to the Department of Commerce and Labor--_to wit_, fiscal
  year 1908, $193,000; fiscal year 1909, $150,000.]

The Commissioner puts his finger on the ethical point involved, when
he says, as for example in his report for the fiscal year 1918-19:[95]

  It is interesting and highly suggestive to note from the next
  table that, notwithstanding the “hard-luck story” told in this
  report as to arrearages of work and the delays and the omissions
  of first one and then another important feature of that work, the
  beneficiaries of such work--those who have paid their money for
  prompt and efficient service--have annually for years past paid
  into the Federal Treasury more than was used for the purpose for
  which it was paid.

  The aggregate of such surplus items, which cannot be regarded as
  other than a trust fund in essence, and even deducting the amount
  expended for military naturalizations amounts to $539,446.80. It
  would easily have been much more if the clerks had been furnished
  to serve the aliens who desired to become citizens. The burst of
  public sympathy for, and interest in, the young alien who entered
  our service to make the “supreme sacrifice” for democracy which
  found expression in a special appropriation of $400,000 to pay
  the cost of making these young heroes citizens in law, as they
  already are in heart, over a period of 13½ months, did not, in
  fact, cost the people of this country as a whole anything. As
  long as over half a million dollars of the fund contributed by
  the newly made citizens from civil life remain unexpended for the
  purposes for which it was paid, it would appear to the ordinary
  observer that they, and not the general body of American citizens,
  gave the $400,000 to pay for the cost of giving free of charge the
  well-deserved “priceless heritage of American citizenship” to the
  young alien soldiers who fought for liberty and this country.

The government of the United States is making money out of the
business of admitting aliens to citizenship, and is not keeping
fairly or efficiently its end of the transaction. In the period since
the enactment of the Naturalization Law, as Commissioner Campbell
has said, aliens in pursuit of citizenship--even though thousands of
them did not get it!--have paid fees to an amount exceeding by more
than half a million dollars the total cost of the Naturalization
Bureau--a margin itself larger by more than $200,000 than the total
appropriation for the Bureau in any year save one.[96]

This money, if devoted to the purposes to which morally it belonged,
would have been ample to supply the supervisory and clerical force
in the Bureau necessary to make prompt and effective examination of
declarations, petitions, and certificates, and to maintain a proper
and complete system of records, and of indices by which those records
could be made available for reference by the alien, the government,
and the public. _Provided_ always that the Bureau did not permit
itself to be diverted and swamped by extraneous and self-assumed
functions in the field of public education which it is not adapted,
either by the logic of good administrative organization or by the
nature and aptitudes of its personnel, to perform. It has never been
within arm’s length of keeping up with the business committed to
it by law, and by the nature of its function; nevertheless, during
the past decade at least, it has taken on voluntarily and, with
increasing exuberance of ambition, sought additional legislation to
authorize activities and functions of an extraordinarily inclusive
and far-reaching character in the domain of education--apparently
even of native-born persons--beyond any possibility of effective
accomplishment without very great increase of expenditure for
personnel and material change in the “personal equation” of the
present force.

It is no doubt agreeable to compile and publish statistics purporting
to show the degree of “co-operation” between the public-school
authorities and the Naturalization Bureau; imposing totals can
be presented if every slightest indication of general interest in
the education of the foreign born is classified and heralded as
“co-operation” and no allowance whatever is ever made for failures
or defections.[97] All this might be tolerated or condoned; but
it becomes a rather ghastly spectacle when its most conspicuous
consequence is the neglect of legitimate business of the highest
importance to the aliens who pay for but do not get it, and to the
people of the United States.

The Naturalization Bureau, in the fundamental nature of its function,
has in all conscience enough to do! A “man’s-size job” is to be found
in the scrutiny of the petitioner for citizenship, from the day when
he files his declaration of intention to that when he receives,
or is refused for good reason, his certificate of naturalization.
The natural business of the Bureau is to be the disinterested but
vigilant informant of the court as to the facts regarding the
applicant; the watchdog of the standards by which aspirants for our
active membership are judged--also the keeper of records minutely
accurate and in cross-referenced detail up to the minute.


There is great need of a better method for ascertaining the fitness
of candidates for citizenship than obtains at present. Various
suggestions have been made to improve the practice. One is the
creation of a system of “traveling commissioners,” appointed perhaps
by the courts, who would hold sessions at convenient times and
places. Another is that the function of naturalization should be
removed from the judicial to the administrative sphere, so that
examinations and admissions should both be under the control of the
Naturalization Bureau or some other administrative branch of the

There is much to be said in support, especially, of the latter
suggestion. But there seems a weight of reason in favor of
maintaining the peculiarly American practice of lodging this solemn
function in what is, on the whole, our most impressive organ of
government--the court. As a rule, the courts are performing the
function with increasing sense of the importance and dignity of
the proceeding. It would be simple, and require little either of
new legislation or additional personnel or duties, to make the
Naturalization Examiner now in being and on duty, already equipped
with honesty and zeal, something in the nature of a Master,
representing the court in the taking of testimony, and reporting
thereto his findings and recommendations. Thereupon the judge could
pursue such further inquiry as he thought proper, accept or reject
the findings, and enter his order accordingly.

In the great preponderance of practice this is what actually happens
now. The proceeding should be the subject of sufficient stenographic
record, to be attached to the papers on file in the court and in the
Naturalization Bureau at Washington, and the index, certainly at
Washington, should be so minutely exact, prompt, and accessible, that
the record of every case, from declaration to final adjudication,
would be available like any other public record upon a moment’s

Further than that: Every alien who lands upon our shores should
receive at the time his suitably detailed and descriptive certificate
of lawful entry, with finger prints, if you please, duplicating a
permanent record in the office of the Immigration Service; this
certificate, and the record underlying it in case of its loss, should
be the prerequisite to the declarations and all other proceedings
leading to his permanent admission to citizenship. It would obviate
an infinite deal of the confusion which now too often surrounds his
later adventures in this direction; it would be his protection and
the protection of the nation. All matters concerning him now are at
the mercy of practices hardly deserving the name of system.


In consideration of all this business of naturalization, and the
various projects for improving its conditions, it must be remembered
that it is only within very recent years--virtually only since the
beginning of the World War with its suddenly aroused or anyway
suddenly accentuated excitements of interracial friction here in
America, and of ebullitions of loyalty to the various fatherlands
engaged in that struggle, on the part of foreign-born residents
here--that the people of the United States, of this generation
at least, have taken any interest in the behavior, affairs, and
assimilation of the alien. It is two-thirds of a century, more or
less, since the subsidence of the last important uproar on the
subject. A few social-settlement workers and missionaries in the
great cities, a few writers on sociological subjects, here and
there some more than ordinarily facile and entertaining writer
in English among the foreign born themselves, have tried to draw
public attention to the seriousness and magnitude of the problem
growing within our national life. These have pleaded for a better
understanding of the people of other races coming in vast floods to
make their homes with us, and for better conditions to govern their

But Americans generally pursued their self-absorbed, happy-go-lucky
way, giving little attention to these Jeremiahs and Cassandras;
pooh-poohed at the warnings, or vaguely hoped that all would come
out right in time. Meanwhile, most of them followed the usual human
course of shrinking from all avoidable human contact with these
outlandish folk of language and customs different from their own;
rather glad, on the whole, that they herded, as people in strange
climes will, in congested “Little Italys,” “Little Hungarys,”
“Deutschlands,” and “Ghettoes”--and in “slums” in general. They
surrendered to foreign colonies not only abandoned farm-lands,
but even large portions of great cities and great states; vaguely
grumbling when they perceived that great political power went with
that growth of foreign-speaking population. As a whole, they washed
their hands of the whole matter, or at most viewed the encroachment
with more or less solicitous disdain.

Meanwhile, most of those who have recognized the existence of a
menacing problem have acquired, generally on the foundation of
the subtle race-prejudice to which most of us are subject, a vast
deal of misinformation on the subject--some of it in the form of
widely accepted misinterpretations of official and quasi-official



We are talking and behaving now about the immigration of the past
few years--allowing for the vastly greater bulk of it and the
intensified peril involved in its bulk--just as we talked and behaved
about the Irish immigration that began in the early ’30’s and the
German immigration that began to bulk large in the early ’40’s.
Comparatively small as was the size of that joint inflow, it made the
problem that awakened the Know-Nothing and Native-American movement
of the mid-century, and eventually culminated in the naturalization
legislation now in force. Each phase of immigration has been “the new
immigration” at its time; each has been viewed with alarm; each has
been described as certain to deteriorate the physical quality of our
people and destroy the standards of living and of citizenship.

The Scandinavians, who began to come in considerable numbers in 1879;
the Italians, whose immigration became impressive in the late ’80’s;
the Russians and Austrians, whose surge became formidable about
1890; the Greeks, never very numerous, but swelling in numbers from
2,339 in 1898 to 36,580 in 1907, their highest tide--each in turn
passed or are passing now through the same stages; of comparatively
good-natured welcome at the outset, when they were few, and viewed
with curiosity; of increasing resentment, as they became noticeable
in competition for jobs; at last of angry and vociferous denunciation
as a “peril”; then subsiding into acceptance and assimilation into
the body social. “Paddy the clodhopper,” butt of the comedian and the
newspaper jokesmith, came over from Ireland as green as shamrock,
worked at unskilled labor with pick and shovel on railroads and
elsewhere, was herded and bribed into citizenship and politics, got
on the police force and into the contracting business, increased
in prosperity, bought real estate, and has sent down through the
years and into the fabric of our population a posterity whose
substantial contribution to our life no one now questions. He did not
have to learn the language, and that fact greatly facilitated his
assimilation. Fritz and Gretchen--we called them “Dutchmen” then--had
to climb over the language barrier, but they did it, and their
progress has followed the same general course. So did Ole and Chris
and Sven and Hilda from Scandinavia, and Salvatore, then the “Dago.”
Salvatore already owns apartment houses. Russian and Austrian, Greek,
Rumanian, Portuguese, and so on, the latest comers, are in the midst
of the same process.

The vast numbers, especially of the Russian Jews and
Austro-Hungarians, herded in masses in certain of our great cities,
have given us a kind of social indigestion; it must be cured, if at
all, by a slow process of absorption, and we have not yet learned
just what to do about it. Certainly unintelligent excitement, to
say nothing of unlawful violence and mob persecution, and the
exaggeration both of the degree and of the nature of the ailment,
offer small promise of betterment. Nature, the normal processes of
population movements and racial assimilation, work calmly on while
we shout and worry. And candid study of the process is reassuring.
Conditions have been confused, resentments aroused, and progress
retarded by the various kinds of hysteria excited by the World
War--but then, there was similar hysteria in the old Know-Nothing
days, and we lived through it; it seems rather silly now. We shall
live through this.


Meanwhile we may try to know and understand the facts. This is not
so easy as might be supposed, for the facts are hard to get. The
student of the naturalization and political assimilation of the
foreign-born citizen finds himself seriously embarrassed by the
paucity of definite information on the subject in any of its aspects.
To be sure, there is a considerable, though somewhat fragmentary,
literature about it, and generalizations of a sweeping and rather
dogmatic character have gained wide currency--impressions and
prejudices, which it will no doubt be difficult to dislodge, even
though such information as may be available, critically examined,
entirely fails to support them. In hardly any other field may one
find a better illustration of the mischief that may be wrought by
inadequate or misinterpreted statistics, creating legends which
cannot endure the test of candid, to say nothing of scientific,

This is not to say that there is no material on the subject. There
is always the census; there are the reports of the Immigration
Commission of 1907; there are the reports of the Commissioner of
Naturalization. There are numerous books, essays and pamphlets, by
men and women who, to a greater or lesser extent, have come to be
regarded as experts on the subject of immigration. But, as we shall
see, these are almost all entitled to substantial discount, or at
least discriminating study, with results conducive to a better
understanding, to a readjustment of some ideas which, although
mistaken, have come to be regarded as fundamental.

In the files of the Naturalization Bureau at Washington is a vast
mass of original data which would be of priceless value in the
study of the way in which those who would be “Americans by Choice”
make their initial efforts in that direction; showing under oath
their individual age, birthplace and race, date of arrival in this
country, date of declaration of intention to become a citizen,
marital and occupational status, details of the disposal of the
petition for citizenship, and other facts constituting information
ample for intelligent interpretation of aspects and relationships
now little understood, not understood at all, or, more commonly,
altogether misunderstood. These data are contained in the copies
of the declarations of intention, petitions for naturalization and
certificates of naturalization, issued since the institution of the
Naturalization Service under the Act of 1906. The magnitude of this
statistical treasure may be judged from Table VII.

Each one of these nearly three million declarations of intention, and
more than a million petitions--not to speak of the final certificates
of citizenship--contains what amounts almost to a cross-section of
the life history of an immigrant. Upon each petition is indorsed
the record of the court’s action, acceptance or denial, and the
reasons for denial are, if possible, more important than the fact of
acceptance for the purposes of study of the immigration question in
its political aspect.

Owing in part to the chronic insufficiency of the staff in the
Naturalization Bureau--not only preventing any proper statistical
record or analysis of this material, but of late years compelling a
lamentable curtailment and even the abandonment of such indexing as
is obviously indispensable to the most routine official supervision
and understanding;--in part to the absorption of the Bureau in
its elaborate educational propaganda, and in part to a lack of
appreciation of the value of this material by the officials there
in charge, the leaders in Congress and the public in general, it
has remained in an undigested and now probably indigestible mass
in the files of the Bureau. For nearly fifteen years it has been
accumulating. To collate and analyze it would be a prodigious job.
Yet, as appears from the results of a very modest venture in this
direction on the part of the Americanization Study, some of them
presented in this volume,[98] it would be immensely worth while.
And, what is more important, it probably would go far to modify, if
not to revolutionize, many prevailing ideas and afford a new and
sounder foundation and point of departure for theory and for guidance
of practice as regards the assimilation of the immigrant into the
American body politic.



  1907{2}    |     73,723    |      21,094   |      7,953
  1908{3}    |    137,229    |      44,029   |     25,963
  1909       |    145,794    |      43,161   |     38,372
  1910       |    167,226    |      55,038   |     39,206
  1911       |    186,157    |      73,644   |     56,257
  1912       |    169,142    |      95,627   |     69,965
  1913       |    181,632    |      95,186   |     82,017
  1914       |    214,016    |     123,855   |    105,439
  1915       |    245,815    |     106,317   |     96,390
  1916       |    207,935    |     108,009   |     93,911
  1917       |    438,748    |     132,320   |     94,897
  1918       |    335,069    |     110,416   |    151,449
  1919       |    346,827    |     107,559   |    217,358
  1920       |    200,106    |     166,925   |    125,711
      Total  |  3,149,419    |   1,283,180   |  1,205,170

  [note 1: _Annual Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_,
  1919, p. 16.]

  [note 2: Nine months only.]

  [note 3: First full year of 12 months.]

The annual reports of the Commissioner of Naturalization, like
those of many other government bureaus, are written not so much to
afford information to the public as to extol the work of the Bureau,
pointing out the remarkable extent of the ground covered, the great
number of letters written, and of cases handled by a force grievously
and increasingly inadequate since the very beginning of the service,
and so on. They are, however, most unsatisfactory as a source of
sociological information; particularly barren are they of any hint of
information regarding the various races whose representatives seek
citizenship; their relative promptness in seeking and success in
getting it; their respective standing as regards the various reasons
for denial. They do show voluminously how many declarations and
petitions are filed annually in each state and subdivision; increase
or decrease in totals; how many clerks of courts are delinquent in
sending in the government’s share of fees, and other more or less
significant _minutiæ_ of the routine work of the field and clerical
force and the courts.


Moreover, for the past four or five years, the bulk of the Bureau’s
reports has been increasingly augmented by large sections devoted
entirely to its efforts in the field of education, and its relations,
actual, attempted and imaginary, with the public-school authorities.
The degree to which the Naturalization Bureau has neglected, perforce
of circumstances, the study of the material under its nose is
apparent in the fact that the Commissioner’s report for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1919, says, in so many words, not only that
it no longer is preserving in its files any records of general
correspondence, but that it has altogether ceased any pretense of
examining naturalization papers!

  To illustrate the expedients to which the Bureau has been compelled
  to resort, in order to relieve the files section, it has adopted
  the practice of returning, with its replies thereto, letters of
  general inquiry not referring to some specific naturalization case
  already a part of the Bureau file, thereby leaving no record of
  such correspondence.

  It has virtually ceased to make an examination of certificates of
  naturalization to insure the discovery and correction of errors,
  and it has abandoned a personal card-index of naturalized aliens,
  etc., not as a matter of choice but of compulsion.[99]

The magnitude of the arrearage thus naïvely accounted for, and the
bulk of the potential information involved, may be seen in the
fact that on July 1, 1919, according to the Commissioner’s own
figures,[100] there were unexamined in the Bureau at Washington
_more than one million (1,011,676) declarations of intention,
26,726 petitions for naturalization, and 721,742 certificates of
naturalization_. This was an increase in arrearage, for one year
alone, of 382,963 (60 per cent) in declarations; of 73 per cent in
petitions, and of nearly 25 per cent in certificates. At the very
time when the excitement about vigilance in admitting new citizens
was at its height, the Naturalization Bureau was diverting to
other channels a vital energy which might have been devoted to that
vigilance and to collating the elementary information already in
its possession, for the benefit of lawmakers and others needing
information in dealing intelligently with this subject.


In point of fact, the only substantial body of statistical
information about the naturalization of the foreign-born voter which
hitherto has been even ostensibly sufficient for the student as a
basis for any racial comparisons, is that gathered by the United
States Immigration Commission of 1907. That body, created by an Act
of Congress approved February 7, 1907, of which Senator William P.
Dillingham of Vermont was chairman, consisted of three Senators,
three members of the House of Representatives, and three other
persons appointed by the President of the United States, and was
directed by the statute to “make full inquiries, examination, and
investigation, by sub-committee or otherwise, into the subject of
immigration, ...” and to report such conclusions and recommendations
as in its judgment might seem proper.

The information gathered by this Commission is very voluminous, and
has been of great value to sociologists and others concerned with
various aspects of the subject. Indeed, its report has come to be
called “the bible of the immigration question.” Nearly all the modern
writings on the subject have been based upon it in at least a general
way, and their color taken largely from its conclusions and its point
of view.


To this report is attributable almost entirely the familiar
conventional generalization that there is a marked distinction
in what might be called _quality of assimilability_, between the
immigration of former years and that of the three decades preceding
the Great War; between the so-called “old immigration” and the
“newer.” This distinction is drawn in the report and, in most of
the writings of individuals, based upon it, between the group of
races from northern and western Europe--the English-speaking races,
the Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch, Belgians, French, and so on, and
those from southern and eastern and southeastern Europe, Russia,
Austria-Hungary, the Balkan States, Italy, Greece, Turkey-in-Europe,
Asia Minor, etc.

This _quality of assimilability_ was regarded by the Commission
as inferable to a large extent from the degree to which the
representatives of these racial groups concerning whom it got
information of various kinds were naturalized or had exhibited
interest in naturalization at least to the extent of declaring
intention to become citizens. It was assumed in a general way that
a racial group showing a high proportion of persons who had become
citizens, or taken steps thereto, might fairly be regarded as more
adaptable to American life, customs and ideals than one in which
relatively few naturalized citizens were found. With this assumption
as a starting point, it seemed reasonably obvious that inasmuch as
the “older” race showed the higher percentage of naturalized persons,
the inference of a difference in essential civic quality followed as
a matter of course.

Inasmuch also as this inference coincided with the general public
impression and prejudice to precisely the same effect, it occurred
to nobody to dispute or seriously to question its validity.
Anybody could tell you offhand that the Englishman, Frenchman,
German or Swede was more available for citizenship and more easily
assimilated than the Syrian, Croatian or Sicilian. It was a matter
of common knowledge! And the Immigration Commission gave you the
statistics--as if you needed any! For example, here is a table that
shows the per cents naturalized for the “old” and “new” races who had
been in the United States ten years or more. As is to be expected the
“old” races show the highest per cents on both counts.

The Commission recognized a general “tendency on the part of
wage-earners of foreign birth to acquire citizenship,” and that
this tendency “increased according to length of residence in this
country.” But it construed its statistics as showing that while
“more than three-fourths of the Bohemians and Moravians, Danish,
German, Irish, Norwegian, Scotch, Swedish, and Welsh races who
had been in the United States ten years or longer had been fully
naturalized,” there was a “lack of political or civic interest” (only
37.7 per cent) “on the part of the southern and eastern European
wage-earners” with a similar residence of ten years or longer, and
proceeded to assert that these did not possess that “tendency to
acquire citizenship which increases according to length of residence
in this country.” This assertion was supposed to be supported by the
facts given in the above table regarding the races from southern and
eastern Europe showing low percentages of individuals who had come
to this country when twenty-one years of age or older, who had lived
here ten years or over, and were naturalized.

The Commission regarded the table from which these facts were derived
as highly significant in its implied indication of the “civic
interest” exhibited and capable of being exhibited by the various
racial groups.


It should be remarked at once that inferences from these figures and
others presented by the Immigration Commission require considerable
discount and discrimination by reason of the fact--to which Miss
Grace Abbott already has called attention[101]--that

  ... the numbers in the different races from whom information
  was secured by the Commission varied so greatly as to make
  it impossible to accept these conclusions as indicating the
  assimilability of the various national groups. For example,
  according to the percentages the Armenians appear to be more eager
  to become citizens than the North Italians or the Poles; but the
  comparison was made on the basis of information from 171 Armenians,
  4,069 North Italians, and 10,923 Poles.



                             |   IN UNITED STATES TEN YEARS
                             |           OR OVER
                             |                |   PER CENT OF
            RACE             | PER CENT FULLY | THOSE IN UNITED
                             |  NATURALIZED   |   STATES FIVE
                             |                |  YEARS OR OVER
  Old                        |     74.0       |       80.5
    Swedish                  |     87.6       |       79.0
    German                   |     81.5       |       82.6
    Irish                    |     80.0       |       83.8
    Bohemian and Moravian{2} |     79.7       |       56.0
    Norwegian                |     77.5       |       69.2
    Danish                   |     77.3       |       77.3
    Scotch                   |     76.9       |       80.7
    Welsh                    |     76.4       |       94.6
    English                  |     67.0       |       78.0
    French                   |     64.8       |       57.1
    Dutch                    |     64.7       |       76.8
    Canadian, Other          |     49.6       |       81.0
    Canadian, French         |     27.7       |       77.9
                             |                |
  New                        |     37.7       |       38.9
    Finnish                  |     65.7       |       38.5
    Hebrew, Other            |     54.2       |       56.3
    Italian, North           |     49.3       |       38.0
    Hebrew, Russian          |     48.3       |       37.1
    Lithuanian               |     41.1       |       39.2
    Polish                   |     39.8       |       44.0
    Italian, South           |     34.0       |       34.8
    Russian                  |     33.6       |       36.8
    Magyar                   |     26.9       |       31.4
    Croatian                 |     26.8       |       23.5
    Slovak                   |     25.3       |       42.8

  [note 1: Compiled by the Americanization Study from _Report of the
  Immigration Commission_, vol. i, p. 488, Table 100.]

  [note 2: The Bohemians and Moravians are classified by the
  Immigration Commission with the “new” races.]

This same factor of disparity in numbers operates, when a comparison
of degree of assimilability is attempted, between the old and new
races, with respect to residence in the United States from 5 to 9
years. The Immigration Commission gives the per cent naturalized
for each race of individuals here five years. It might be expected
that for this period of years conclusions could be drawn about the
assimilability of the two groups of races. But here again almost six
times as many individuals are classed in the new races as in the old
and any general inference would be founded on insecure ground because
of this disparity in numbers of cases. They, therefore, base their
conclusions on the group here 10 years and over.


As we shall see also from the statistics gathered and analyzed for
this volume,[102] the factor of residence “ten years or over,” with
all its implications, is exceedingly important--is, in fact, the
major factor in the whole situation. The indictment against the “new”
immigration hangs upon it, and falls down when the term “ten years or
longer” is analyzed, even in the light of the statistics presented
by the Immigration Commission itself in support of the indictment.
Indeed, the Commission was not entirely without compunctions on this
point, and presented a table exhibiting the probability that, of the
male employees from whom it derived its information, those of the
“older” races had been in the United States _considerably_ longer
than ten years, while those of the “newer” races had been here only
_slightly_ longer than ten years. But it did not emphasize the point,
and at a superficial glance this might seem a quibble; but it is of
importance scarcely to be overestimated.



                              |          |     IN THE UNITED STATES
                              | NUMBER   +---------------+--------------
                              |REPORTING |     5 to 9    |    10 Years
              RACE            | COMPLETE |     Years     |    and Over
                              |  DATA    +--------+------+--------+-----
                              |          | Number | Per  | Number | Per
                              |          |        | Cent |        | Cent
  Recent Races:               |          |        |      |        |
    Total                     |  43,833  | 26,747 | 61.0 | 17,086 | 38.9
    Per cent of total         |          |        |      |        |
      reporting complete data |    64.9  |   .... | 85.3 |   .... | 47.3
                              |          |        |      |        |
  Old Races:                  |          |        |      |        |
    Total                     |  23,662  |  4,620 | 19.5 | 19,042 | 80.5
    Per cent of total         |          |        |      |        |
      reporting complete data |    35.1  |   .... | 14.7 |   .... | 52.7

  [note 1: Compiled by the Americanization Study from _Report of
  Commission of Immigration Abstracts_, vol. i, p. 485.]

The Commission remarks, indeed, that “on account of the difference in
the length of time the various races have been coming to the United
States, a comparison of the older with the more recent immigrants
is hardly fair.”[103] But it does fail to appreciate the vital
significance of the point. And it apparently did not take adequate
notice of the further fact, shown in Table IX, that of those of
the “older” races who had been here over five years and reported
information in regard to citizenship, _80.5 per cent had been in
the United States over ten years, while only 38.9 per cent of the
“newer” races had been here so long_. That is, only 19.5 per cent of
the “older” races, as compared with 61.1 per cent of the “newer,”
had been in the country between five and nine years. This means,
of course, that the immigrants of the “older” races had had on the
average a much longer time than those of the “newer” to acquire
“civic interest” and seek naturalization. The “over” added to five
years means for the “recent” races between five and nine years in
most cases, while for the “older” races it usually means more than
ten. It would appear that every year of residence _added to ten_
increases the probability of efforts toward citizenship.

While the races from southern and southeastern Europe show rates of
naturalization ranging from 65.7 to 25.3 per cent with an average of
37.7, they also show a proportion residing in the country ten years
or longer ranging down from 56.3 to 23.5 per cent with an average of
38.9.[104] Contrast this, if you will, with rates of naturalization
among the northern, “older” races, of from 87.6 to 27.7 per cent with
an average of 74.0, but along with that observe that the proportion
of those “older,” and supposedly more assimilable, races residing in
the country ten years or over ranges from 57.1 to 94.6 per cent with
an average of 80.5!

From this point of view, the following table of the Commission
becomes highly significant:{1}



            “OLD” RACES              ||        “NEW” RACES
                       |  Per Cent   ||                    |  Per Cent
                       | Naturalized ||                    | Naturalized
          Race         | and Holding ||       Race         | and Holding
                       | First Papers||                    | First Papers
  Swedish              |    92.3     || Hebrew (other than |
  Swiss                |    92.1     ||   Russian)         |    61.6
  Welsh                |    87.0     || Finnish            |    61.2
  Danish               |    86.8     || Hebrew, Russian    |    57.2
  German               |    85.7     || Austrian (race not |
  Norwegian            |    85.6     ||   specified)       |    53.1
  Irish                |    82.6     || Armenian           |    49.2
  English              |    80.6     || Italian, North     |    45.8
  Dutch                |    79.9     || Bulgarian          |    36.8
  Scotch               |    79.1     || Slovenian          |    35.8
  Belgian (race not    |             || Polish             |    33.1
    specified)         |    76.5     || Lithuanian         |    32.5
  Bohemian and         |             || Italian, South     |    30.1
    Moravian{2}        |    76.2     || Russian            |    28.0
  French               |    66.5     || Magyar             |    26.8
  Canadian (other than |             || Slovak             |    22.8
    French)            |    56.7     || Croatian           |    22.5
  Canadian, French     |    31.5     || Rumanian           |    21.9
  Mexican              |    10.0     || Syrian             |    20.7
                       |             || Greek              |    20.2
                       |             || Ruthenian          |    19.8
                       |             || Spanish            |    13.6
                       |             || Serbian            |    12.8
                       |             || Cuban              |    12.1
                       |             || Portuguese         |     5.5

  [note 1: _Abstracts_, vol. i, pp. 485, 486.]

  [note 2: Classed as “Recent” by Immigration Commission.]

Prof. Edward A. Ross, who, of all the students of this question, is
one of the most uncompromising in generalizing from the reports of
the Immigration Commission to the disadvantage of the “newer” races,
deduced that “with the change in nationalities came a great change
in the civic attitude of the immigrants.”[105] He made little or
no allowance for the fact that the “civic attitude” of the “newer”
immigrants naturally would not have had time to develop as in the
case of those who had been here longer; he made even less for any
changes in industrial and social life in this country which might
help to account for this alleged change in attitude, by intensifying
the hardships of the only kind of employment “newer” immigrants
could get, by low wages due to an overstocked labor market, or by
the increased herding of foreign born in city slums, which last,
of itself, might tend to retard the process of adjustment and
assimilation. Prof. John B. Clark saw something of this, when he
remarked that “there is far more likeness between different branches
of the European family than there is between the economic conditions
into which immigrants came in the third quarter of the last century
and those into which they come to-day. Then they could have farms for
the asking, while now most of them go into mills, mines, shops, and
railroad plants, or become employees or tenants on farms owned by

Prof. John R. Commons, discussing the differences in the proportions
naturalized among the various racial groups, calls attention to
the fact that “it is not so much a difference in willingness as a
difference in opportunity.... In course of time these differences
will diminish, and the Italian and the Slav will approach the
Irishman and the German in their share of American suffrage.”[107]

The war has created an entirely new situation with regard to both
immigration and naturalization; it is entirely impossible to forecast
the effects, either of the chaotic conditions in Europe or of the
reconstruction period in America, upon the influx of foreign born
into America, upon the duration of their stay here, or upon the
attitude toward citizenship of those already here and entitled to
citizenship by length of residence. The wholesale naturalization of
immigrants in the national army during the war, regardless of length
of residence or any of the other requirements ordinarily so rigidly,
so meticulously enforced, has swept into citizenship so large a
proportion of human material available and hitherto constituting the
bulk of the “naturalization problem” that the old generalizations
have become both useless and misleading. It will be long before such
immigrants as are now coming, or may come during the next five years,
can be the subject of intelligible statistics--especially since
nobody is collecting or collating any statistics worthy of the name.

Even the statistics afforded by the census have been the subject of
uncritical use on which pessimistic generalizations have been based.
The Thirteenth Census (1910) showed for the decade since that of 1900
a decrease of 12.4 per cent in the proportion of foreign-born white
males twenty-one years of age and over naturalized. Referring to this
decrease, Professor Ross predicted[108] that, “as things are going,
we may expect a great increase in the number of the unenfranchised.”
Of course he could not have foreseen the war and its profound effects
upon the whole question; but he might have observed in the same
census the fact that there had been a precisely identical (12.4 per
cent) decrease in the number of foreign-born whites who had been in
the country nine years or more--even if his prejudice on the subject
of the “new immigration” prevented his recognizing in this remarkable
coincidence a striking evidence of the direct relation between length
of residence and naturalization.


It would be plausible to expect that language would be a factor in
governing the degree to which this racial group or that would seek
naturalization. Those whose mother tongue is English, one might
naturally suppose, would find it easier to acquire the necessary
information, and would the sooner be absorbed into the life and
atmosphere of the country, the sooner aspire to full citizenship.

The facts do not support this idea at all. And a very slight
consideration of the conditions discloses the reasons. In the
first place, no knowledge of English whatever is required for
the declaration of intention; and only the statistics of full
naturalization are of value in this matter. Both the statistics of
the Immigration Commission, and especially those compiled by the
Americanization Study, make it clear that, on the average, more than
ten years’ residence in this country precedes final naturalization.
It is a rare case in which during that ten years the petitioner has
not acquired a speaking knowledge of English sufficient for all his
practical purposes.

The statistics of the Immigration Commission themselves show
how little the original knowledge of English has to do with
the matter.[109] For the persons from whom the Commission got
information, who had been in this country ten years or over (racial
groups represented by 100 individuals or more), the percentages of
those fully naturalized exhibit the fact that the Swedish and German
show a higher rate than the Irish; the Bohemian, Moravian, Norwegian
and Danish outrank the Scotch, Welsh, and English. Even for those
who have been in the country only five to nine years the Swedes show
the highest percentage.[110] That length of residence, rather than
native language, is the dominant factor in determining interest in
citizenship, stands forth in Table VIII, which gives percentages by
race of those in the United States ten years or longer, and of such
of these as have been fully naturalized.


The fallacious nature of the assumption that there is an essential
difference between the so-called “older” and “newer” races as such
in respect of interest in citizenship is further disclosed by the
statistics of the Immigration Commission on the subject of the wages
of foreign-born laborers. The Commission found that the members of
the “older” races in the households covered by its inquiry were
earning more than those of the “newer” races, and occupied, generally
speaking, higher positions. This, of course, was to be expected; but
little stress was laid by the Commission upon the relation between
these facts and the relative rates of naturalization, although it
is a conspicuous relationship. Like most of the statistics compiled
by the Commission in this particular field, the comparison may be
criticized on the ground that the numbers upon which percentages are
based and compared are small, and differ widely among the racial
groups. Nevertheless, despite this discrepancy, the probability
stands forth that, in addition to length of residence, the economic
status--the individual and family income--is a most important
factor in determining the interest of the foreign born in acquiring

From the following table it is clear that the “older” races show a
higher average rate of income in all the occupations listed than the



              (Part One)
          |           | Average  | Agricultural |
          | Reporting | Earnings | Implements   | Cotton
    Race  | Complete  |   per    |     and      | Goods{2}
          |  Data     |   Day    | Vehicles{2}  |
  “Old”   |   17,433  |    2.34  |     13.03    |  11.14
  “New”   |   65,485  |    1.99  |     11.58    |   8.77

                   (Part Two)
              | Woolen   | Slaughtering |
              |  and     |    and       |    Coal
        Race  | Worsted  |   Meat       |   Mining
              | Goods{2} |  Packing{3}  | Bituminous{3}
      “Old”   |   11.69  |     2.27     |      2.33
      “New”   |    8.64  |     1.83     |      2.09

  [note 1: See Appendix for complete table. This table does not take
  account of lost time.]

  [note 2: Weekly wage.]

  [note 3: Daily wage.]

When the expense of becoming a citizen is taken into consideration,
the bearing of income on acquiring citizenship is important. Add to
that the obvious fact that wages and general economic and social
status tend to improve in the individual case with length of
residence, and the situation becomes not only clear but just what
common sense would suggest as probable. It ought not to require
elaborate argument to substantiate the assertion that the immigrant
in his early years in America is too busy getting a job and an
economic footing, acquiring a working knowledge of the language,
overcoming the general prejudice against him as a foreigner, and so
on, to pay much attention to the question of becoming a citizen;
besides which he must, in any event, live here five years before he
can do anything effective in the matter.


The present state of public opinion in the United States on the
subject of the foreign born is very different from what it was in
the earlier years of our development; this is largely, though not
entirely, due to the emotions and disclosures connected with the war.
When we were opening up the vast domain west of the Alleghanies, and
there was great need of human labor to clear forests, break virgin
land, and help in the beginnings of our industries, the immigrant
was a welcome helper, and every inducement was offered to entice him
to come and settle on even terms with the native born. One of these
inducements was citizenship, for all intents and purposes, on very
easy terms.

Prior to 1910 there were ten states in which aliens were permitted
to vote on their mere declaration of intention to become
citizens--subject, however, to the same conditions of length of
residence in state, county, and election district as citizens.
These were Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas.[112]

That this easy acquisition of the suffrage would act as a deterrent
to the completion of citizenship was to be expected, and that it
has indeed so acted appears in a comparison of the proportions of
foreign-born males of voting age holding “first papers” only, in
the alien-suffrage states, with those in states requiring full
citizenship as a prerequisite to voting.


  ON FIRST PAPERS, FOR 1900 AND 1910{1}

                   |                     |        |           | PER CENT
                   |    NUMBER OF        |        |           |  HAVING
                   |   FOREIGN BORN      |PER CENT| PER CENT  |  FIRST
                   |                     |        |           |   ONLY
       STATE       |---------------------+--------/-----------/----------
                   |   1900   |   1910   |1900 to| 1900| 1910| 1900| 1910
                   |          |          |  1910 |     |     |     |
  United States    | 4,904,270| 6,646,817|  35.5 | 58.0| 45.6|  8.4|  8.6
  Alien-suffrage   |          |          |       |     |     |     |
    states (total) |   716,975|   857,681|  19.6 | 59.4| 52.3| 12.3|  9.7
  Nonalien-suffrage|          |          |       |     |     |     |
    states (total) | 1,275,162| 1,645,291|  29.0 | 67.8| 53.0|  6.5|  7.4

  [note 1: _United States Census_, 1910, vol. i, p. 1071.]

In 1900 the ratio of those holding declarations only was about 12 to
6 in favor Of the alien-suffrage states. By 1910 this difference had
diminished to about 12 to 9. If aliens of any race were interested in
voting as soon as they had a chance, this interest certainly would
have manifested itself in the states permitting them to vote on the
“first papers” which they could get, if they chose, an hour after


To what extent does the declarant follow up his declaration of
intention to apply for citizenship? The reports of the Commissioner
of Naturalization give each year, by states, the number of
declarations of intention (“first papers”) and the number of
petitions for final naturalization. The most striking fact apparent
in these statistics is that the number of declarations is far in
excess of the number of petitions--to say nothing of what may happen
to the latter by way of denials when they reach the naturalizing

Now, it must be remembered that these totals are not directly
comparable. In no event can the final petition follow the declaration
by less than two years, and the law now permits a lapse of seven
years before the declaration must expire. If the number of
declarations and petitions were fairly uniform from year to year, or
bore any constant relation to each other, something might be inferred
from a comparison of totals for a seven-year period. Since, however,
the number of petitions, as well as the number of declarations,
increased rapidly from 1908 to 1918, no sound conclusion can be
reached without taking such variations into account.

For example, none of the 136,698 declarations of intention filed in
1908 could become the basis for petitions until 1910, and all would
be valid until 1915. In 1910 the number of petitions filed was only
56,038, and seven years later it was 123,855. There is no way of
knowing how the petitions which actually consummated the declarations
filed in 1908 were distributed among the years 1910-14; but it would
seem to be sufficiently dependable to take the average of those
years, which would be 88,670. Instead, therefore, of comparing the
43,864 petitions of 1908 with the 136,698 declarations of that year,
it is proper to compare the 136,698 with the average of 88,670 which
gives a ratio of 64.9.

The ratio of about 65 petitions to each 100 declarations is in fact
corroborated by other calculations, as will appear below. Take, for
instance, the figures[113] for the period of five years 1908-12,



                |              |    AVERAGE    |
                |  NUMBER OF   |   NUMBER OF   |
                |              |   EACH YEAR   |
  1908          |   136,698    |     88,670    |     64.9
  1909          |   143,212    |     98,926    |     69.1
  1910          |   167,226    |    105,799    |     63.3
  1911          |   186,157    |    113,137    |     60.8
  1912          |   169,142    |    116,183    |     68.7
                |              |               |
      Average   |   160,487    |    104,543    |     65.1

Take it another way, remembering that each declaration of intention
has a valid lifetime of seven years--five after the two which must
elapse before it can be made the basis of a final petition. Assuming
that the petitions consummating the declarations of any given year
are distributed approximately evenly over the five-year period
during which they are valid for that purpose, then one-twenty-fifth
of the declarations of 1908-18 covered by Table XIII eventuated in
petitions in 1910, two-twenty-fifths in 1911, and so on, reaching
five-twenty-fifths in 1914, and falling again to one-twenty-fifth in
1918. The following diagrammatic table, tracing out on this basis
the probable distribution of the declarations consummated by the
petitions filed from 1908 to 1918, inclusive, shows graphically
the weight which should be given to the petitions of each year,
in calculating the ratio of declarations to petitions. It fully
substantiates the showing of Table XIII, and justifies the assertion
that 35 out of every 100 declarants fail to file petitions within the
period now fixed by the law.



  DECLARATIONS                                         PETITIONS
  NUMBER  |   DATE                                DATE | WT. |  ASSUMED
          |                                            |     |   NUMBER
          |                                       1910 |  1  |    55,038
          |                                       1911 |  2  |   147,288
  136,698 | 1908                                  1912 |  3  |   286,881
  143,212 | 1909                                  1913 |  4  |   380,744
  167,226 | 1910                                  1914 |  5  |   619,275
  186,157 | 1911                                  1915 |  4  |   425,268
  169,142 | 1912                                  1916 |  3  |   324,027
          |                                       1917 |  2  |   264,640
          |                                       1918 |  1  |   110,416
          |                                            |     +----------
   TOTAL      802,435                                  | 25  | 2,613,577
  AVERAGE     160,487                                  |     |   104,543
  PERCENTAGE  160,487 into 104,543                     |     |    65.1

The chances of error in this calculation lie in the facts (1) that
until September, 1913, declarations made under the law as it existed
prior to 1906 (the so-called “old-law declarations”) were held to be
valid, no matter how old their date; (2) that the decision of the
United States District Court,[114] applying the seven-year limit to
all outstanding declarations, undoubtedly hastened many petitions in
1913-14, and (3) that the effects of the war in Europe probably were
in some cases to expedite and in others to delay or to prevent the
filing of petitions. Undoubtedly some of the petitions of 1910, 1911,
1912, and 1913 are attributable to declarations more than seven years
old, and some which in normal conditions would have been filed during
the period 1914-18 were not filed.

It may be assumed, however, that these factors to a great extent
offset each other, and that in any case their effect is negligible.
And if it should appear that a substantial number of “old-law
declarations,” originating prior to 1908, were accepted up to 1918 by
those courts which did not promptly accept the seven-year decision,
it would mean only that the percentage of 65.1 is too high; that
_more_ than 35 declarations out of 100 do not eventuate in petitions.

Right here it must be emphasized that the figure 65.1 applies not to
naturalization, but to petitions for naturalization, which is a very
different thing indeed. We shall elsewhere learn[115] that 11.5 per
cent of all petitions are denied--more than half of the denials being
for reasons of a technical character.

The average of 35.1 of “sterile” declarations is that for the United
States as a whole; but the figure is by no means constant or uniform.
In some states the proportion of petitions to declarations is very
much lower than that; in some it is very much higher.

In Indiana, for example, the figures show a fruition in petitions
of only 26.4, or a little more than 1 in 4, while in Wisconsin the
petitions exceed the declarations by 15.7 per cent. As the above
table shows, in four states the proportion of petitions exceeded 80
per cent, while 14 scaled down from 80 to 70 per cent. Twenty-six
states show percentages below the 65.1 of the United States as a



          STATE        | RATIO ||     STATE     | RATIO
  United States        |  65.1 || Illinois      | 64.4
  Wisconsin            | 115.7 || Colorado      | 64.3
  Arizona              |  94.2 || Nebraska      | 64.0
  North Carolina       |  93.1 || New York      | 64.0
  Mississippi          |  86.7 || North Dakota  | 63.7
  Ohio                 |  78.8 || Oregon        | 63.7
  Kentucky             |  77.5 || Kansas        | 62.9
  New Jersey           |  76.5 || Tennessee     | 62.8
  Maine                |  76.1 || Minnesota     | 62.7
  Vermont              |  75.6 || Iowa          | 60.9
  South Carolina       |  75.3 || Texas         | 59.5
  Georgia              |  74.3 || Delaware      | 58.4
  Montana              |  73.9 || Oklahoma      | 58.3
  Alabama              |  73.0 || Louisiana     | 56.4
  Maryland             |  72.2 || West Virginia | 55.6
  Arkansas             |  72.0 || Massachusetts | 53.7
  Michigan             |  71.9 || Alaska        | 53.0
  California           |  71.2 || Florida       | 52.5
  Pennsylvania         |  70.9 || Nevada        | 52.4
  Connecticut          |  69.6 || Utah          | 50.5
  Rhode Island         |  69.6 || Washington    | 50.3
  Virginia             |  69.3 || Idaho         | 48.6
  Wyoming              |  68.1 || Missouri      | 45.2
  New Mexico           |  67.0 || South Dakota  | 44.1
  District of Columbia |  66.8 || Hawaii        | 39.9
  New Hampshire        |  66.5 || Indiana       | 26.4

  [note 1: The averages are weighted as per the table above, p. 221.]

The most important question raised by the results of this calculation
is whether it is reasonable to expect that more than one out
of every three declarations of intention should thus fail of
fruition--that thirty-five out of every hundred aliens who declare
their intention to apply for citizenship should fail to do so. The
answer to this question, and the reasons for the failure, are not
discoverable in the figures themselves, nor in any documents to be
found anywhere. The reasons are human reasons, hidden in the bosoms
and written in the personal experience, of men and women who started
out after the privileges of American citizenship, and changed their

We have some illuminating data, first-hand, from some twenty-six
thousand aliens who did follow up their declarations, and afford
in the process a good deal of extraordinarily interesting and
enlightening information, the study of which is set forth in the
succeeding chapter of this volume.



When, early in the progress of the Americanization Study, it became
apparent that almost no adequate statistical data were available in
regard to naturalized citizens, or the really significant aspects
of the naturalization process, it was decided to tap the mine of
information existing in the original documents lying neglected in
the files of the Naturalization Bureau at Washington, and to collate
and analyze the significant facts for the latest year of reasonably
normal conditions antedating the war. Obviously, that latest year
would be that between July 1, 1913, and June 30, 1914.

The consent of the Bureau was readily obtained, with the offer of
all possible co-operation. It should be stated once for all, indeed,
that at every stage of the Study the Naturalization Bureau, in both
its headquarters and field service, has withheld nothing in the way
of information and assistance--save only to the extent to which
practically all of its official correspondence is characteristically
tardy by reason of the short-handed and overworked condition of its
clerical force.

It was discovered immediately, however, that the conditions of the
files at Washington were such as to prohibit the segregation of the
documents for any single year without an inordinate, and in the
circumstances impracticable, expenditure of labor and time. The only
recourse, then, was to the local courts, where are kept on file, in
more available shape and in chronological order, duplicates of the
petitions for naturalization and record of the court’s action upon
each. But, since this required the examination of the documents in
the country-wide offices of the clerks of the courts themselves, it
was impracticable to make the inspection complete, as would have been
the case had the documents been suitably arranged and available all
in one place.


Twenty-eight courts, with a total of 26,284 naturalization petitions
filed during the fiscal year 1913-14, were visited during 1919,
with the cordial co-operation of the clerks in charge. And inasmuch
as this total number of petitions examined constituted more than
one in five (21.2 per cent) of the whole number of petitions for
naturalization (123,855) filed in that fiscal year in the whole
United States, it would seem to represent a large enough number and a
sufficient variety of local, racial, and other conditions to warrant
a fair degree of confidence in the representative character of the


The courts studied included two Federal and three state courts in New
York City, having the great bulk of naturalization business; a number
of courts in industrial districts, and some smaller ones taking in
the business from outlying rural regions. Following is a list of the
courts from which the information was derived:

  State court,     Auburn, Maine
  State court,     Worcester, Massachusetts
  State court,     Bridgeport, Connecticut
  State court,     Middletown, Connecticut
  State court,     Norwich, Connecticut
  Federal courts,  New York City
  State courts,    New York City
  State court,     White Plains, New York
  State court,     Mineola, Long Island, New York
  State court,     Troy, New York
  State court,     Ithaca, New York
  State court,     Rochester, New York
  State court,     Elmira, New York
  State court,     Paterson, New Jersey
  State court,     New Brunswick, New Jersey
  State court,     Easton, Pennsylvania
  Federal court,   Cleveland, Ohio
  State court,     Cleveland, Ohio
  State court,     Akron, Ohio
  Federal court,   Cincinnati, Ohio
  State court,     Galesburg, Illinois
  State court,     Iowa City, Iowa
  State court,     Portland, Oregon
  Federal court,   Seattle, Washington
  State court,     Seattle, Washington

And it is apparent that the courts from which the data were derived
are widely scattered through the East, Middle West, and Far West,
and are of a varied character as regards nature of racial and
other characteristics which might affect the human factors in the
matter. It is to be regretted that there are none from the South and
Southwest; but there seems no reason to suppose that they would show
materially different results.


Doubtless any particular year selected for the study would present
certain special conditions calling for discount of the results. This
is true of the year 1913-14. That year chanced to mark the end of
the validity of the “old-law declarations”;--that is to say that
in that year the seven-year limit upon the life of a declaration of
intention to become a citizen, established for the first time by the
Naturalization Act of 1906, was declared by the United States Court,
1914,[116] to apply to declarations made prior to the enactment of
that statute. Undoubtedly anticipation of this tended on the whole to
increase, perhaps materially, the number of petitions consummating
those old declarations. On the other hand, there were doubtless many
declarants of long ago who were discouraged by the decision from
filing petitions at all. We shall observe later the extent to which
that decision has been a factor in the rejection of the petitions of
a large number of persons otherwise presumably eligible--excluded for
that reason alone.

Obviously it was desirable to select a year as recent as possible and
at the same time to avoid any period affected by the complications
introduced by the existence of the war in Europe. It is felt that the
year 1913-14 is sufficiently typical for all practical purposes, and
that the applicants for citizenship analyzed herein are sufficiently
representative generally of the foreign born who seek to join
us; whatever may be said of the great number who were swept into
citizenship helter-skelter during and since the war by naturalization
of soldiers and sailors on the sole ground of military service.[117]


Some of the important conclusions supported by these statistics
naturally raise the question whether the petitions studied are,
in respect of country of origin, really typical of the whole
foreign-born population of the country. This question seems to be
disposed of by a compilation showing the racial distribution of the
petitioners studied, compared with the racial distribution of _all_
unnaturalized foreign-born white aliens 21 years of age or older in
the country as a whole, and in the nine large cities covered by this



                   |                | UNNATURALIZED{3}|   UNNATURALIZED
                   |                |  FOREIGN-BORN   |   FOREIGN-BORN
                   |                |   WHITE MALES   |    WHITE MALES
      OF BIRTH     |    STUDIED     |  YEARS OF AGE   |   YEARS OF AGE
                   |    1913-14     |  AND OVER IN    |    AND OVER IN
                   |                |  NINE CITIES,   | THE UNITED STATES
                   |                |     IN 1910     |      IN 1910
                   | Number | Per   | Number  | Per   |  Number   | Per
                   |        | Cent  |         | Cent  |           | Cent
  All countries    | 26,284 | 100.0 | 437,517 | 100.0 | 2,837,307 | 100.0
  Russia           |  7,864 |  29.9 | 107,393 |  24.5 |   481,532 |  17.0
  Austria          |  3,875 |  14.7 |  59,252 |  13.5 |   407,977 |  14.4
  Italy            |  3,591 |  13.7 |  98,595 |  22.5 |   523,964 |  18.5
  Hungary          |  2,443 |   9.3 |  31,194 |   7.1 |   200,274 |   7.1
  Germany          |  2,305 |   8.8 |  35,425 |   8.1 |   219,133 |   7.7
  Ireland          |  1,773 |   6.7 |  16,453 |   3.8 |   116,613 |   4.1
  England          |    831 |   3.2 |  14,807 |   3.4 |   112,317 |   4.0
  Sweden           |    616 |   2.3 |   8,675 |   2.0 |    92,289 |   3.3
  Rumania          |    569 |   2.2 |   5,778 |   1.3 |    17,498 |   0.6
  Norway           |    389 |   1.5 |   4,084 |   0.9 |    66,802 |   2.4
  Canada           |    385 |   1.5 |   9,229 |   2.1 |   176,868 |   6.2
  Scotland         |    288 |   1.1 |   5,299 |   1.2 |    38,940 |   1.4
  Denmark          |    200 |   0.8 |   1,881 |   0.4 |    27,045 |   1.0
  Switzerland      |    197 |   0.8 |   4,039 |   0.9 |    16,942 |   1.6
  Finland          |    144 |   0.6 |   2,395 |   0.5 |    43,737 |   1.5
  Turkey in Asia   |    142 |   0.5 |   1,883 |   0.4 |    22,776 |   0.8
  Holland          |    139 |   0.5 |     930 |   0.2 |    18,116 |   0.6
  Turkey in Europe |     92 |   0.3 |   1,650 |   0.4 |    19,546 |   0.7
  Greece           |     90 |   0.3 |   5,393 |   1.2 |    62,758 |   2.2
  France           |     86 |   0.3 |   4,116 |   0.9 |    21,457 |   0.8
  Wales            |     32 |   0.1 |     294 |   0.1 |     6,424 |   0.2
  Spain            |     23 |   0.1 |     932 |   0.2 |    10,037 |   0.4
  Portugal         |      8 |  .... |      92 |  .... |    19,557 |   0.7
  No information   |     23 |  .... |    .... |  .... |      .... |  ....
  Other            |    179 |   0.8 |  17,728 |   4.1 |   114,705 |   4.0

  [note 1: Cleveland, New York (Boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx, and
  Queens); Bridgeport, Connecticut; Cincinnati; Paterson, New Jersey;
  Portland, Oregon; Rochester, New York; Seattle, Washington;
  Worcester, Massachusetts.]

  [note 2: _United States Census_, 1910, vol. 1, chap. xi.]

  [note 3: Includes aliens and those holding first papers.]

Considerable variations will be observed between the racial
distribution of petitioners studied and that of the unnaturalized
but potentially naturalizable males in the whole country in 1910.
For instance, while 18.5 per cent of the unnaturalized persons in
the United States were born in Italy, only 13.7 per cent of the
petitioners studied were Italians; on the other hand, while 29.9 per
cent of the petitioners studied were from Russia, only 17 per cent of
the unnaturalized males in the United States in 1910 were Russians.

These discrepancies do not prove, however, that even in such
cases the groups of petitioners studied are not representative of
the foreign-born population, because racial distribution varies
considerably from state to state. Fortunately, moreover, it is
possible to compile from the census figures to show by country of
origin the distribution of unnaturalized white males in the cities
covered by the study, and these figures, also included in the last
column of the table, show conclusively that the racial distribution
in those cities is fairly typical. The percentages do not exactly
agree, nor is that to be expected. In the first place, there is a
difference of three years between the times represented respectively
in the two sets of figures--years during which there was a heavy
immigration. The figures given for the unnaturalized are not
complete, inasmuch as for those cities the citizenship status of 9.8
per cent of the foreign-born males 21 years of age and over was not
reported by the 1910 census. Furthermore, the petitions studied were
not all from these nine cities, although nearly nine out of ten (86.8
per cent) of them were. On the whole, the nativity distribution in
those nine cities of the petitioners studied coincides remarkably
with that of the unnaturalized but naturalizable males.


In Table X, page 211, the relative numbers and percentages are
arranged in the _order of magnitude_, and this arrangement is
illuminating in its display of what the Immigration Commission and
the writers who have taken their cue therefrom have interpreted as
“civic and political interest” exhibited in relative desire for
citizenship. With the exception of Italy the races from the sources
of largest recent immigration show a higher proportion naturalized
than the proportion they represented in the population. It can fairly
be said that the desire to become citizens is as evident among these
immigrants of the new races as among those of the earlier, entirely
leaving out of consideration the length of residence which operates
in favor of the older immigrants.


How did these applicants for citizenship fare? However much they
may have desired citizenship, these of the “new immigration” and
the “old”--did they get it? Did they pass the examinations? And as
regards the reasons for denial of those who were rejected, how did
the “recent” races account for themselves in respect of those matters
which really go to the questions of moral and intellectual fitness?

Well, to begin with, the percentage of all denials (3,033) among
these more than 26,000 petitioners was 11.5--almost exactly that
(11.2) of the whole United States during the entire period of
eleven years, 1908-18, as shown by the reports of the Commissioner
of Naturalization. Here appears a compilation analyzing _all_ the
denials during the period 1908-18.



                       |                     DENIALS
                       |      Naturalization Reports     | Cases Studied
                       +----------------+----------------+   1913-14
      CAUSES           |     1908-18    |     1913-14    |
                       | Number  | Per  | Number  | Per  | Number | Per
                       |         | Cent |         | Cent |        | Cent
  Want of prosecution  |  33,493 | 31.2 |   3,856 | 29.4 |    689 | 22.7
  Incompetent Witnesses|  28,262 | 26.3 |   3,982 | 30.2 |    422 | 13.9
  Declaration invalid  |   9,187 |  8.5 |   1,148 |  8.7 |  1,296 | 42.7
  Ignorance            |  11,109 | 10.3 |   1,147 |  8.7 |    220 |  7.2
  Miscellaneous        |   6,098 |  5.7 |     553 |  4.2 |    147 |  4.8
  Immoral character    |   4,269 |  4.0 |     588 |  4.5 |     59 |  1.9
  Insufficient         |         |      |         |      |        |
    residence          |   3,625 |  3.3 |     389 |  3.0 |     68 |  2.2
  Petitioner’s motion  |   2,824 |  2.6 |     381 |  2.9 |     51 |  1.7
  No jurisdiction      |   2,934 |  2.7 |     291 |  2.2 |     12 |  0.4
  Deceased             |   1,123 |  1.0 |     174 |  1.3 |     11 |  0.4
  Unable to produce    |         |      |         |      |        |
     witnesses or      |         |      |         |      |        |
     deposition        |   1,090 |  1.0 |     196 |  1.5 |     12 |  0.4
  Already a citizen    |   1,200 |  1.1 |     150 |  1.1 |      9 |  0.3
  No certificate of    |         |      |         |      |        |
    arrival            |   1,197 |  1.1 |     179 |  1.4 |     14 |  0.5
  Premature petition   |     979 |  0.9 |      96 |  0.7 |     17 |  0.2
  Section 2169 (not a  |         |      |         |      |        |
    white person)      |      84 |  0.1 |       3 | .... |   .... | ....
  No information       |    .... | .... |    .... | .... |     16 |  0.5
            Total      | 107,474 |100.0 |  13,133 |100.0 |  3,033 |100.0
  Certificates granted | 848,777 | .... | 105,439 | .... |   .... | ....
  Cases disposed of    | 956,251 | .... | 118,572 | .... | 26,284 | ....
  Per cent denied      |    .... | 11.2 |    .... | 11.1 |   .... | 11.5

A study of the figures covering the reasons for denial of the 3,033
among the petitions of 1913-14 here analyzed illuminated special
aspects of this matter, showing, as it does, how large a proportion
of the denials are for reasons of a purely technical character, or
because the petitioners abandoned their pursuit of citizenship after
filing the final petition.

The following table lists the races represented by forty or
more petitions, _in the order of percentage of denials_, and
shows the percentages attributable to the six principal reasons,
respectively: “want of prosecution,” “incompetent witnesses,”
“declaration invalid,” “ignorance,” “immoral character,” and “old-law
declaration--held to be invalid.”



              (Part One)
    COUNTRY     |  NUMBER   |   DENIALS     |
       OF       |    OF     +--------+------+
     BIRTH      | PETITIONS | Number | Per  |
                |           |        | Cent |
  All countries |    26,284 |  3,033 | 11.5 |
                |           |        |      |
  Greece        |        90 |     27 | 30.0 |
  France        |        86 |     19 | 22.1 |
  Italy         |     3,591 |    646 | 18.0 |
  Turkey in     |           |        |      |
    Europe      |        92 |     15 | 16.3 |
  Holland       |       139 |     21 | 15.1 |
  Scotland      |       288 |     42 | 14.6 |
  Denmark       |       200 |     29 | 14.5 |
  England       |       831 |    120 | 14.4 |
  Sweden        |       616 |     80 | 13.0 |
  Germany       |     2,305 |    296 | 12.8 |
  Switzerland   |       197 |     25 | 12.7 |
  Turkey in     |           |        |      |
    Asia        |       142 |     18 | 12.7 |
  Norway        |       389 |     48 | 12.3 |
  Belgium       |        41 |      5 | 12.2 |
  Canada        |       385 |     43 | 11.2 |
  Hungary       |     2,443 |    249 | 10.2 |
  Finland       |       144 |     14 |  9.7 |
  Rumania       |       569 |     54 |  9.5 |
  Russia        |     7,864 |    744 |  9.5 |
  Ireland       |     1,773 |    166 |  9.4 |
  Austria       |     3,875 |    347 |  9.0 |
  Other         |       201 |     27 | .... |
  No information|        23 |   .... | .... |

                (Part Two)
                  |          CAUSES OF DENIAL--PER CENT
     COUNTRY      |--------+--------+-------+--------+-------+----------
        OF        |  Want of        Ignorance         Immoral
      BIRTH       |Prosecution                       Character
                  |        Incompetent      Declaration       “Old-Law”
                  |         Witnesses         Invalid      Declaration{1}
    All countries |   22.7 |   13.9 |   5.2 |    7.2 |   1.9 |    37.5
                  |        |        |       |        |       |
    Greece        |   48.1 |   11.1 |   3.7 |   .... |  .... |     3.7
    France        |   15.7 |   26.3 |       |        |       |    42.1
    Italy         |   28.1 |   11.1 |   2.9 |   14.2 |   1.7 |    34.2
    Turkey in     |        |        |       |        |       |
      Europe      |   26.6 |    7.6 |  26.6 |   .... |   7.6 |    20.9
    Holland       |   28.5 |   33.3 |  .... |   .... |  .... |    14.0
    Scotland      |   21.4 |   11.9 |   9.5 |    2.4 |  .... |    31.0
    Denmark       |   17.2 |   27.6 |   3.5 |   .... |   6.9 |    31.0
    England       |   30.0 |   19.2 |   4.2 |    1.7 |   2.5 |    27.5
    Sweden        |   13.7 |   13.7 |  11.3 |    3.8 |   5.0 |    30.0
    Germany       |   17.2 |   14.5 |   5.4 |    4.7 |   2.4 |    47.3
    Switzerland   |   24.0 |   20.0 |   4.0 |    8.0 |  .... |    36.0
    Turkey in     |        |        |       |        |       |
      Asia        |   44.4 |   11.1 |  16.7 |    5.6 |  .... |    16.7
    Norway        |   25.0 |   27.1 |  14.6 |    8.3 |  .... |     4.2
    Belgium       |   40.0 |   20.0 |  .... |   20.0 |  .... |    ....
    Canada        |   30.2 |   14.0 |   9.3 |        |   4.6 |    20.9
    Hungary       |   32.2 |   12.5 |   4.8 |    7.6 |   3.2 |    24.9
    Finland       |   42.8 |   14.3 |  14.3 |   .... |  .... |    ....
    Rumania       |    7.4 |   11.1 |   5.6 |    7.4 |   3.7 |    63.0
    Russia        |   15.1 |   15.7 |   5.5 |    6.2 |   1.7 |    46.2
    Ireland       |   27.1 |   11.4 |   3.0 |    1.8 |   0.6 |    46.3
    Austria       |   21.6 |   10.4 |   5.5 |    7.2 |   1.4 |    44.8
    Other         |   .... |   .... |  .... |   .... |  .... |    ....
    No information|   .... |   .... |  .... |   .... |  .... |    ....

  [note 1: Denied because declaration of intention was more than seven
  years old.]

In this table there are 14 countries listed whose per cent of denials
exceeds that for all countries. Of these only four supply the “new”
immigration. And of the seven showing a lower than 11.5 per cent
denials, five constitute the “new” immigration. This would point
to greater success on the part of the new races in attaining their
naturalization papers. The qualifying fact here, as elsewhere, is
that more than twice as many petitioners belong to the “new” races as
to the “old.”

The two causes of denial showing the largest per cents for the
country as a whole and for most countries are “want of prosecution”
and the invalidity of their “old-law” declaration. That so large a
proportion of immigrants have taken the trouble to take almost the
last steps toward citizenship and then fail by default is symptomatic
of waste somewhere along the line. This condition seems to prevail
among both the “old” and “new” peoples.


For some of the less mechanical causes of denial, let us segregate
and arrange the countries in order of percentages. The following
table shows denials for “immoral character.”



  Country of Birth         Denials
                           Per Cent
  Total cases                1.9
  Turkey in Europe           7.6
  Denmark                    6.9
  Sweden                     5.0
  Canada                     4.6
  Rumania                    3.7
  Hungary                    3.2
  England                    2.5
  Germany                    2.4
  Russia                     1.7
  Italy                      1.7
  Austria                    1.4
  Ireland                    0.6

The average percentage of denials for the whole United States for the
period 1908-18 on the ground of “immoral character” was 4.0 per cent.
With the exception of Turkey in Europe, not one of the “newer” races
came up to this average in the year 1913-14, so far as may be judged
by this analysis of the court records of more than one in five of
the petitions passed upon in that year. Austria, Hungary, Italy,
Rumania, all showed a record materially better, and the figures
generally show that cause to be negligible, anyway.


In considering the statistics of denials on the ground of
“ignorance,” it is to be remembered that the examinations which
disclose this “ignorance” do not go as a rule to the subject of
illiteracy or general intelligence, but deal in the majority of
cases with the understanding of the petitioner as to the form of
government, and sometimes decidedly minute details of the history, of
the United States. The average percentage of denials on the ground
of “ignorance” in the whole United States during the eleven years
1908-18 was 10.3. The records of the petitions of every one of the
“recent” races, except Italian, for the year 1913-14--if one may
judge by this study of more than one-fifth of them--was far better
than that average, though generally higher than that of the old races.



  Country of Birth        Denials
                          Per Cent
  Total cases               7.2
  Italy                    14.2
  Norway                    8.3
  Switzerland               8.0
  Hungary                   7.6
  Rumania                   7.4
  Austria                   7.2
  Russia                    6.2
  Turkey in Asia            5.6
  Germany                   4.7
  Sweden                    3.8
  Scotland                  2.4
  Ireland                   1.8
  England                   1.7


Generally speaking, judging by the 26,284 petitions examined, each of
which must show the date of arrival and declaration of intention, the
immigrant is in this country in the average case anywhere from 5.4
to 12.7 years before he files his declaration of intention to seek
citizenship. (See Table XXI.)

The evidence on this point was strikingly uniform in all the courts
save one. The lowest average shown was 5.4 years in Cincinnati;
the highest average but two was 8.6 in the State Superior Court at
Worcester, Massachusetts. The extreme exceptions were 9.4 years in
the Superior Court for Middlesex County, at Middletown, Connecticut,
and 12.7 years in the Androscoggin Supreme Judicial Court at
Auburn, Maine. The latter court in naturalization matters deals
largely with French-Canadians; of all the 385 Canadian petitioners
falling under this analysis, this one court passed upon 61.5 per cent.



                                   |  AVERAGE  |  AVERAGE  |  AVERAGE
                                   | INTERVAL  | INTERVAL  | INTERVAL
                                   |  BETWEEN  |  BETWEEN  |  BETWEEN
                COURTS             |  ARRIVAL  |DECLARATION| PETITION
                                   |    AND    |    AND    |   AND
                                   |DECLARATION| PETITION  |CERTIFICATE
                                   |  (Years)  |  (Years)  |  (Months)
  New York Co. Supm. Ct.           |    6.7    |    4.7    |    5.1
  U. S. Dist. Ct., Southern Dist.  |           |           |
      New York, N. Y. C.           |    7.2    |    4.3    |    3.9
  U. S. Dist. Ct., Eastern Dist.   |           |           |
      New York, Brooklyn           |    7.1    |    5.2    |    4.1
  Bronx Co. Supm. Ct., N. Y. C.    |    7.7    |    3.9    |    5.0
  Queens Co. Supm. Ct., Jamaica,   |           |           |
      L. I.                        |    7.4    |    6.5    |    4.6
  Westchester Co. Supm. Ct., White |           |           |
      Plains, N. Y.                |    6.9    |    5.2    |    5.8
  Nassau Co. Supm. Ct., Mineola,   |           |           |
      L. I.                        |    7.0    |    4.9    |    4.7
  Passaic Co. Ct. Com. Pls.,       |           |           |
      Paterson, N. J.              |    6.3    |    5.2    |    4.1
  Fairfield Co. Supr. Ct.,         |           |           |
      Bridgeport, Conn.            |    7.7    |    4.8    |    5.3
  Knox Co. Circt. Ct., Galesburg,  |           |           |
      Ill.                         |    7.7    |    4.6    |    4.8
  Johnson Co. Dist. Ct., Iowa City,|           |           |
      Iowa                         |    6.1    |    3.5    |    4.6
  Androscoggin Co. Supm. Jud. Ct., |           |           |
      Auburn, Me.                  |   12.7    |    3.0    |    4.2
  Tompkins Co. Supm. Ct., Ithaca,  |           |           |
      N. Y.                        |    8.0    |    3.5    |    6.4
  Middlesex Co. Ct. Com Pls., New  |           |           |
      Brunswick, N. J.             |    6.6    |    4.6    |    5.2
  U. S. Dist. Ct. Northern Dist.,  |           |           |
      Cleveland, Ohio              |    5.4    |    5.0    |    4.5
  Cuyahoga Co. Ct. Com. Pls.,      |           |           |
      Cleveland, Ohio              |    6.7    |    5.0    |    4.5
  Multnomah Co. Circt. Ct.,        |           |           |
      Portland, Ore.               |    7.2    |   11.1    |    5.1
  Monroe Co. Supm. Ct., Rochester, |           |           |
      N. Y.                        |    6.3    |    5.5    |    4.6
  U. S. Dist. Ct. Western Dist.    |           |           |
      Washington, Seattle          |    6.1    |    7.1    |    4.8
  King Co. Supm. Ct., Seattle,     |           |           |
      Wash.                        |    6.0    |    8.8    |   11.1
  Chemung Co. Supm. Ct., Elmira,   |           |           |
      N. Y.                        |    7.0    |    4.8    |   12.7
  Summit Co. Ct. Com. Pls., Akron, |           |           |
      Ohio                         |    6.2    |    4.2    |    5.7
  Northampton Co. Ct. Com. Pls.,   |           |           |
      Easton, Pa.                  |    7.5    |    4.2    |    5.5
  Worcester Co. Supr. Ct.,         |           |           |
      Worcester, Mass.             |    8.6    |    4.1    |    5.4
  Middlesex Co. Supr. Ct.,         |           |           |
      Middletown, Conn.            |    9.4    |    3.7    |    5.3
  Rensselaer Co. Supm. Ct., Troy,  |           |           |
      N. Y.                        |    6.2    |    4.1    |    7.7
  U. S. Dist. Ct. Southern Dist.   |           |           |
      O., Cincinnati               |    5.7    |    5.4    |    5.1
  New London Co. Supr. Ct.,        |           |           |
      Norwich, Conn.               |    8.5    |    4.2    |    6.8
                                   |           |           |
             Average               |    6.8    |    5.1    |    4.9

Having filed his declaration of intention after an average residence
in this country shown in all courts as 6.8 years--nearly two years
more than the five years’ minimum residence required for the
_completion_ of citizenship--our average immigrant _waits more
than five years_ longer before he files his final petition for
naturalization--although under the law he need have waited only two.
The range, however, was wide, between an average of 3.0 years in the
Supreme Court of Androscoggin County, Auburn, Maine, and 11.1 years
in the Circuit Court at Portland, Oregon. The whole average shown
in all the courts studied was 5.1 years. These are very surprising
figures for those who have been complaining that we have hurried
aliens into citizenship.

Once the applicant has his petition filed, the process becomes more
expeditious. The figures collated for the year 1913-14 show an
average interval between petition and certificate of naturalization
of 4.9 months; the range is between 3.9 months in the United States
District Court in Manhattan, and 12.7 months in the State Supreme
Court at Elmira, New York. From the point of view of delay, three
months must always be subtracted, since the law requires, in any
event, an interval of at least ninety days after the petition is
filed before it can be considered by the court.


What light do the petitions throw upon the question of the relative
“civic and political interest” of the various racial groups, as
shown by the interval that elapses between their attainment of the
age of 21 years, or if they come here after they are 21, between
their arrival and their filing of the final petition?



                    | NUMBER IN | AVERAGE
                    |    1-14   | (Years)
  All countries     |   2,900   |    6.2
                    |           |
  France            |      19   |   12.9
  Norway            |      13   |   12.5
  Switzerland       |       7   |   12.4
  Sweden            |      31   |   12.4
  Scotland          |      13   |   11.8
  England           |      77   |   11.6
  Ireland           |      77   |   10.8
  Germany           |     280   |   10.3
  Canada            |      88   |    9.8
  Denmark           |      13   |    9.5
  Holland           |      17   |    9.5
  Hungary           |     192   |    5.8
  Greece            |      12   |    5.5
  Finland           |       6   |    5.3
  Russia            |     873   |    5.0
  Italy             |     651   |    4.9
  Austria           |     389   |    4.5
  Turkey in Asia    |      10   |    4.0
  Rumania           |      89   |    3.8
  Turkey in Europe  |       8   |    3.6

We have three groups of statistics on this point: those petitioners
arriving at the ages of 1 to 14, those at 15 to 20 years, and those
21 years and over. In the following table the countries of birth are
arranged in the order of the average interval for those arriving at
the ages of 1 to 14 years. The complete table will be found in the



                    | NUMBER IN | AVERAGE
                    |   15-20   | (Years)
  All countries     |   9,512   |   11.0{1}
                    |           |
  France            |      10   |   17.7
  Canada            |      99   |   17.3
  Switzerland       |      50   |   15.6
  Germany           |     600   |   14.1
  England           |     216   |   13.6
  Sweden            |     269   |   12.7
  Scotland          |      57   |   12.7
  Denmark           |      65   |   12.2
  Holland           |      32   |   12.2
  Finland           |      54   |   11.7
  Ireland           |     609   |   11.5
  Norway            |     148   |   11.3
  Italy             |   1,198   |   10.8
  Hungary           |     960   |   10.8
  Austria           |   1,658   |   10.6
  Rumania           |     202   |   10.2
  Russia            |   3,055   |    9.9
  Greece            |      47   |    9.7
  Turkey in Asia    |      69   |    9.0
  Turkey in Europe  |      42   |    7.9

  [note 1: This average includes the figures for races whose numbers
  are too small to justify generalization.]

The striking thing in these tables is the fact that almost without
exception the countries showing the longest intervals are those
representing the old immigration.



                    | NUMBER IN |
                    | AGE GROUP | AVERAGE
                    | AND OVER  | (Years)
  All countries     |  13,849   |  10.6{1}
                    |           |
  Canada            |     198   |  16.4
  Sweden            |     316   |  13.1
  Switzerland       |     140   |  12.2
  France            |      57   |  11.9
  Germany           |   1,425   |  11.9
  England           |     538   |  11.7
  Italy             |   1,742   |  11.4
  Norway            |     228   |  10.8
  Scotland          |     218   |  10.6
  Finland           |      84   |  10.5
  Austria           |   1,828   |  10.5
  Denmark           |     122   |  10.2
  Holland           |      90   |  10.1
  Hungary           |   1,291   |   9.9
  Rumania           |     278   |   9.8
  Russia            |   3,936   |   9.6
  Ireland           |   1,087   |   9.6
  Greece            |      31   |   8.6
  Turkey in Asia    |      63   |   8.5
  Turkey in Europe  |      42   |   8.1

  [note 1: This average includes the figures for races whose numbers
  are too small to justify generalization.]


They were young men. More than 60 per cent of them were between the
ages of 18 and 30 years. Of the 26,284 applicants for citizenship
whose petitions were examined, 16,586--over three-fifths--came to
this country between the ages of 18 and 30. The preponderance is



  1-17               |  6,589 |   25.1
  18-30              | 16,586 |   63.1
  31 and over        |  3,093 |   11.5
  No data            |     16 |   ....
       Total         | 26,284 |   99.8

  [note 1: The full table showing distribution of ages at arrival from
  infancy to fifty years or over, is given in the Appendix, Table 57.]


It is interesting to note, in this connection, the relation between
the age at which the alien arrives in this country and the length of
time that elapses before he files his final petition for citizenship.
The following diagram exhibits this:


  | 1 to 14 years.  | 6.2

  | 15 to 20 years.                 | 11.0

  | 21 years and over.            | 10.6


  Average interval before filing petition after attainment of
  21 years (or time of arrival, if arriving after 21 years) for
  petitioners, arriving at ages of 1 to 14, 15 to 20, and 21 years
  and over.]

Close analysis of these lists further emphasizes the importance of
the factor of _age at arrival_ as affecting the lapse of time after
the attainment of lawful age before filing the final petition for
citizenship. It appears, as might well be expected, that those who
come in childhood are more prompt than those who arrive between 15
and 20; but even those coming in childhood appear, on the average, to
wait until after they are 27. The averages indicate, almost without
exception, that those coming at ages over 20 waited more than 10
years before filing their petitions. Few come after they are 40 and
then seek citizenship. The petitions show that on the average those
arriving at 1 to 14 applied 6.2 years after 21. Those arriving at 21
years or over applied 10.6 years after arrival.

Those arriving between 15 and 20 applied 11 years after arrival, but
it is fallacious to compare this interval with those in the case of
the younger or older immigrants, because the five years’ required
residence might mean application at 21 years of age by an immigrant
who came at 15 or 16, or at 25 years by one who came at 20; while one
who, coming at 15, waited the full average of 11 years would apply
at 26, apparently more promptly than one who, coming in infancy,
did not apply until he was 27 or over. The questions suggested by
the discrepancy here apparent are many, but the data available
furnish no definite answer to them. Perhaps fuller statistics might
substantially modify the apparent discrepancies.


These men, the cream of our immigration--regardless of any fanciful
distinction of race “older” or “newer”--came in the flower of their
young manhood to try hazard of new fortunes in what they rightly
believed to be the land of promise and opportunity; lived here from
five to twelve years before they registered in normal declaration
their intention to become citizens; lived here upward of five years
more before filing their final petition for citizenship, and nearly
nine out of ten of them passed their examinations and were admitted.

There is visible in these statistics a distinction of race--a very
interesting and inspiring distinction, but it is not one of the
“older” or “newer” races. It has little to do with any supposititious
difference of racial quality or character. Indeed, it redounds on
the whole to the credit of the more recent immigration, and, so
far as it goes, would indicate, if anything, a greater potential
fitness for American citizenship. In Diagram 2, which is based on
Table XXIV, the bars which are black represent countries which have
entirely a subject people, or in which a proportion of the population
is subject. In the latter case it is the subject peoples who come
to this country in larger proportions than the sovereign peoples.
This is only one of the instances which illustrate an interesting
conclusion. Certainly to a discerning eye this fact stands forth:

_Those from countries where, at the time of their migration, there
was either autocratic government or political discontent, or inferior
economic opportunity, head the list of those who seek, and upon
examination prove their title to, fellow-membership with us._

_Those from countries where government was relatively democratic,
where individual liberty prevailed, where political, social, and
economic conditions were conducive to contentment, were satisfied to
keep the citizenship of their fatherlands._

Why should it require exhaustive investigation to demonstrate so
obvious, so inevitable an operation of human psychology? What else
was to have been expected?


  AVERAGE FOR ALL  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 10.6

  TURKEY IN EUROPE | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 8.1

  TURKEY IN ASIA   | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /|  8.5

  GREECE           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 8.6

  IRELAND          | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.6

  RUSSIA           | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.6

  ROUMANIA         | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.8

  HUNGARY          | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 9.9

  HOLLAND          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 10.1

  DENMARK          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 10.2

  AUSTRIA          | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 10.5

  FINLAND          | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 10.5

  SCOTLAND         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 10.6

  NORWAY           | /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| /| 10.8

  ITALY            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |11.4

  ENGLAND          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 11.7

  GERMANY          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 11.9

  FRANCE           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 11.9

  SWITZERLAND      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 12.2

  SWEDEN           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 13.1

  CANADA           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 16.4


  Average interval before filing petition after arrival at ages
  21 or over by races. The bars which are in black ((filled with
  / character)) represent countries from which the subject people
  constituted almost entirely the immigration to this country.]


The racial distribution of these petitioners, with reference to
age at arrival, is interesting and to some extent significant.
Table XXVI, including only those races represented by at least 50
petitions, is arranged in the order of percentages of those arriving
after attaining the age of 21 years. It throws sidelights upon the
variations of the age at which the individuals of various races came
to this country:



              |           |        NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF THOSE
              |           |               ARRIVING AT AGES
              |   WHOLE   +----------------------------------------------
    COUNTRY   |   NUMBER  |  21 and Over  |   15 TO 20    |    1 TO 14
    OF BIRTH  |     OF    +--------+------+--------+------+--------+-----
              |PETITIONERS| Number | Per  | Number | Per  | Number | Per
              |           |        | Cent |        | Cent |        | Cent
  Scotland    |      288  |    218 | 75.7 |     57 | 19.8 |     13 |  4.5
  Switzerland |      197  |    140 | 71.7 |     50 | 25.4 |      7 |  3.5
  France      |       86  |     57 | 66.3 |     10 | 11.6 |     19 | 22.1
  England     |      831  |    538 | 64.7 |    216 | 26.0 |     77 |  9.3
  Holland     |      139  |     90 | 64.7 |     32 | 23.0 |     17 | 12.2
  Germany     |    2,305  |  1,425 | 61.8 |    600 | 26.0 |    280 | 12.1
  Ireland     |    1,773  |  1,087 | 61.3 |    609 | 34.3 |     77 |  4.3
  Denmark     |      200  |    122 | 61.0 |     65 | 32.5 |     13 |  6.5
  Norway      |      389  |    228 | 58.6 |    148 | 38.0 |     13 |  3.3
  Finland     |      144  |     84 | 58.3 |     54 | 37.5 |      6 |  4.1
  Hungary     |    2,443  |  1,291 | 52.8 |    960 | 39.3 |    192 |  7.9
  Canada      |      385  |    198 | 51.4 |     99 | 25.7 |     88 | 22.9
  Sweden      |      616  |    316 | 51.3 |    269 | 43.7 |     31 |  5.0
  Russia      |    7,864  |  3,936 | 50.1 |  3,055 | 38.8 |    873 | 11.1
  Rumania     |      569  |    278 | 48.9 |    202 | 35.5 |     89 | 15.6
  Italy       |    3,591  |  1,742 | 48.5 |  1,198 | 33.4 |    651 | 18.1
  Austria     |    3,875  |  1,828 | 47.2 |  1,658 | 42.8 |    389 | 10.0
  Turkey in   |           |        |      |        |      |        |
    Europe    |       92  |     42 | 45.7 |     42 | 45.7 |      8 |  8.7
  Turkey in   |           |        |      |        |      |        |
    Asia      |      142  |     63 | 44.4 |     69 | 48.6 |     10 |  7.0
  Greece      |       90  |     31 | 34.4 |     47 | 52.2 |     12 | 13.3

Inferences or generalizations from this table in connection with the
age statistics given heretofore would be perilous, since we have not
tabulated the data which would show, with regard to any particular
racial group, how many of those between 15 and 20 years of age came
at 18 or 19; or how many of those over 21 came after they were 25 or
before they were 30. So far as it goes, however, it would appear to
indicate that those of the so-called “older” immigration left their
homelands at a later age, while a larger proportion of those of the
“newer” came in younger manhood. The larger percentages in the column
“over 21” are credited to the “older”; the larger in the second
column, “15 to 20,” to the “newer.”


More than two-thirds (68.5 per cent) of the petitioners were married
at the time of their petition for naturalization. One may hazard
the guess that the majority were either unmarried or newly married
when they came to this country, because, while 89.9 per cent of the
18,017 married petitioners reported wives of foreign birth, 10,563
(73.5 per cent) of them had children exclusively native-born. Only
one in ten had foreign-born children only, and only 16.5 per cent had
both native and foreign-born children. And 14,371 (79.8 per cent) of
the married petitioners had one or more children under 21 years of


The question of what might be called the “residential stability” of
the immigrant in this country has been the subject of much assertion
and little substantial information. The general tenor of the
assertion and the vague impression of the average person are to the
effect that the immigrant is more or less of a wanderer, shifting
from place to place, and for that reason failing to establish
anything resembling permanent residence or to relate himself to the
community as a neighbor. Very little statistical data on this point
is available, and it is unsafe to generalize. There is, however, a
somewhat startling disclosure in the 1915 census of the state of
Massachusetts, showing that in the class of otherwise “justified”
voters disqualified solely by reason of not having resided one year
in the state or six months in the city or town, there were 21,226
native and 3,845 foreign born; in other words, that 3.6 per cent of
the native-born voters were disqualified because they were moving
about; while only 1.9 per cent, or just about half the proportion, of
the foreign-born were disqualified for that reason.

The analysis of petitions by the Americanization Study sheds a little
further light on this subject, by segregating the figures in each
court showing petitions which were filed by aliens who had filed
their declaration in another state. Of the total of 26,284, there
were 1,859 of these, or 7.1 per cent. Undoubtedly this moving about,
in search of employment or for other reasons, is a considerable
factor in the delay between arrival and declaration and between
declaration and petition. Naturally, the figures would tend to be
high on the Pacific coast, to which immigrants travel by rather
long stages of time. The court in Portland, Oregon, showed 234 out
of 714 petitioners--almost a third--who had filed their declaration
in other states. This court shows also the longest average interval
between declaration and petition. The courts in Seattle also show
high figures in this regard. The same tends to be true of rapidly
growing industrial centers, such as Cleveland, Bridgeport, Paterson,
New Brunswick, New Jersey.



                                   | PETITIONERS WHO DECLARED
            COURT                  |     IN OTHER STATES
                                   |   Number    |  Per Cent
  Norwich, Conn.                   |      52     |    43.7
  Portland, Ore.                   |     234     |    32.8
  Seattle, Wash. (state court)     |      42     |    29.4
  Bridgeport, Conn.                |      96     |    23.4
  New Brunswick, N. J.             |      84     |    21.6
  Cleveland, Ohio (U. S. court)    |     158     |    13.4
  Paterson, N. J.                  |      76     |    10.2
  Seattle, Wash. (U. S. court)     |      69     |     9.8
  Middletown, Conn.                |       7     |     9.5
  Cincinnati, Ohio                 |      34     |     9.4
  Cleveland, Ohio (state court)    |     152     |     8.9
  Easton, Pa.                      |      10     |     8.7
  Ithaca, N. Y.                    |       2     |     8.7
  Akron, Ohio                      |      16     |     8.0
  Iowa City, Iowa                  |       1     |     7.7
  Rochester, N. Y.                 |      57     |     7.0
  Jamaica, L. I.                   |      39     |     6.5
  Elmira, N. Y.                    |       1     |     5.3
  Mineola, L. I.                   |       7     |     5.2
  New York City (U. S. court)      |     121     |     5.0
  White Plains, N. Y.              |      28     |     4.3
  Worcester, Mass.                 |      27     |     4.3
  New York City (state court)      |     452     |     4.1
  Bronx, N. Y. C. (state court)    |      47     |     3.5
  Brooklyn, N. Y. C. (U. S. court) |      47     |     3.0
         Total                     |   1,859     |     7.1

That upward of 13 out of 14--nearly 93 per cent--of alien petitioners
for American citizenship, in a total of more than 26,000, should
have been able to file their final petitions in the same states
in which, on an average of more than five years before, they had
declared their intention to do so, certainly attests a degree of
“stability of residence” comparing favorably with that of other,
native-born residents of the country. And it would seem also to
justify the inference that those who become naturalized have
generally become well assimilated into the life of the communities
where they live.


As for the intellectual equipment and the general usefulness of the
aspirants for citizenship represented in the petitions studied, one
may infer something from the occupational range shown in an analysis
of the petitions for 1913-14 in seven cities,[119] representing a
wide variety of locality. This analysis showed, for each of the
17 kinds of occupations listed, the ratio between the number of
naturalization petitions filed by persons in those occupations in
those cities in 1913-14, and the foreign-born white males in those
occupations in those cities as shown by the census of 1910. Perhaps
the most striking fact emerging from this analysis, illuminating
to those who have supposed that the naturalization process swept
into citizenship the dregs of immigration, is that the smallest
percentage is shown in the class of common labor; the highest in the
grade of executives, and the preponderance throughout attaching to
trades requiring a degree of dexterity and general intelligence and
information, if not technical training. It is unsafe, however, to
infer too much from these percentages, because of the relatively
small numbers represented in some of the classes, and the large
proportions accredited to the garment trades and to “retail
dealers,” among whom, doubtless, there were many mere peddlers. The
distribution of occupations is here set forth in the order of the



                               |  NUMBER OF  |  RATIO TO
                               |  IN THOSE   |  IN THOSE
                               | OCCUPATIONS | OCCUPATIONS
  Total                        |    9,930    |     3.0
                               |             |
  Managers and superintendents |      154    |     7.1
  Chauffeurs                   |      176    |     5.9
  Tailors                      |    2,120    |     5.3
  Clergymen                    |       67    |     4.7
  Bartenders                   |      248    |     3.6
  Plumbers                     |      193    |     3.6
  Barbers                      |      372    |     3.2
  Bakers                       |      328    |     3.1
  Retail dealers               |    2,103    |     3.1
  Painters and glaziers        |      514    |     3.1
  Carpenters                   |      779    |     3.0
  Salesmen                     |      591    |     2.8
  Manufacturing and officials  |      511    |     2.7
  Blacksmiths                  |      161    |     2.7
  Motormen                     |       92    |     2.4
  Brick and stone masons       |      219    |     2.2
  Laborers                     |    1,302    |     1.5

Analysis of the entire total of 26,284 petitions from which the data
were obtained shows a general occupation distribution as follows:



                                              |    PETITIONERS
                    OCCUPATIONS               +--------+---------
                                              | Number | Per Cent
  Total                                       | 26,284 |  100.0
                                              |        |
  Manufacturing and mechanical industries     | 15,335 |   58.3
  Trade                                       |  4,427 |   16.8
  Domestic and personal service               |  2,382 |    9.1
  Clerical                                    |  1,388 |    5.3
  Transportation                              |  1,010 |    3.8
  Professional service                        |  1,026 |    3.9
  Agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry |    454 |    1.8
  Public service.                             |    170 |    0.6
  Extraction of minerals                      |     40 |    0.2
  No information                              |     52 |    0.2


Certain inferences and conclusions seem to be warranted on the
whole by the examination and analyses in this chapter and that
preceding it, of the compilations of the United States Census, the
Immigration Commission of 1907, the Naturalization, Bureau and the
Americanization Study.

First, and most important, is the destruction of the legendary
presumption of some change for the worse in recent years in the
inherent character-quality of immigration to this country, and in
the attitude of the typical immigrant of those years toward American
citizenship. There has been no such change; indeed, if there is any
substantial difference in “quality of assimilability” between the
“older” races and the newer, _it is in favor of the latter_.

Second, it is evident that such difference as exists among races
is not an inherent racial quality, but _a difference between the
political, social, and economic conditions at the time of migration
in the country of origin_. Those nations whose people are most free
from tyranny and oppression and most contented with the conditions
under which they live at home, send the fewest immigrants to America;
their emigrants come at a later age, and when they do come they
retain longest or altogether their original citizenship.

Third, and broadly corollary, is the fact that the major, not to say
exclusively, controlling factor in the political absorption of the
immigrant is _length of residence_. The longer the individual lives
in America the more likely he is to seek active membership therein.

Fourth, the interval between arrival and petition for
naturalization--or even the original declaration of intention--is
much longer than has generally been supposed. The average immigrant,
regardless of racial extraction, does not concern himself about
political privileges or activities until after long years of
residence and the attainment of a considerable degree of permanent
social and economic status.

Fifth, knowledge of the English language at the time of arrival is
not a material factor in determining the rapidity with which the
individual seeks citizenship. On the contrary, those of other tongues
who have been in the United States as long as those whose mother
speech is English show even greater interest and a higher rate of
naturalization. In the ordinary case, by the time the immigrant of
any race has been in this country long enough to reach the normal
stage of interest in naturalization he has acquired a good working
knowledge of the language.

Sixth--and from the common-sense point of view it ought to occasion
no surprise--is the evident influence upon the display of “civic
and political interest” as shown in the desire for citizenship, of
social and economic conditions in this country as they practically
affect the individual. Whether from northwestern or from southeastern
Europe, whether from the so-called “recent” or “older” immigration,
the racial groups show a slower desire for citizenship and a lower
rate of naturalization while they are employed in the more poorly
paid industries; both the individual interest and the rate increase
as the individuals toil upward in the social and economic scale.

       *       *       *       *       *

The inherent thing in the racial quality, experience, and character
of the immigrant that leads some to seek citizenship earlier than
others, the essential element in the “quality of assimilability,”
in the display of “civic and political interest,” is a human thing,
which lies, and always has lain, broad upon the face of nearly
all of the statistical tables over which students have labored so
intricately and pontificated so solemnly--in some instances so
absurdly. It is a thing so obvious that it is difficult to understand
why so many of them have overlooked it.



We do not yet realize--perhaps we never shall fully realize--the
profound effect upon the whole structure of our political life, and
especially upon the quality of our citizenship, wrought by the World
War. One effect, however, stands forth clearly: the war has destroyed
the underpinning of the great structure of hand-picked citizenry
which, during twelve years of arduous labor and scrupulous straining
of technicalities, was built up by the Naturalization Bureau and the
courts on the basis of the Naturalization Law of 1906, and turned
into solemn farce most of the pontifical preachments by which that
policy was justified. Almost overnight the whole long campaign for
the establishment of an educational standard of admission, the system
of technical exactitude of papers and microscopical scrutiny of the
antecedents, length of residence, and even the personal opinions of
applicants, and of the competency of their witnesses, and so on, was
nullified. Aliens, helter-skelter, hit-or-miss, were swept into full
citizenship to an aggregate well-nigh half as large as the whole
number admitted previously during the entire period of the existence
of the Naturalization Service.

When the United States entered the war, early in 1917, the
instant necessity of raising a stupendous army swiftly out of our
heterogeneous population injected an unprecedented factor into the
question of naturalization. The body of native-born citizens, even
together with the great mass of those among the foreign-born who
were naturalized, was not sufficient. Aside from that, there were
considerations of another character; such, for example, as were set
forth by the Provost Marshal General of the Army:[120]

  As soon as the estimates of population made by the Census Bureau
  had been received, it began to be apparent that the rule of the
  Selective Service Act, which based the apportionment of quotas
  on total population, and yet drew the quotas from citizens and
  declarants only, would operate quite differently upon communities
  having largely differing percentages of aliens in their population.
  In certain local-board jurisdictions, in which the element of
  alien population exceeded 30 per cent of the total, the burden
  placed upon the citizen population was very great.... If in two
  communities of equal population the citizen population of one
  were 100 per cent of the whole and in the other 50 per cent, the
  remainder being composed of aliens, the two communities, though
  equal in population, in resources, in industries, and in need of
  labor, the efforts, and the enterprise of men of military age,
  would fall under a very unequal tax upon their man power. The
  all-citizen community would be required to furnish twice as many
  men as the half-citizen, half-alien community.


The Provost Marshal General[121] reported 1,243,801 aliens registered
under the first draft, and estimated that of these (21-30) nearly
half a million (457,713) had been called for examination, and 16.72
per cent--nearly 17 out of every hundred--certified for service; a
few in ignorance of their right to exemption, but virtually all of
them voluntarily waiving that right.

The position of the aliens, even if they had declared their intention
to become citizens, was unenviable. They still owed technical
allegiance to European sovereignty--many of them to the nations with
which we were formally or practically at war. Many of them were
of the cobelligerent nations known as “the Allies,” but were here
in evasion of military-service laws or other embarrassing legal
obligations at home, making personally undesirable their return to
the old country; and as for those of German, Austrian, Bulgarian, or
Turkish nationality, there was for them short shrift--upon capture
while fighting against armies of the Central Powers--only the dismal
certainty of summary execution as traitors. Their only possible
shadow of protection would lie in completed American citizenship.

Furthermore, there was the fact that only American citizens are
eligible for commissions as officers in the military service of the
United States; but in the new army, and the augmented navy and marine
corps--to say nothing of the merchant marine--a very large number of
officers would be needed. This last consideration seems to have been
the one which chiefly impressed the Commissioner of Naturalization;
for, in his explanation of the necessity for the legislation of May
9, 1918, which let down the bars to citizenship for the benefit of
aliens and declarants taken into the military service of the nation,
he twice refers to it:[122]

  No man engaged in the actual military and naval operations of
  our country can attain to the rank of commissioned officer
  unless he be an American, either by birth in the United States
  or by naturalization therein, irrespective of his training or
  qualifications. As this restriction, made for peace times, was no
  less a detriment to the country in limiting its range of selection
  for commissions to citizens than to those who demonstrated
  their efficiency, legislative action was taken to remove this

  ... The foreign-born residents of the United States, nondeclarants
  and declarants, had not claimed exemption from military service
  because of their alienage; but, unless he could claim full American
  citizenship, none of them, however valiantly he might fight, could
  receive a commission as an officer, which is the laudable ambition
  of every soldier.


The revolutionary character of the legislative action with which
Congress undertook to meet the situation in its various aspects
is apparent in the description of it given by the Commissioner of
Naturalization in this same report:[123]

  Another authority which Congress conferred upon the Bureau in aid
  of the national undertaking in Europe was a new code of procedure
  by which recognition should be given to certain foreign residents
  of the country ... that eliminated the delays so necessary in the
  general provisions of the naturalization law. The requirement for
  posting petitions for naturalization for at least 90 days before
  the court could acquire jurisdiction of them for the purposes of
  admitting the applicant to citizenship was so changed as to admit
  of the hearing of the petition for naturalization, filed by members
  of certain enumerated exempted classes, without any delay, the time
  for hearing being dependent only upon the convenience of the court.

  The Act of May 9, 1918, authorized petitions for naturalization
  and immediate hearing for any alien who serves in the military or
  naval branches of the Government, upon any United States vessel,
  any vessel of the American merchant marine, or anyone honorably
  discharged from the National Guard of any State, Territory, or the
  District of Columbia, within six months after honorable discharge
  therefrom. It repealed the provisions of the law that previously
  extended the right of an alien to petition for naturalization
  after an honorable discharge from the military or naval branches
  of the Government at any time after such honorable discharge, and,
  with few exceptions, reduced the period of time to six months
  after such service and honorable discharge. The provisions of the
  law heretofore existing were saved to those holding honorable
  discharges from the military service where the service was
  performed prior to January 1, 1900. This provision was included in
  the law for the distinct purpose of preserving to the veterans of
  the Civil and Spanish-American Wars the rights which previously had
  been given to them. The number of aliens now holding discharges
  from military service prior to the date stated who have not applied
  for and received American citizenship is small and constantly being

  To accomplish the provisions of this code of procedure it
  was necessary to create a corps of examiners to aid in the
  administration of a new statute under conditions wholly strange and
  different from those ordinarily prevailing. The law requires, very
  properly, that each candidate for naturalization whose immediate
  hearing is contemplated shall appear before a representative of
  this Bureau before filing his petition for naturalization. This
  particular provision has made it possible for the machinery of the
  law to operate with the minimum of friction. Indeed, there has been
  no friction at any point in this new code.

  The War Department presented the largest number of candidates for
  naturalization under the new law. Their location and distribution
  were general throughout the United States, extending from points
  in Maine, throughout the country, to the Pacific coast, in the
  various cantonments, army camps, posts, and military stations.
  So insistent was the demand for immediate action to naturalize
  the soldiers of foreign birth in our ranks, in order to enable
  units to move solidly and prevent dismemberment, that the Bureau
  detailed immediately such of its experienced officers as it could
  spare to take charge of instructing the newly appointed examiners,
  even though their removal from their regular stations resulted
  in embarrassments to courts, court officials, and thousands of
  candidates under the general provisions of the law. From various
  sources throughout the United States men qualified in law and
  typewriting were nominated by citizens interested in accomplishing
  this great need for our military forces. In less than two weeks the
  process of naturalization had begun in many of the cantonments, and
  by the end of June, 63,993 soldiers had become entitled to all of
  the rewards of the American soldier by having citizenship conferred
  upon them.

  The necessity of this legislation was clearly shown by the report
  of the Provost Marshal General, from which it appears that there
  were 123,277 soldiers not naturalized. This total comprised 76,545
  foreigners who had not declared their intention, and 46,732


A very important by-product of this legislation went to the benefit
of persons of foreign birth, long resident--many of them practically
life-long residents--in the United States, but still aliens, and many
of them enemy aliens, in those states which at that time permitted
voting upon the declaration of intention without the completion of
naturalization. In many thousands of such cases, these persons,
technically aliens, not only had sons and grandsons in the military
service of the nation as volunteers or willingly drafted soldiers,
but were themselves of the highest degree of loyalty, enlisted to
their last ounce of energy and resources in the country’s cause, and
in good faith believing themselves to be citizens in full standing
for every American purpose.[124]

  An important provision of the Act of May 9, 1918, had for its
  purpose the relief of those subjects of the Central Powers who are
  able to establish their loyalty to the United States. Ever since
  the States of Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,
  Arkansas, and Texas have been admitted to statehood, aliens have
  been allowed to vote under the constitutions of these States upon
  the making of their declarations of intention to become citizens
  of the United States. In several other States this condition
  prevailed, but in recent years there have been such changes in the
  constitutions of all of the States, except the seven named, that
  the franchise is limited to American citizens. With the operation
  of the provisions of the law requiring alien enemies to register
  there were disclosures of hundreds of thousands of loyal residents
  of the United States who believed themselves to be citizens, but
  were found never to have completed their naturalization. Cases
  have been reported of unnaturalized foreign-born residents of the
  United States who have lived here over 70 years; persons who were
  brought here as infants by their parents and who settled in those
  States where foreigners have always enjoyed the right of franchise.
  Instances were shown of those who had fought in the Civil War;
  where they had held offices of trust and responsibility, both of
  an elective and appointive nature, such as members of the State
  legislatures, mayors, judges, postmasters, and in other capacities.
  The registration required of persons born in the Central Powers,
  who had not completed their American citizenship, disclosed the
  most shocking state of affairs. Men and women who have their
  children and grandchildren in the military forces of the United
  States were disclosed as being not only as aliens but enemy aliens;
  with no means for removing the stigma.

The relief provided by Congress permitted such alien enemies to
be naturalized under certain restrictions which need not now be
detailed, except to mention that the Bureau of Naturalization was
empowered to interpose objection in any case at its discretion, and
obtain continuance at its pleasure.

As was pointed out by Representative Howland of Ohio, in 1910,
in hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and
Naturalization, there has always been a public sentiment in favor
of allowing honorably discharged soldiers to vote, regardless of
naturalization. Both such soldiers and their children have in
good faith believed themselves to be citizens. It appeared in
those hearings, by the way, that no requirement of citizenship for
enlistment in the army, navy, or marine corps had existed in the
United States until 1894, when an Act was passed,[125] providing that
at least a declaration of intention should be required for a first
enlistment. This was suspended during the Spanish-American War, but
reinstated in force after the close of that war.[126]

Representative Meeker of Missouri presented to the House of
Representatives in the summer of 1918 the results of a personal
inquiry regarding the attitude of the nations of the world regarding
the relations between citizenship and military service.[127] Space
is not here available for even an outline of what this inquiry
discloses; suffice it to say--though it is obvious enough--that
never in the history of any modern nation save this has there
been a wholesale sweeping into citizenship, by reason of military
service alone, of a very large number of aliens upon an exhibit of
qualifications consisting in the last analysis of ability to pass the
physical tests of admission to the military service of the nation.

True, the form of an inquiry as to character and fitness was
maintained; but the fact is substantially, that not only was full
citizenship conferred upon every foreign-born soldier who desired
it, but appreciable moral pressure, to say the least, was exerted
to induce many to accept who cared nothing about it or perhaps
did not want it, as well as upon large numbers who had but scant
understanding of what it was all about. A few definitely refused to
be naturalized, for reasons variously stated and interpreted; a
few could not get the required indorsement of their officers (who
in absence of others were accepted as witnesses); on the whole,
however, it may be said that the mass of those admitted under the
“military naturalization” procedure knew well enough what was
happening, welcomed it gladly, and were proud of the new status thus
suddenly conferred upon them. There is no purpose here to criticize
or demur to what was done; but it should be clearly understood that
it went far to overturn and nullify all the elaborate procedure
of hypercritical precaution, so carefully constructed by the
Naturalization Service during twelve years, to the end of straining
out of the raw material of adopted citizenry every gnat of alien


In the previous year, 1917-18, even though the war was already in
full blast, of 12,182 petitions denied more than two-thirds (8,422)
were denied for the strictly technical reason of “incompetent
witnesses,” “declaration invalid,” and “want of prosecution,” and
only 1,720 for “immoral character” and “ignorance.” In the last year
before the outbreak of the war (the fiscal year ending June 30,
1914), of 118,572 petitions disposed of, 13,133 were denied, most of
them (8,986) for these three reasons; only 1,735 for reasons going
definitely to the question of character and personal fitness embodied
in “immoral character” and “ignorance.” These figures are cited only
to emphasize the fact that up to the moment of the installation of
the system of military naturalization--and even after that time
outside of that system--the policy of meticulous vigilance was
maintained. In the six or seven weeks between the enactment of May
9th and the end of the fiscal June 30, 63,993 soldiers of foreign
birth were scooped into citizenship complete for every purpose.
One year later, June 30, 1919, the total number of these military
naturalizations had reached 128,335. The total number of petitions
granted in the entire period 1908-18, even including the military
naturalizations up to July 1, 1918, had been only 848,777.

Under the provisions now in view, aliens generally, who were in the
army, navy, marine corps, or United States merchant marine, who
had made declarations of intention, could be naturalized without
proof of five years’ residence in the United States, if it could be
shown that such residence could not be established; aliens in the
military service during the war could petition for naturalization
without previous declaration or proof of residence, and the machinery
of naturalization, hitherto enlisted in the cause of delay, was
now devoted to every possible expedition. Hearings were as nearly
immediate as possible. Aliens who had been accepted previously into
the military or naval service on condition of becoming citizens were
required to prove only three years’ residence. Honorable discharges
from previous service were accepted as evidence of both residence
and satisfactory character when supported by the evidence of two
witnesses, and where such persons were actually in the service there
was complete waiver of the requirement of certificates of arrival, as
well as of the usual ninety days’ posting and the statutory interval
of thirty days before an election.

The proceeding might be held in the most convenient court. Persons,
other than enemy aliens, who had erroneously believed themselves
to be citizens, who had lived in the United States for at least
five years preceding July 1, 1914, could be naturalized without
declaration of intention. And the payment of any fees was excused in
applicants in the military service, except in those states where the
clerk of court is required to turn into the state treasury his half
of the receipts; in those states only that half needed to be paid.


Furthermore, the effect of the law was such as to remove the racial
restrictions, so far as soldiers were concerned. A number of
Japanese and Chinese aliens were admitted to citizenship under the
military naturalization law. A dispatch to the Associated Press from
Honolulu, dated February 14, 1919, cited Judge Horace Vaughan, of the
United States District Court for Hawaii, as having “already granted
naturalization to 184 Japanese who entered the service,” and as
holding that they were entitled to citizenship under the law. Indeed,
the law does say, repeatedly, “_any_ alien.”

It was provided, too, that any American citizen, native or
foreign-born, who, as would have been the case under previously
existing law, had lost or might be deemed to have lost his
citizenship by enlistment and oath of allegiance to another
sovereignty in the military service of “any country at war with a
country with which the United States is now at war” might fully and
forthwith restore his American citizenship simply by taking before
any United States consul, or any court having authority to confer
citizenship, the oath of allegiance to the United States.

In a word, the Act of May 9, 1918, overturned everything the Bureau
of Naturalization and the courts had been contending for and making
into law at great expense of time, money, and devoted labor. The bars
were not simply let down; they were obliterated.


“The soldier naturalization work completely disrupted,” says
Commissioner Campbell, “the other naturalization work that arose in
the courts under the general provisions of the naturalization law,
almost the entire force of naturalization examiners being necessary
for the task,” ... “even though their removal from their stations
resulted in embarrassment to courts, court officials, and thousands
of candidates for naturalization under the general provisions of the

It is impossible at this time to say, or even to estimate with
any degree of confidence, how many of the aliens, thus hurriedly
naturalized, actually saw the battle lines in Europe, or even endured
the perils by sea involved in transport to the other side. A large
number of them never got farther from home than the army camp to
which they were first sent. No statistics on this subject have as yet
been collated, or perhaps ever will be. It is the impression of the
Naturalization Service, doubtless justified by the fact, that the
majority of the foreign-born soldiers thus naturalized at the camps
actually did get overseas, even though the armistice prevented their
ever further imperiling their lives for the country and flag to which
they had thus twice sworn allegiance. The main reason for the haste
was, as the Commissioner says, to finish the naturalization of the
alien members of units in time for embarkation. The courts engaged in
this work at the large encampments, and particularly at the points of
rendezvous for embarkation, worked overtime. Eight courts were used
at Newport News alone. Every effort was bent to catch the men before
they went overseas; in many cases aliens thrown into casual units
were quickly naturalized for the special purpose of permitting them
to catch up with their own organizations.

“Enemy aliens,” as a rule, were handled separately. In one “job,”
855 Serbs and Rumanians from Transylvania, which was then a part of
Austria-Hungary, were turned in a trice into full-fledged American

Many got away without being naturalized, but made up for it when they
came home again, not a few with wound stripes to reinforce their
title to the new privilege. There were naturalizations even in the
hospitals, where men in beds raised their right hands to take the
oath of allegiance. Little doubt about _their_ knowing what they were

On the other hand, undoubtedly there were many who did not at all
understand. At one of the large hearings at one of the far Western
camps surreptitiously brought their certificates of naturalization to
two women investigators for one of the Government War organizations,
and wanted to know what they meant.

“Would you be so good as to tell us what these papers are?” they
said. “We got some papers before, and had to go to court as
witnesses. We had a great deal of trouble. We would like to know if
these papers will get us into more trouble.”


The total registration under the operation of the Selective Service
Act, during the whole period, June 5, 1917-September 12, 1918,
according to the report of the Provost Marshal General,[128] was
23,908,576. Of these registrants--roughly speaking, one-fifth of the
total population of the United States--20,031,493 were citizens;
3,877,083 were aliens. Of the citizens, 1,336,967 (6.67 per cent)
were foreign-born and naturalized. Of the aliens, about one in
three (1,270,184--32.76 per cent) had declared intention to seek
citizenship. More than two and one-half millions (2,606,901--67.24
per cent) were aliens out-and-out, still owing full allegiance
to other sovereignties, and of nationality, so far as the war was
concerned, divided as follows:



                                 |    NUMBER    |   PER CENT
  Total registration             |   3,877,083  |    100.00
    Ages 21-31                   |   1,703,006  |      ....
    Ages 18-20, 32-45            |   2,174,077  |      ....
                                 |              |
  Cobelligerents (the Allies)    |   2,228,980  |     57.49
    Ages 21-31                   |   1,021,063  |      ....
    Ages 18-20, 32-45            |   1,207,917  |      ....
                                 |              |
  Neutrals                       |     636,601  |     16.42
    Ages 21-31                   |     249,034  |      ....
    Ages 18-20, 32-45            |     387,567  |      ....
                                 |              |
  Enemy and allied enemy         |   1,011,502  |     26.09
    Ages 21-31                   |     432,909  |      ....
    Ages 18-20, 32-45            |     578,593  |      ....

  [note 1: _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General to the
  Secretary of War_, on the Selective Service System to December 20,
  1918, p. 90, Table 23.]

We have no figures to show how many of those aliens and declarants
registered in the registration of September 12, 1918, were below
the age of 21 years; therefore it is not possible to say just what
proportion were available for naturalization under the special
provisions of the law of May 9th. The previous registration had
applied altogether to men above the age of 21, and of course all of
those in the subsequently registered class 32-45 were naturalizable
so far as age was concerned.

The classification of registrants under the registration of
September 12, 1918, never was completed, being stopped by the
armistice of November 11th; therefore the availability for service
of the citizens and aliens has been reported only for those between
the ages of 21 and 31. Of the 1,703,006 aliens and declarants of this
age classification, a little less than one in three (538,363--31.61
per cent) had declared intention. The fitness of these for service is
shown by the following analysis:



                                 |    NUMBER    |   PER CENT
  Placed in Class I              |     414,389  |    24.33
    Declarants                   |     160,594  |    29.64
    Nondeclarants                |     253,795  |    21.79
                                 |              |
  Placed in deferred classes     |   1,288,617  |    75.67
    Declarants                   |     377,769  |    71.36
    Nondeclarants                |     910,848  |    78.21

  [note 1: _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General to the
  Secretary of War_, on the Operations of the Selective Service
  System to December 20, 1918, p. 91, table 25.]


As the Provost Marshal General says, in discussing the intricate
legal situation which the legislation of May 9, 1918, was calculated
in part to meet, “it was realized that, from the point of view of
international law, not all aliens stood on the same footing in this
country.” He analyzed the differences as follows:[129]

  (a) An alien occupying a diplomatic post enjoys immunity from
  military service, as well as from many other burdens, for he
  is the representative of a foreign country, present by consent
  and invitation, and is protected by a number of privileges not
  enjoyed by a private citizen. Diplomatic privileges do not extend
  to consuls, as they are not diplomatic officers, but merely
  representatives for commercial purposes.

  (b) A transitory alien friend cannot be compelled to serve other
  than mere police duty, for otherwise commercial intercourse would
  be interrupted and the person might be required to aid a country in
  which he is a stranger.

  (c) An alien friend who is domiciled, that is to say, who is a
  permanent resident, can be compelled to serve, for otherwise he
  would receive the benefits of the government without sharing the
  burdens. An alien’s declaration of intention to become a citizen,
  though it does not make him a citizen, is conclusive evidence that
  he is properly to be considered a permanent resident.

  (d) An alien enemy cannot be forced to serve, for otherwise he
  would be compelled to fight against his own country.

  (e) A national of a country with which the United States has a
  treaty containing appropriate provisions may enjoy exemption from
  compulsory military service. Some of our treaties exempt all of the
  citizens of each of the high contracting parties. Others exempt
  only certain designated classes.

The situation described in paragraph (c) was the one under force
of which Congress, in the Selective Service Act of May 18, 1917,
based the draft “upon liability to military service of all male
citizens, or male persons, not alien enemies, who have declared their
intention to become citizens,” between the designated ages. As the
Provost Marshal General pointed out in his first report, heretofore
quoted, the exemption of alien nondeclarants would have created
great injustice in the enforcement of the local quotas in states and
regions disparate in the ratios of native born and aliens; therefore,
in legislation of May and June, 1918, Congress changed the basis
of apportionment to meet this inequity, and incidentally so that
thereafter it became incumbent upon the alien to bear the burden of
proof of his right to exemption.

It is fair to assume, as the Provost Marshal General said,[130]

  that it was impossible for the local and district boards or any
  other governmental agencies independently to ascertain whether or
  not a registrant was a nondeclarant alien, because such an inquiry
  would involve a search of the records of the naturalization courts,
  Federal and state, throughout the entire country[131] to ascertain
  a negative--_viz._, whether a person had not declared his intention
  (“an obviously impossible and absurd inquiry,” as one judge has
  said).... The regulations and instructions required local and
  district boards to give every alien ... a full and fair hearing, or
  a full and fair opportunity to be heard, on any claim of exemption
  that he might have.... Local boards were authorized to inquire into
  the status of any registrant where they had reason to believe that
  the particular registrant was a nondeclarant alien and had failed
  through ignorance to claim exemption, and, if such were found to be
  the case, the boards were required to exempt him.

Legal advisory boards were established to aid registrants--the
courts generally upheld the right of out-and-out aliens to
exemption--moreover, in regions where there were large numbers of
aliens, the local draft boards often, if not usually, included men
of foreign race or descent as well as men interested in and closely
familiar with the foreign-born population, who took every pains to
inform the ignorant and protect them in their rights. On the whole,
it is highly probable that the spirit of the law in this regard was
substantially observed throughout the country. The Naturalization
Bureau--virtually helpless as it was to prove or disprove claims of
alleged nondeclarants--had referred to it more than 50,000 cases.


The Provost Marshal General declares that the mass of foreign-born
residents were themselves permeated by the spirit of readiness to
waive their exemptions and voluntarily accepted the call to military

  Thousands of nondeclarant aliens of cobelligerent and even of
  neutral origin welcomed the opportunity to take up arms against
  the arch enemy of all; the records of correspondence in this
  office contain eloquent testimony to this spirit. The figures of
  alien classification indicate this, and the local boards report
  explicitly that the number of nondeclarant aliens waiving their
  exemption was very large (191,491).

There came eventually into being a “Foreign Legion,” made up
principally of nondeclarant aliens, a large proportion of
whom, because of birth within the territorial sovereignty of
Austria-Hungary, were technically enemy aliens. Their spirit is well
exemplified in a letter written by one such “enemy alien” at a time
before the army had awakened to the fact that these men, whatever
the technicalities of the prevailing political geography might seem
to show, were Allies in spirit, with better cause to fight their
titular sovereign than any other sort of American; the author was a
Jugo-Slav, who had been offered exemption because of his “Austrian”

  ... I received the civil clothes sent from Cleveland, and at the
  same time a thought occurred to me which never left me--that I
  should feel ashamed to leave the army and go back to civil life.
  Indeed, how I love my young, healthy life, how I long to be free
  again, going my own ways without hearing the command of another.
  But alas, am I justified to think of my own liberty and happy life,
  when the moment is here that calls on every young man to give
  liberty to others? Away, you selfish thoughts. On into the battle:
  I am a Slovene myself, and my fathers and grandfathers never had an
  opportunity to fight for liberty. Indeed, they fought for hundreds
  of years under the command of Hapsburgs to continue slavery and
  tyranny.... Good by, my beloved young life; I shall not return to
  my happy home until the day has come when I can proudly see the
  liberated Jugoslavia in a liberated world. Then I shall return,
  conscious that I have done my bit. If I shall perish--I am afraid I
  will--let it be so; the only thing I am sorry about is that I don’t
  possess hundreds of lives, giving them all for liberty.

  Dear brother, the suit of clothes you sent me I sold to-day to a
  man for thirty dollars, who thinks less than I do.

The provisions for immediate naturalization turned the “Foreign
Legion” into a legion of citizens, and took out of the category of
aliens thousands of men of like spirit. As for those of neutral
nationality who withdrew their declarations of intention in
accordance with the provision made by Congress, and lapsed into
purely alien status, the following tabulation from the second report
of the Provost Marshal General, although only partially complete, is



  Total neutral alien declarants registered June 5,  |
        1917-Sept. 11, 1918                          |   77,644
    Placed in deferred class (66.62 per cent)        |   51,726
    Placed in Class I                                |   25,918
    Exempted on withdrawal of declaration            |      818

In this group only three per cent availed themselves of the

Of the significance and extent of the response to the opportunity for
immediate naturalization, the Provost Marshal General says:[134]

  One test of the spirit of loyalty among aliens may be found in the
  number of naturalizations applied for and granted to registrants
  since the United States entered the war. Such action inspires a
  sentiment of admiration for their readiness to enter the war in
  the service of their adopted country. The Bureau of Naturalization
  reports that the total number of naturalizations in the United
  States between October 1, 1917, and September 30, 1918, was
  179,816; and that since the passage of the Act of May 8, 1918, the
  number of naturalizations accomplished in camp, up to November
  30, 1918, was 155,246. And there were only 414,389 aliens placed
  in Class I up to September 11, 1918 (including declarants and
  nondeclarants), and as a large portion of these must have gone
  overseas prior to June, 1918, it is plain that the opportunity for
  naturalization found a hearty response from the great majority of
  aliens to whom it was offered.


Concerning the technically enemy aliens of the Austro-Hungarian
allegiance, the same report shows that when Austria-Hungary became
an enemy nation in December, 1917, it affected the status of some
239,000 registrants, and that thereupon the camps were found to
contain “thousands of Austro-Hungarian declarants, not deferred on
ordinary grounds, and also a large number (probably about 9,000)
of Austro-Hungarian nondeclarants who had waived their alienage

“A great majority of these men,” says the Provost Marshal General,
“were of the oppressed races of Austria-Hungary, and therefore
sympathetic with the cause of the Allies and ready to remain in
camp.” As an evidence of this the report cites the fact that in
one camp, regarded as typical in absence of complete returns called
for by the Adjutant General of the army in October, 1918, as to the
aliens who desired discharge or were suitable for discharge under the
head of enemy aliens:[136]

  Out of a total of 1,589 aliens in this camp in October, 1918,
  only 289 asked for discharge when the opportunity was offered,
  or less than 20 per cent. Of these aliens, 383 were technically
  enemy aliens, virtually all being either of Austro-Hungarian or
  of Turkish allegiance; and 139, or a few more than 36 per cent,
  applied for discharge. Of the cobelligerent aliens, 1,006 in all,
  and composed almost entirely of British, Italian, and Russian
  subjects, only 24 applied for discharge, or a little more than
  2 per cent. Of the neutral aliens, 200 in all, 84 applied for
  discharge, or 42 per cent. These contrasts between the several
  groups show just such cleavage as we might expect. The general
  figures indicate how slight was the disposition of these alien
  groups to withdraw from the opportunity of taking arms against the
  world foe.


It would have been less than human, in the hectic state of public
feeling conditioning all the preparations for war, had there not been
instances--perhaps very many instances--in which aliens were enlisted
in spite or in ignorance of their right to exemption; in which they
were virtually forced by local sentiment, displayed in various more
or less illegal and outrageous ways, to join the army; but, on the
whole, those who either actually or by default waived their exemption
were willing soldiers, and their performances were quite equal in
fidelity and courage to those of the native-born or naturalized

The Provost Marshal General is to some degree candid about this:[137]

  That the boards occasionally allowed themselves the patriot’s
  privilege of pleading with the man who had not fully reflected
  on his duty is not to be doubted. An Italian was about to claim
  exemption on account of alien citizenship.

  “Are you sure you want to do this?” asked the chairman of the board.

  “Why not?” was the inquiry.

  “There are two reasons,” said the official. “One is the United
  States, the other is Italy. Two flags call you to the colors. There
  is a double reason for you.”

  “I’ll go,” he said.

  But that the boards should be disparaged for thus at times taking
  on the attitude of a recruiting officer no one would maintain.
  Here, as in all other incidents of the draft, the situation varied
  somewhat in different localities; and without a doubt there were
  rare and sporadic local instances of carelessness and of bias
  which led to improper inductions.... These various instances of
  induction of nondeclarant aliens, whether properly or improperly
  made, led to a number of diplomatic protests on their behalf by
  the representatives of foreign governments. The number of these
  protests reaching this office from the Secretary of State was some
  5,852 in all.


The list of these protests is interesting; it is arranged here in
the order of the number of cases, but for a fair assessment of the
sentiment value involved, one should take into consideration the
war status, and the relative proportions, of the nationalities
represented in the total registration. These statistics are not in
all cases available; but so far as the report of the Provost Marshal
General gives them, they are given in the last column:



                | NUMBER |  NUMBER{2} |             | NUMBER |  NUMBER{2}
   ERENTS       |REQUESTS|            |             |REQUESTS|
                |        |            |             |        |
  Russia        | 1,433  |  808,503   |Switzerland  |   995  |  21,888
  Italy         |   166  |  652,971   |Spain        |   592  |  44,320
  Greece        |   119  |   88,831   |Norway       |   404  |  62,656
  Portugal      |    65  |   62,434   |Denmark      |   241  |  33,457
  Cuba          |    23  |     ....   |Sweden       |   216  |  99,995
  Great Britain |    22  |  467,468{3}|Mexico       |   109  | 192,617
  Japan         |    13  |   56,697   |Netherlands  |    85  |  27,190
  Brazil        |    12  |     ....{4}|Persia       |    61  |    ....{4}
  Belgium       |     5  |   16,701   |Colombia     |     7  |    ....{4}
  China         |     5  |   23,599   |Argentina    |     5  |    ....{4}
  Panama        |     4  |     ....{4}|Ecuador      |     4  |    ....{4}
  France        |     3  |   18,314   |Peru         |     4  |    ....{4}
  Guatemala     |     3  |     ....{4}|Venezuela    |     4  |    ....{4}
  Honduras      |     2  |     ....{4}|Chile        |     2  |    ....{4}
  Siam          |     2  |     ....{4}|Santo Domingo|     1  |    ....{4}
    Total       | 1,877  |2,228,980{5}|  Total      | 2,730  | 636,601{5}

              ENEMY AND          | NUMBER OF  |    NUMBER
             ALLIED-ENEMY        | REQUESTS{1}| REGISTERED{2}
  Turkey                         |    971     |    81,608
  Bulgaria                       |    304     |    19,873
  Austria                        |     62     |   751,212
  Germany                        |      8     |   158,809
    Total                        |  1,345     | 1,011,502{5}
      Grand total                |  5,852{6}  |      ....

  [note 1: _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 400.]

  [note 2: _Ibid._, p. 399.]

  [note 3: This total represents the registration from all the British

  [note 4: Not separately listed.]

  [note 5: Includes nationalities not listed in this table.]

  [note 6: _Sic._ as per Reports.]


A large factor in the diplomatic interchanges arising out of
induction or attempted induction of aliens into the military service
was the situation regarding cobelligerents. It does not call for
extended description here; suffice it to say that the policy of
reciprocal conscription and of crediting registrants, whether
citizens or aliens, with the fact of their enlistment under the flag
of any of the Allied nations, largely relieved this situation, so far
as the nondeclarant alien was concerned. A collateral development
was the upgrowth of desire on the part of representatives of the
oppressed races of Central Europe to organize armed forces under
their own commanders, and to proceed more or less independently to
the battle line. Of this the Provost Marshal General says:[138]

  The situation thus presented ... was finally relieved in part by
  two measures. In the first place, the War Department conceded that
  aliens of the oppressed races, who had already enlisted in the
  Polish foreign legion, should not be required to be discharged
  and returned to the American draft; but that in future no such
  enlistment should be sanctioned. In the second place, the Army
  Appropriation Act authorized the organization of the Slavic
  Legion ... into which could be enlisted aliens of the oppressed
  races--Czecho-Slovak, Jugo-Slav, and Ruthenian (omitting Polish),
  who were otherwise exempted under the draft.... Computations ...
  give estimates for the number of males of military age who would
  have been eligible for enlistment under this act ranging between
  188,000 and 330,000.


The Provost Marshal General takes occasion to pay high tribute to
the thousands of registrants of German stock who “loyally stood by
the American flag,” notwithstanding the “natural distrust” at first
attending them in public opinion, “and the notorious intrigues of the
German government to secure their support.” The opportunity afforded
to such of them as could satisfy the courts and the Naturalization
Service of their loyalty, to become American citizens, was availed
of by them in large numbers. It is regrettable that, as the Provost
Marshal General says:[139]

  Unfortunately, time has not sufficed to analyze the naturalization
  papers and thus discover the variances between the different
  nationalities in this demonstration of loyalty to their adoptive


It has been asserted by ill-informed persons representing on the one
hand those who attribute inherent deficiencies and evil tendencies
to the immigrant as such, and on the other those who seem to think
that the immigrant as such is somehow superior to the native-born
American, either that the desertions from the army or evasions of
military service were inordinately numerous on the part of foreign
born as compared with the native born; or, _per contra_, that “the
proportion of desertions among the native born is about twice as
great as among the foreign born.”[140] In point of exact fact and
essential justice, neither of these views is justified. The Provost
Marshal General deals directly, and with broad justice, with this

  Of the 474,861 deserters reported, the registration cards of
  185,081 state that they are aliens. Of this number, 22,706 had
  declared their intention to become citizens, and were, therefore,
  subject to draft, while 129,268 had not declared such intention,
  and were, therefore, on proper proof of alienage, entitled to
  exemption. There were also 33,107 enemy aliens, who, of course,
  would not have been accepted in any event.

  There are two main reasons for the large proportion of alien
  desertions. The first is that many aliens, knowing that under the
  selective-service law (and also, for many countries, by treaty)
  they were entitled to exemption, believed that, by stating on the
  registration cards that they were aliens, they had performed their
  full duty with respect to the draft; they ignored the regulations
  which required them to submit proof of alienage. The second is
  that many of them did not speak English, were ignorant of the
  laws and customs of this country, did not know that they were
  required to keep their local boards informed of their addresses,
  and failed to realize their obligations to this country under the
  selective-service law. And the difficulty experienced by the local
  boards in reading and writing their names frequently caused the
  mail notices addressed to these registrants to go astray.

  Apart from the foregoing explanations, however, which would suffice
  to show that such aliens did not desert in the ordinary sense,
  but merely failed to come forward to claim their exemption, there
  was undoubtedly a large exodus of aliens from some of the border
  states, and those near to the seaboard, where the easiest course
  for these ignorant and misguided persons seemed to lie in flight
  beyond the national boundaries.

The figures upon which the Provost Marshal General thus comments are
given by him in Table XXXIV.[142]



                   DESERTIONS                       |   NUMBER
  Total alien and citizen registrants, June 5, 1917 |
        to Sept. 11, 1918                           |  10,679,814
    Total desertions                                |     474,861
    Total alien registrants                         |   1,703,006
    Reported alien desertions                       |     185,081
    Total citizen registrants                       |   8,976,808
    Reported citizen desertions                     |     289,780

It is clear from these figures, and regardless of the allowances
made by the Provost Marshal General, as quoted above, that nearly 11
out of every 100 aliens registered, as against a little more than
3 out of every 100 citizens, who, in one way or another evaded or
sought to evade the draft; also that it is simply not true that
“the proportion of desertions among the native born was about twice
as great as among the foreign born.” True, the citizen-deserter
percentage of the whole number of registrants is 2.71, as against
an alien-deserter percentage of 1.75 ... but there were _nearly
six times as many citizen registrants as alien_. In order even to
_equal_ the alien ratio, the citizen deserters would have had to be
considerably more than three times as numerous as they were. But no
such plausible excuses could have been made for them! There are no
available figures to show how many of the citizens who thus evaded
service were of foreign birth.


The essential quality of manhood in America was tested in all this
business, and gave the lie direct alike to those Americans who were
wont to sneer at the alien among us, and to the German autocracy
which counted upon those of German descent in this country to prove
disloyal to America. “The cosmopolitan composition of our population
was never more strikingly disclosed,” says the Provost Marshal
General, “than by the recent events of the World War. Then the
melting pot stood in the fierce fires of the national emergency; and
its contents, heated in the flames, either fused into the compact
mass or floated off as dross.” And he goes on to say:[143]

  The great and inspiring revelation here has been that men of
  foreign and of native origin alike responded to the call to arms
  with a patriotic devotion that confounded the cynical plans of
  our archenemy, and surpassed our own highest expectations. No man
  can peruse the muster roll of one of our camps, or the casualty
  list from a battlefield in France, without realizing that America
  has fulfilled one of its highest missions in breeding a spirit of
  common loyalty among all those who have shared the blessings of
  life on its free soil. No need to speculate how it has come about;
  the great fact is demonstrated that America makes Americans.

It is no part of the province of this volume to multiply words about
the way in which these adopted citizens of every racial blood gave
account of themselves in the thousand ways of war service under
their new-pledged flag. That is history, which, as General Crowder
said, can be read broad upon the face of every list of those who
fell--foreign and native born side by side, their intermingling blood
poured forth for “America.” The diary of a German officer, found on
the battlefield,[144] tells what the common enemy found:

  Only a few of the troops are of pure American origin.... But these
  semi-Americans fully feel themselves to be the true born sons of
  their country.


Who shall forecast the effect of this wholesale admission of aliens
to full citizenship and potential political power in the United
States? How many of these men were among those whom, in earlier
proceedings, the rigorous precautions of the past had kept at arm’s
length? They came up in courts far from their home jurisdiction; no
longer was the esteem of neighbor a prerequisite; no longer was it
necessary to have lived even one year in any particular vicinage--or,
indeed, to have any residence at all! There can be no checking up,
even now, to see whether even a criminal record should have debarred
the applicant; the Bureau of Naturalization was more than 500,000
behind in the examination of naturalization certificates even before
this flood of new ones was poured in upon its overworked force!

In the old days, before the establishment of the Naturalization
Service, there was hurried admission of thousands of aliens,
regardless of qualifications, within short periods, and it was deemed
a dreadful menace to our institutions. Of course this was very
different from every point of view; but was the difference sufficient
to guarantee real assimilation into the spirit that we like to
believe characterizes sound American citizenship?


The questions addressed by the Americanization Study in the summer of
1919 to the naturalizing judges throughout the country included this

  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?

The paucity and hesitation, even reluctance, of the replies are a
striking evidence of the impossibility of answering the question.
Of 356 judges who gave any attention at all to the question, 110
frankly declared themselves unable to express any opinion whatever.
Thirteen were in grave doubt, inclining to the negative; 16 said
only, “I hope so”; 108 replied flatly, “No.” The others (109) in
various phrases expressed their affirmative. But many of these
affirmatives were greatly qualified. Some thought the advantage
applied only or chiefly to those soldiers who had volunteered; others
believed that the mental and physical training and the psychological
effect of imperiling his life for the flag would offset the evils
involved in hasty admission of the otherwise unqualified individual.
Many argued that, whatever the doubts about the wisdom of the policy,
it was “only fair,” “it is their right,” “you cannot deny citizenship
to a man whom you compel to fight for the country,” etc.

“I held up about 68 Germans and Austrians,” says one judge, whose
vote was an emphatic “No”; “but the government at Washington advised
taking them in--and they were.”

In a number of instances the judges declared that they went
against their own judgment in admitting men whom they regarded
as unfit--naturalizing them only upon the insistence of the
representatives of the Naturalization Service. An eloquent
illustration of the about-face in the policy of the Bureau!

“No, decidedly!” cried a Michigan judge. “It was a colossal blunder!”

“An impulsive act of Congress,” answers another; while an Iowa judge
voices the opinion of many in saying:

  Mere willingness to fight is not necessarily an indication of
  either patriotism or fitness.

Among these judges were several worthy of note who officiated at the
naturalization of very large numbers of soldiers. The striking fact
is that these, almost without exception, were in various degrees
enthusiastic in their expressions of belief that the policy was a
good one. Some contented themselves with a mere “Yes” for answer.
Among these was one who naturalized more than 10,000 men at one
of the great camps of debarkation. Here are a few characteristic
expressions from others:

  “They gave the best evidence of loyalty.”

  “It was the best thing to do under the circumstances.”

  “I do not see how the government could do otherwise with men in the
  service before allowing them to go overseas.”

  “Yes. I have naturalized 400 and 500 men at a time, and seen their
  enthusiasm for this country, which, in my judgment, was no sham.”

  “My policy was to decide for the applicant wherever I could under
  the facts.”

  “I found in a majority of cases aliens in the armed service were as
  enthusiastic as our own native-born sons.”


  The naturalization of an alien under our laws [says Commissioner
  Campbell][145] may be compared justly to the “coming of age”
  celebration of the heir of a great estate. It is the formal
  recognition of an accomplished fact, the attainment of manhood with
  all of its implications of the putting away of childish things
  and the assumption of the obligations that mark the mature and
  responsible personality.... The vital thing to bear in mind in
  considering the statistics of naturalization is that these figures
  represent human beings, and human beings in that most important
  stage of human progress stepping upward from the infantile stage of
  blind and unquestioning obedience, backed by external compulsion,
  to the plane of political maturity which not alone has a part
  in the making of laws, but, what is more important, must obey
  the laws from an inward and self-imposed sense of obligation....
  Genuine citizenship is primarily a state of inward feeling, and
  only secondarily one of knowledge. It is not impossible for one to
  be a good citizen who is ignorant of the forms of our government
  or who even has no very clear mental conception of the basic
  principles upon which it is founded.

The completion of the nationalizing process is marked for every
essential spiritual purpose, as Professor Weatherly said,[146] “when
the things of the spirit are held in common and cherished by all,”
or, as Renan expresses it, when the people “have a common glory,” by
reason of having “done great things together.”

       *       *       *       *       *

How may a man more convincingly show his “attachment to the
principles of the Constitution,” his benevolence toward “the good
order and happiness” of his country, than by imperiling his life for
it? “Greater love hath no man than this.”

A candidate for naturalization, in ordinary conditions exhibiting
knowledge of the legal relationship between the Federal and state
governments, knowing the name of the President of the United States,
the date of the battle of Bunker Hill, the cause of Shay’s Rebellion,
and when the yellow fever came to Boston, may have no more idea of
what the flag of the United States means and might mean than he has
of the mental processes of the ichthyosaurus; his very plenitude of
intellectual accomplishment may indeed make him only the greater
menace to the essential welfare of his community.

But when he becomes a citizen in the very act and fact of going forth
under that flag to lay down his life for what it stands for--what
better thing can he do, what better evidence can he offer, of his
“inward and self-imposed sense of obligation?” Nay, more, how better
may he show that he is enlisting in the service of his new country
something that was kindred in the old? There was a ringing challenge
to all our smug self-sufficiency in what the Bohemians bore on their
banner in that Cleveland parade:


Many of us looked upon these men as somehow sneaking into a
privilege, overlooking the fact that they were bringing us a gift!


We are hardly yet awake to the wonder of what happened, to the
magnitude of the work of national assimilation that took place all
in a moment. We were very stupid about it. One of the most important
officers of our army, charged with great responsibility in the
preparations for the war, naïvely confessed some time after the
United States had entered upon it, that he did not know who were the
Czecho-Slovaks, or from what part of the world they came! And it was
only with the greatest difficulty that the army authorities were made
to realize that most of the races making up that political nightmare
known as Austria-Hungary desired nothing so much as the chance to
help overthrow the unspeakable tyranny from which they had fled,
against which they and their fathers had “been fighting for three
hundred years.” Better than the Allies themselves they understood the
cause of the Allies, yet to the American army authorities they were
only “enemy aliens”!

It was in keeping with our statistical customs, not only in the
Naturalization and Immigration Bureaus, but in the very census
itself, to class an Austrian as an Austrian, knowing little and
caring less about the world of difference between a Magyar and a
Czech, between a Croat and a Slovak--though all were “Austrians” to
the superficial eye of the census enumerator--and the General Staff
of the United States army, which was going to war against “Austria”
with absurdly, unpardonably vague, notions as to what an “Austrian”
might be! It required a vigorous campaign of education before there
could emerge even a fair, working intelligence in this regard; but
emerge it finally did, and the anti-Austrian “Austrians” at last got
their chance to go forth as American citizens under the Stars and
Stripes to help give the _coup de grâce_ to the old oppressor of
themselves, their fathers, and their fathers’ fathers.


In one army division, at Fort Riley, Kansas, thirty nationalities
were represented by the candidates for citizenship, including
not only the pseudo-Austrians, but Rumania, Serbia, Bulgaria,
Montenegro, Armenia, Syria, Guatemala, Honduras, the Azores, and
most of the rest of the civilized world. At Fort Riley was made the
record of “forty-three citizens in forty minutes.” At Camp Devens,
Massachusetts, more than 2,000 men were admitted to citizenship
and took the oath of allegiance in one operation, lined up on the
parade-ground by nationalities. A New York State court naturalized
soldiers of fifty-six racial varieties on the first day of the
visiting court.

In a session of court held in a Tennessee encampment the court crier
opened the ceremonies with his, “Oyez! Oyez!” and a procession of
dignitaries, military and civil, marched in under the flags for the
ceremonial--a solemn invocation, an address by a venerable judge,
and the crash of “The Star-spangled Banner.” Then the general made a
speech, in which he welcomed each of those who a little while before
had been “strangers and foreigners,” and dubbed him “one of _our_

“Fellow citizens, comrades!” he struck home with booming voice in his
peroration, “we will lash ourselves together with hoops of steel, and
go forth to avenge the outrages that have been committed. There is no
power on earth that can keep us from our purpose!”

Some soldier started the song, “Keep the Home Fires Burning,” and
the aliens of a little while before, many of them hardly knowing
the English word, joined in, with lusty emphasis upon and new
significance in the refrain,

  “_Till the boys come home!_”

Down in Alabama, a government official at a similar session
apostrophized Liberty in strident Polish, followed by a second
lieutenant in similar vein, but in Italian; and even those of other
tongues, including English, who could not understand the words, knew
well enough or felt in their hearts the drift of it.

As has been said, some got across without naturalization, and one
aftermath of that was an extraordinary scene in the Walter Reid
Hospital at Washington. The opportunity returned to the wounded
there, in dramatic guise. An orderly walked through the wards
summoning all men who desired to become citizens to gather at once in
the library, to be taken before the judge.

There was a scrambling from cots, men with missing limbs, lads with
heavily bandaged faces, soldiers in every manner of hospital négligé.
The thump of crutches was heard along the halls--more than a hundred
answered the first call. When the officer in charge looked over
the battered and motley assembly, saw the lame and helpless being
assisted into motor vehicles for the journey to court, he gave an
order designed to produce more formal dress for another occasion, but
did not dampen the ardor of that going! And before the judge they
held up their hands, or stumps of hands, and swore their fealty to
the country to which already they had given better proof.

Out at Camp Zachary Taylor, near Louisville, Kentucky, is a great ash
tree, now come to be known as “Naturalization Tree.” Its arms, in
benediction, have been spread out over many hundreds of new citizens
as they took the oath of allegiance and marched away upon their first
American duty. That tree is for them a monument, a memorial of a
Great Occasion.

In one of the Eastern camps three officers, helping the
Naturalization Service in this business, looked up at one another in
the spell of a common thought:

“Here we are, Major Schmidt, Captain Pulaski, and Lieutenant
Martinelli”--such might have been their names; they were of races as
various--“all of foreign birth, helping to make Americans!”

’Twas a pregnant thought, and it typified what was going on all over
the country, in preparation for the “doing of great things together,”
for the new nation’s acquisition of “a common glory in the past ...
a will to do still greater things in the future.”

In the varied procession that passed on this errand before just one
court came a Gentleman from Verona and a Merchant of Venice, as the
judge himself styled them; a Filipino who had served two years in the
Philippine constabulary; an Abyssinian count, born in Somaliland and
claiming kinship to King Menelik and to speak twenty-seven languages.
Then there was Dugga Ram, a Hindu, whom the judge made an exception
to the rule against Asiatics; and the man from Russian Poland, who
denied having any sovereign at all; the Armenian who said he would
refuse citizenship if to get it he had to acknowledge himself a
Turkish subject; the technically alien color sergeant who had served
for years in the regular army and had been wounded in the Philippines.

An old soldier of the Civil War, still an alien in the eyes of the
law, a Kentuckian seventy-six years old with a wife and six children,
all born on this soil, and Americans beyond cavil, took advantage of
the opportunity to file his tattered old army discharge of 1865 in
lieu of “first papers.” There will be, till he dies, two Great Dates
in that old fellow’s life--1861, when, like the aliens of this war,
he pledged his life to maintain the United States, and 1918, when the
United States formally accepted him into full recorded fealty and
fellowship. Yet the _Fact_ had been a human reality for nearly sixty

There were not a few officers who had been commissioned in oversight
of the fact that their alienage legally should have barred them. The
defect was swiftly removed. And there were English and Irish and
Scotch and Welsh--and others, too--who had been here so many years
and were so saturated with all that is essential of Americanism that
their naturalization seemed a formality almost absurdly superfluous.

To all of these at various times and under diverse
conditions--sometimes in glaring noonday inbreaks of dreary camp
routine; sometimes at night in the last hours before the grim setting
forth for France--great words were spoken to solemnize and signalize
the transaction. Perhaps the best of all was that tense sentence of
General Bell:

  _I beg of you not to take this oath of allegiance to the United
  States unless it is in your heart to do so._

Let it not be forgotten that nobody compelled these men to utilize
this privilege. The law stipulated only that they “_may_ petition.”
Their alienage would have exempted them from service and the peril
that awaited them.

At first, the certificates of naturalization were delivered; but
later, as the flood of applicants became overwhelming and the
complications involved hurried departure overseas, before the papers
were ready, and other considerations, the delivery was delayed, and
the men were advised to arrange to have their precious “last papers”
sent rather to their homes, or even retained in Washington until
after the war. This was a deep disappointment to the new citizens;
and at Camp Upton, for one example, a judge, who knew men by heart,
caused the drawing up of a mimeographed temporary certificate,
properly embellished with “SS,” “Be it known,” and all the rest of
the imposing verbiage, with the soldier’s name suitably prominent in


Many alien soldiers who were entitled to naturalization went overseas
without having been naturalized; a large number before the permission
had been made available. Many others, still in the cantonments,
had not yet been reached by the process. The situation with regard
to such of these as, on their discharge, took steps to get the
citizenship to which they were entitled is suggested, even if not
completely set forth, by the former chief examiner of one of the
large districts, quoted by the Commissioner of Naturalization in his
report for 1919:[147]

  After the armistice a different situation arose. Many thousands of
  soldiers have been, are being, and for some time will be discharged
  who did not have the opportunity to be naturalized while in the
  service. The work in connection with their naturalization ...
  devolves solely upon the force of this service; ... the army is
  no longer in a position to render aid.... The demands upon the
  field-naturalization offices are so great that both civilian and
  soldier naturalization have had to suffer. Because of inability to
  furnish a sufficient allotment for additional clerical assistants
  in the office of the clerk of one of the largest naturalization
  courts in the United States, the clerk is able to care for but a
  small proportion of the soldier applicants as promptly as should
  be, and, under his present allowance, will be able to naturalize
  only approximately a half dozen daily. In another office of the
  clerk of a large naturalization court, civilians and honorably
  discharged soldiers are being turned away without receiving
  attention; and this is equally true in the field naturalization
  offices. So large a number of soldier applicants are coming into
  the field offices that in some it has become necessary to take
  the names and addresses of the applicants as they call and send
  notices to them at a future date when they can hope to have their
  applications attended to. Notices have also been inserted in the
  newspapers notifying them of the time they may appear, in order
  to save the time and expense of useless trips to the offices
  of examiners. It has also been necessary to close the doors of
  naturalization offices when the number of applicants admitted to
  offices constituted as many as could be accommodated. This has
  resulted in turning away from 100 to 150 soldiers and civilians
  daily in several cities. Because of insufficiency of appropriation,
  it has become necessary in one field office to limit the taking of
  civilian petitions for naturalization to only two days of the week
  in order to take care of the applications of honorably discharged

  These demands upon this service and the offices of the clerks
  of courts are so great that the government is being severely
  criticized for not providing facilities for both the discharged
  soldiers and civilian foreign born to take steps toward procuring
  their American citizenship to which they are justly entitled.


Mr. Raymond F. Crist, then Director of Citizenship in the Bureau
of Naturalization, pays a well-deserved tribute to the loyalty and
the sacrifices of the foreign born, and points to the enhanced
responsibility laid upon us by the service these men gave. In his
report to the Commissioner of Naturalization,[148] “Concerning
Americanization Activities,” Mr. Crist says, in part:

  The names upon the roll of honor of the nation that were cabled
  back by the American Expeditionary Forces in France give emphatic
  testimony to the loyalty of the foreign born. The names on the
  rolls represent all European nationalities. So strongly in evidence
  were these names that they might well have been the rosters of
  the dead and wounded of any or all the European countries. The
  percentage of distinctly non-Anglo-Saxon names was exceedingly
  high. These lists still give mute testimony to the fact that the
  immigrant and the immigrant’s sons have laid down their lives for
  the land of their adoption. When the final records are computed
  they will undoubtedly show the presence in the military forces
  of our nation of the full quota of those of foreign birth.
  Their presence in our military and naval forces has worked a
  transformation with them. It has created an after-war debt and
  obligation upon the United States. The alien-born soldier has
  returned to America an educated and transformed individual. He is
  an American in all the senses.

Without intention to cavil or quibble about what Mr. Crist says--for
what he says is essentially true--it is needful to remember that
neither the stress of emotion under which these mass ceremonies at
the camps were conducted, nor the act and fact of naturalization
itself, nor yet, in any substantial way, the experiences in
the army, could make new creatures of these men. They were
afterward--they are now, especially in the chill reaction from the
exuberance of that excited period--what they were before--“just
folks”--good, bad, and indifferent, like the rest of us.

But there is this difference in what it means to them: They
were _welcomed_ into citizenship without the heart-breaking,
gnat-straining suspicion through which, in normal times, they would
have had to go if they went at all. And no politician urged or herded
them into voting status and power at any stage of it. For their
American citizenship and share in the common sovereignty they are
under obligation to nobody. They bought what they got, as it were,
with their own blood.

What intellectual preparation or textbook schooling, what weary
treading of red-tape labyrinth, what minute inspection by government
functionary in zealous search for undotted or uncrossed letters in
a seven-year-old document, would better test or attest an alien’s
capacity for citizenship, or make his induction safer for Democracy?

Anyway, these men--those not dead on foreign fields as their first,
and last, service to the flag--have gone back to their communities
with a new status, and, we may hope, with a new sense of their
relation to and responsibility for the nation’s welfare. It remains
to be seen what use they and the rest of us will make of these new



The foreign-born woman plays directly in American politics a part
somewhat, but not much, more important than that played by snakes in
the zoölogy of Ireland. There are several reasons for this besides
the fact that hitherto she has shared the legal disabilities common
to her sex in the American political scheme--which fact, by itself,
has now been largely mitigated by the final ratification of the
Nineteenth (Woman Suffrage) Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States; though even that applies only to the ballot, and has
not removed either the legal or the general traditional limitations
and inequities under which women, in most parts of the country, still
abide. So far as the ballot is concerned, the American woman, native
or naturalized, is now acknowledged to be an individual person.

But the foreign-born woman, if married, is subject to a substantial
limitation. She has citizenship only if her husband has it; she
derives it, not by virtue of any act or wish or character of her own,
but by strict inference from that of her husband. However much she
may desire to become an American citizen, she cannot do so unless
her husband chooses to become one; however desirable in her own
right or fitness, the unfitness of her husband, or his rejection for
any other reason, _ipso facto_ excludes _her_. And, _per contra_,
however much she might desire to remain a subject or citizen of
the country of her birth or former residence, the naturalization of
her husband, with or without her consent, even with or without her
knowledge, _ipso facto_ inflicts American citizenship upon her. True,
this is technically subject to the provision of the law requiring
that she must herself be eligible for citizenship; but, as has been
stated elsewhere in this volume,[149] there is disagreement among
the authorities as to whether this proviso was intended by Congress
to apply only to women of those Oriental races, which are ineligible
_per se_, or is applicable generally to the individual woman; also,
there has been some attempt to hold that the wife is not naturalized
by the naturalization of her husband if she continues to reside in
the old country. Some judges will not naturalize a man if his wife
remains abroad. Generally speaking, however, the construction is
that the wife, whoever and wherever she may be, comes into American
citizenship willy-nilly with the acceptance of her husband.

More than that, a woman born and residing in another country becomes
an American citizen by her marriage with one; the clergyman, or other
official, who pronounces them man and wife attests also an automatic
and instantaneous change of jurisdiction and allegiance. It works
equally the other way about--an American woman, marrying an alien
in this country, in the house in which she was born and has lived
for twenty years, forthwith, and regardless of any wish of hers in
the matter, becomes _instanter_ in the eyes of American law--and
generally of international law as well--a citizen or subject of
the sovereignty to which her alien husband owes allegiance. It is
conceivable, as is elsewhere remarked, that her act in marrying an
alien might deprive her of any citizenship at all, since no country
can actually confer upon any person citizenship in another. This,
however, is academic, since practically everywhere it is fundamental
in the law that a married woman’s citizenship goes with that of her


By this means she may become a citizen, regardless of her age or
minority or moral character, without having resided in this country
five years, or any other length of time; without any inquiry as
to physical or mental qualification; without taking any oath of
allegiance; without necessarily being, or even claiming to be,
“well disposed to the peace and good order of the United States” or
“attached to the principles of the Constitution.” Coming to this
country as an American citizen, she cannot be rejected or deported
because of any views she may entertain on any subject, or any conduct
on her part, however immoral or otherwise prejudicial it may be
deemed. She is a citizen of the United States, entitled to all the
rights, privileges, and immunities attached to that exalted state.
There has been more than one case in which a woman, about to be
deported as immoral, has been able to avoid deportation by marrying
a citizen.


The unmarried foreign-born woman or widow stands, as far as
citizenship is concerned, upon her own feet, and becomes a citizen
under the same conditions, and upon the same terms, as if she were
a man. She must be of one of the races admissible under the law,
must have resided in the United States or within its jurisdiction
continuously for the five years next preceding her application, and
at least two and not more than seven years before that application
must have filed her declaration of intention; she must (unless a
dumb person) be able to speak (and, if the court sees fit to require
it, also to read and even to write) the English language; she must
present her two citizen witnesses, and must satisfy the court that
she is not an anarchist or a believer in polygamy, and that she is in
all respects fit to become a citizen of the United States, attached
to the principles of the Constitution thereof, “and well disposed to
the good order and happiness of the same.” She must abjure any former
allegiance and renounce any title of nobility which she may have

If she be a widow with children, she must list them in her
application, and such of them as are minors will gain their new
citizenship with hers. But in order to gain citizenship with her they
must be under twenty-one years of age when she is naturalized, and
must become residents of this country before they are twenty-one. The
child is not a citizen until he becomes a resident.


The subject of “derivative citizenship” is one that has been much and
deservedly on the mind of the Naturalization Bureau, especially since
the aspects of citizenship brought to the front by the war came into
wider attention. In his report to the Commissioner of Naturalization
for the year ending June 30, 1919, Raymond F. Crist, as Director of
Citizenship, points out that on the whole the male applicants for

  ... are men who have had such opportunities to acquire knowledge
  of our language and of our institutions of government, and to
  adopt American customs, as their environments permitted. They
  have not been passing their lives within the four walls of their
  homes; they have had a much greater opportunity for contact with
  the American public than the foreign-born women. The husband may
  have gone to the public schools of his community and acquired a
  practical equipment not only of our language, but of such character
  as is attained through what is usually called a “common-school
  education.” Because he has acquired these qualifications for
  American citizenship he may be admitted. His admission to
  citizenship confers a like right upon his wife to exercise the
  franchise to-day in those states where suffrage is universal.
  To-morrow, when that right is acquired by all, the conferring of
  citizenship upon the wife will also enfranchise her.

The man has to pass an increasingly rigid examination; he is
_personally_ put through a severe inspection of his antecedents, his
character, his personal opinions. His wife becomes a citizen without
any examination whatever. The most meticulously particular court, the
most painstaking naturalization examiner, cannot prevent her becoming
a citizen and a voter without excluding the husband, who may, on his
own account, be exceptionally desirable.

The Director of Citizenship goes on to say:

  Generally the foreign-born women reside in an atmosphere and an
  environment wholly foreign. They have no opportunity, as a rule,
  to come into any sort of contact with American thought. They
  are as though they had never left their European homelands and
  were still in their native cities and towns. However much their
  condition of ignorance of our language, customs, or governmental
  institutions may be in evidence, they are, nevertheless, clothed
  with full American citizenship upon the naturalization of their
  husbands. There are approximately 2,000,000 women who will receive
  citizenship through the naturalization of their husbands within
  the next few years, and the addition of such a large number of
  citizens who know nothing whatsoever of their responsibilities
  presents a grave problem, and one which should be given the most
  attentive consideration by the legislative body. It would seem
  to be advisable to have some restrictive measure provided in the
  admission to citizenship that would condition the admission of
  a married man to the responsibilities of citizenship upon the
  qualifying of his wife.

The vital importance of this question of “derivative citizenship” is
clear in the statistics gathered by the Americanization Study for the
fiscal year 1913-14. Of the 26,284 naturalization petitions covered
by that analysis, only 154, or .6 of 1 per cent, were those of women.
But more than two-thirds (68.5 per cent) were married, from which it
is evident that, in the large majority of these cases, foreign-born
women were swept into citizenship by the naturalization of the
husband. For less than one in ten of them were married to women born
in the United States. And even these American-born women had lost
their citizenship through marriage to aliens, regaining it only when
their foreign-born husbands became citizens.


These statistics bring out also another extremely interesting, and
to most people surprising, fact; that is, that the children of our
foreign-born citizens largely were born in this country and are
therefore, in their own right, American citizens. Probably most
persons think of the foreign-born population as coming to this
country with a horde of foreign-born children. This appears to be
contrary to the facts. As can be seen in Table 56, in the Appendix,
four out of five of the petitioners studied had children, and nearly
three-quarters of them had native-born children only. One-fifth
had foreign-born children only, and the rest had both foreign
and native-born. The total number of foreign-born children under
twenty-one years of age was 4,843.


The thing that appears plain and highly significant in these figures
is the fact that every 100 certificates of naturalization granted
carried into citizenship on the average of 93 _other persons_, of
whom 62 were women, virtually regardless of their own qualifications,
and 31 boys and girls under twenty-one years of age. The number of
unmarried women and widows was altogether negligible. And these 62
women were virtually all foreign born, the proportion of those men
having native-born wives, who were thus restored to their birthright
citizenship, being only 9.1 per cent. (It should be remarked,
however, that the proportion of petitioners having native-born wives
varies greatly--from less than 4 per cent in one court to more than
30 per cent in three of the smaller courts.)

Hitherto, no information whatever has been available as to the
number of persons carried into citizenship by the naturalization
of the father. Assuming, as probably it is safe to do so, that the
ratio has generally been maintained in the past, the totals of
“derivative citizenship” become portentous. In 1910, the census
reported 6,646,817 foreign-born white males over twenty-one years
of age. Of these, not quite one-half (3,034,117, or 45.6 per cent)
were naturalized. It is not safe to assume that all of the remainder
were unnaturalized, because it is not clear that the enumerators were
careful to report as naturalized those who, though foreign born,
had been automatically carried into citizenship by their father’s
naturalization before they were twenty-one. Possibly a part of the
relatively large number of cases (11.7 per cent) in which citizenship
was not reported may be accounted for by ignorance or doubt as to
the status of the father.


However that may be, it is sufficiently evident that a vast number
of mothers, actual or potential, have been accorded full and
irrevocable citizenship, and the voting power involved, through
the naturalization of their husbands. Of these, the proportion of
those to whom it really meant anything, or means anything yet, is
small. The danger, as far as the ballot was concerned, was and is
inconsiderable. Yet it was potentially large, in a good-sized part
of the country. Prior to the ratification of the Woman Suffrage
Amendment women already had full or partial suffrage in most of the
states, as will be seen in the following table:



           FULL         |        PARTIAL       |   SCHOOL AND TAX
       State     | Date |     State     | Date |     State     | Date
  Wyoming        | 1869 | Illinois      | 1913 | New Jersey    | 1827
  Colorado       | 1893 | North Dakota  | 1917 | Connecticut   | 1893
  Idaho          | 1896 | Nebraska      | 1917 | Delaware      | 1898
  Utah           | 1896 | Indiana       | 1917 | New Mexico    | 1910
  Washington     | 1910 | Rhode Island  | 1917 |               |
  California     | 1911 | Arkansas      | 1917 |               |
  Arizona        | 1912 | Vermont       | 1917 |               |
  Kansas         | 1912 | Texas         | 1918 |               |
  Oregon         | 1912 | Wisconsin     | 1919 |               |
  Alaska         | 1913 | Minnesota     | 1919 |               |
  Montana        | 1914 | Missouri      | 1919 |               |
  Nevada         | 1914 | Maine         | 1919 |               |
  New York       | 1917 | Iowa          | 1919 |               |
  Michigan       | 1918 | Ohio          | 1919 |               |
  South Dakota   | 1918 |               |      |               |
  Oklahoma       | 1918 |               |      |               |

The ratification of the Suffrage Amendment makes every woman a voter
for all purposes, subject only to the provision in the Constitution
or statutes of such states as prescribe for those foreign born a
residence qualification, as in the cases of New York and Rhode
Island. The latter state, for example, provides “that no woman
citizen of foreign birth shall be entitled to vote unless she has
resided in the United States five years.”

It is to be remembered that the question of citizenship involved
many considerations besides the right to vote; it is an exceedingly
intricate and important subject, including title to property, the
parental relation, etc. It would seem to lie within the powers of
individual states to govern by statute the qualifications of voters,
by means of a residence or educational standard, personal oath of
allegiance, or what not. The only thing they cannot now do under the
Constitution of the United States, so far as women are concerned, is
to exclude any citizen from the ballot box by reason of sex.[150] But
only Congress can grant full citizenship to the foreign-born married
woman regardless of that of her husband, and to make such citizenship
optional with the wife would occasion much confusion in international
law, as well as in domestic matters. It is relatively simple from
the point of view of lay ethics and common sense; but by no means so
simple as it looks.


The elaborate statistics compiled by the Americanization Study from
examination of more than 26,000 petitions for naturalization seem
to indicate that the great majority of immigrants who subsequently
seek citizenship are young married men, accompanied by foreign-born
wives; but their children are born in the United States, and are
therefore citizens by right of birth. These men do not file their
petition for citizenship, in the average case, until they have
been in this country more than ten years. In the meantime, their
children, who presumably do not wait to be born until their parents
have become American citizens, live in homes presided over by alien
parents who still cling to the thought, traditions, and customs of
the old country; what these children get of the American atmosphere
they get in the public schools and in the streets. And it probably is
fair to infer, as many students have inferred, that a large measure
of the breakdown of home control and discipline, showing in the
greater percentage of delinquency among young people of the second
generation, is due to this exotic condition of the homes; to the fact
that the children are acquiring an American life of their own without
the old restraints; they have lost--never had, indeed--something they
would have had in old-country homes, and have gained nothing to take
its place because the homes are still “foreign.” The children quickly
learn “the ropes” of American life; they feel themselves superior to
their parents in this respect, and this inevitably undermines the
parental authority.[151]


The mother is the keystone of the home. Some way must be found to
take her into the American life. The citizenship which she gains
willy-nilly through the naturalization of her husband, even after
she has lived here for ten years, bears no necessary relation to her
life or character. As Mr. Crist in the Naturalization Bureau’s report
for 1919 implies, she is confined within the four walls of her home,
chained to her household routine; and nothing in the ritual or system
of naturalization calls upon her to be American in any respect.

The position, reactions, and influences of the foreign-born woman
in American social life--any aspect of it, domestic, industrial,
political--cannot be intelligently understood or discussed unless and
until we cease to think of her as in any sense a peculiar animal,
or even a human being different in any fundamental way from other
human beings. She lived her life in the old country, grew up from
childhood, married, came to this country, bore her children here or
before she came here, conducts her home, and participates or fails
to participate in all the activities of life, under exactly the same
kind of motives and impulses, and with essentially the same kind of
results, as would be the case with an American woman with the same
antecedents, education, resources, in the same circumstances.

She has, however, an additional handicap, and it is of the utmost
importance to bear this handicap in mind in the consideration not
only of her place in the general problem of the assimilation of the
foreign-born population, but of her possibilities and influence as a
potential voter, helping to decide by her ballot the great questions
which in America are supposed to be settled at the ballot box.

Consider the native-born woman, of the old stock, as she has actually
functioned in the widening field of political activity opening to her
with the spread of woman suffrage. It is no wonder, but it is true,
that the mass of women thus enfranchised have shown the results of
the long-standing belief that “the place of woman is in the home.”
She has had no reason for learning, and little opportunity to learn,
the things pertaining to political life; she has not understood its
problems, grasped the significance of its slogans, or brought her
mind to bear upon its significances.

Slowly, very slowly, there has grown up a group, larger and larger in
numbers, but still very small in proportion, active and intelligent
in the movement for enfranchisement, developing rapidly--perhaps
even more rapidly than would have been the case with men--in the
intellectual grasp of the subjects involved. But the mass of
the American-born, English-speaking women of the country have
remained what they were before--devoted mothers, quiet, homekeeping
housewives, not only content to leave these matters to their husbands
and sons, but more or less bored by “politics” and on the whole
somewhat resentful toward the effort to enlist them in the turmoil. A
large proportion of them have been, in fact, relatively oblivious to
the whole business.


It is the activity in the political function that both awakens
interest and inspires intelligence. Why should a woman, brought up in
the old, restricted, domestic tradition, forthwith become a vital,
vigorous, political force merely because the ballot is put into her
hands? Those who have been in the long fight for suffrage have been
thinking, talking, agitating, and when finally their effort came to
success they were ready for the new responsibilities and activities;
indeed, they often have gone beyond the desire for mere participation
in the routine of the layman’s place in ordinary party politics, and
have shown distinct tendencies toward not only independence, but
what the old-timers would call radicalism, to say nothing of going
farther into the ranks of the avowed radicals. A large number of
these were active and vociferous in the Progressive party in 1912,
and in subsequent years. But the vast bulk of their sisters viewed
all this askance or with relative indifference, and indifference
decreasing slowly but steadily with the lapse of time. In those
states which have had woman suffrage the longest and most completely,
the interest and participation of the average native-born woman has
been the most general and the most intelligent.

This is, and undoubtedly will continue to be, the case with the
foreign-born woman. She will emerge from the status of a household
drudge, subject to the taboos of tradition, the circumscribing
effects of residence in a foreign land, and the various other kinds
of narrowness in her life, just so rapidly and by just so much as she
is made aware that it is to her interest to do so, is impelled by
influences from without herself, and is taught by political activity
itself to realize its practicability and value in the concrete things
of her life.

Thus far, only one or two of the foreign racial groups have, as
such, exhibited any material response to the political opportunities
opening before their women. The outstanding group is that of the
Bohemians, who for many years have been, comparatively speaking,
awake to both opportunity and duty. They have long been more
articulate politically than any others, earlier participating in
the movement for woman suffrage, and passing on in the more radical
directions. Next have come the Scandinavians, excepting the Swedes,
who seem to have been more subject to the old Teutonic conservatism
about the “place of woman.”

Generally speaking, and as might be expected under the circumscribing
influences of all kinds, the foreign-born woman has epitomized all
the spiritual, intellectual, social, and political traditions and
heritages with which immigrants come to America. The children, the
husband, the working uncles and male cousins, all mix immediately
with the civilization of the street, the factory, the shop. They
have to learn English with all possible promptness in order “to
get along.” They hear the political patter of the street corner,
they listen to the soap-box orator, they have to have some sort of
relations with the politicians in order to do business of any kind.

But the woman is shut in by the four walls of her home. If she lives,
as she mostly does, at the top of long flights of tenement-house
stairs, she is too weary to venture out where she may hear of the
wider things and doings of the world. She has no clothing in which to
go more than a stone’s throw from her door. The routine of her life
is pretty much that of a prison.


Or, if she be unmarried, the conditions are little better so far as
concerns encouragement to be interested in political affairs. It
is only potentially that she is a factor in the political future
of the country. The fact that the statistical analysis of the
Americanization Study of more than 26,000 naturalization petitions
filed in twenty-nine courts in the fiscal year 1913-14 showed only
154 women petitioners indicates that the unmarried foreign-born
woman does not excite herself on the subject of the ballot. The real
problem of the foreign-born woman, so far as her equipment as a voter
is concerned, has reference almost entirely to the vast number of
women who are carried into citizenship and potential voting power by
the naturalization of their husbands. This is a serious matter.

The Naturalization Bureau makes much of its effort to enlist the
interest of the women, by calling their attention to the educational
opportunities in the vicinity of their homes; it may be conceded
that this has had beneficial results in general, and has been vastly
better than the former policy of ignoring the newly made woman
citizen; but even giving full value to the claims made by various
persons as to the increased interest and response of the wives of
naturalized men, the total of actual accomplishment, as against the
total of available foreign women is negligible. The plain fact of
the matter is that the foreign-born women, naturalized by the act
of their husbands in the proportion of more than sixty women to one
hundred men, pay just as much attention to the business and to their
new opportunities, as might be expected in the circumstances.

During the war it was even the subject of resentment, on the part
of the wives of alien enemies, that they were thus forced into
American citizenship regardless of their wishes or sympathies. In
many instances of the so-called “military naturalization,” elsewhere
described,[152] in which the husband had been taken regardless of
his personal sympathies, and had become, while in uniform, a citizen
under the provisions of the law which waived all questions of length
of residence, and to a great extent the other qualifications which
would have been insisted upon in ordinary times, the wife was a
rampant enemy, aggravated by the conscription of her man--and often
also of her grown sons--yet she became automatically a citizen of
the United States, regardless of length of residence, without being
required even to go through the empty form of an oath of allegiance.
Forthwith she was absolved from the necessity of registering as
an alien enemy; forthwith she became for all purposes as much an
American citizen and as much a voter potentially as any Daughter of
the American Revolution!


Some of the courts--the number of such is steadily increasing--have
taken judicial notice of this extraordinary situation, and scrutinize
with substantial care the qualifications of the wife. Many of them
refuse to naturalize a man whose wife still resides in the old
country. In his report to the Commissioner of Naturalization for the
fiscal year 1918-19 Mr. Crist, as Director of Citizenship, dwells
upon this matter, quoting especially an order issued May 27, 1919, by
Judge Gustav Anderson in the Circuit Court for Baker County, Oregon,
which goes about as far as the court can go under existing law. The
text of the order, so far as this aspect of the question goes, is as

  It appearing to the court that ... when married men become citizens
  their wives become so also by virtue of the marriage relation, and
  that it is therefore important that when a married man becomes a
  citizen his wife should also be qualified for the like duties of
  citizenship: it is therefore

  _Ordered_ that ... such applicant who is a married man is hereby
  directed to inform his wife of the foregoing provisions and to
  qualify with him for such citizenship, and that, unless for
  sufficient cause shown to the court it is otherwise ordered, the
  wife of each married man shall attend court with her husband at
  the time of the final hearing upon his petition for admission to
  citizenship of the United States.

Judge George G. Bingham, in the Circuit Court for Marion County,
Oregon, previously, in September, 1918, had issued a similar
order, in which he directed that if the petitioner be married he
should be accompanied by his wife not only in applying to the
school authorities for assistance in preparation, but also in his
attendance upon the court.

Similar action in other courts is referred to by Mr. Crist in the
same report:

  In one judicial district, comprising eight courts of New York
  State, the Supreme Court has required that the wife of the
  petitioner appear in court with the petitioner at the time of the
  final hearing. In other places the question has been considered
  and various steps taken. The reports show that some judges have
  required a rather complete knowledge of our language and form of
  government. Some of the tests have been such as merely to show that
  the wife could speak English, knew the name of the President and
  the number of years of his term of office, and other elementary
  details. Continuances of cases have occurred where dense ignorance
  of the English language is demonstrated by simple questions, such
  as, “Where do you live?” and, “How many children have you?” Upon
  failure to comprehend these questions the conferring of citizenship
  has been deferred to a later period.

  Of course, in considering the question of the appearance of the
  wife some difficulties have been encountered. In numbers of cases
  sickness of either the wife or the children, domestic duties at
  the hour of the hearing, the necessity for bringing small children
  into court or leaving them in the custody of others, represent some
  of the difficulties to the easy observance of this requirement
  of the courts. In the opinion of one of the judges it is well to
  have the women appear in court, if for no other reason than that
  it takes them out of their homes and gives them some idea of what
  our government in actual operation means. After their experiences
  under these circumstances, even though it be accompanied by some
  sense of nervousness, the consensus of opinion appears to be that
  such a requirement is not only wholesome in its effect, but quite


The Director of Citizenship does not mention one of the most serious
difficulties in the way of a general practice of this kind,
operating in sparsely settled districts; that is, the matter of
expense. When a man has to transport himself and his two witnesses
anywhere from twenty to two hundred miles, pay not only their cost
of transportation, but usually their wages for time lost, to say
nothing of his own loss of wages or time, or anything paid as extra
compensation to the witnesses, and this _twice within the space of
some ninety days_, the necessity of adding the cost of taking also
his wife becomes serious if not prohibitive. And in most cases, in
city or country alike, a young mother is so tied down by the routine
of domestic duties, care of infants, etc., that a considerable
absence from home is flatly impossible. If, in addition to this, she
has no interest in the matter, or is frankly hostile, it is likely to
mean that she will not go to court, and her husband’s petition may be
denied for “want of prosecution.”

The Naturalization Bureau and the courts have done all they can under
existing law to bring to bear upon the foreign-born woman who will be
made a citizen by the naturalization of her husband the influences
tending to awaken in her a sense of her opportunity, privileges,
and obligations. Strictly speaking, the court has no lawful right
to summon a woman from her domestic duties to be a party to her
husband’s naturalization. The spirit of the law of substantially all
countries from time immemorial has been to regard the citizenship of
a woman as merely incidental to that of her husband. There was little
or no necessity or reason for her to play any part in the business as
an individual. She became American with her man, just as his goods
and chattels did. No political activity or responsibility on her part
was implied. And she, if she were an American by birth, or a widow
Americanized by the citizenship of her deceased husband, would lose
her citizenship instanter upon her marriage with an alien here or


Woman suffrage entirely alters the situation. Now she becomes,
at least potentially, a political factor in her own right as an
individual. No longer may her fitness, or her probable action as a
voter, be in any way assumed from that of her husband. He becomes a
citizen by a process presumed to search out his qualifications, and
after preparation designed to perfect them. The law has provided
hitherto no process by which hers may be adequately ascertained. Yet
her vote, her political action in any respect, may aggravate the evil
embodied in his by duplicating it; may cancel all the public benefit
embodied in his by her opposing action.

Whatever may have been said in the past, it is hard to find any
argument adequate on the whole for continuing this antediluvian
principle and process. Every adult individual should come into or
stay out of voting rights on his own merits, and not otherwise. It
may well be argued that even minors as young as sixteen years should
not come into citizenship by the act of their parents, so far as
concerns their becoming voters at twenty-one, without act of their

The voice of naturalizing judges all over the country, who have
expressed themselves on this subject, is preponderantly in favor of
a radical change in policy. The Naturalization Bureau does not go
so far, but stresses what it regards as the need of an educational
test of the wife as a condition precedent to the naturalization of
the husband. In his report for year ending June 30, 1919, to the
Commissioner of Naturalization, Mr. Crist says:

  It would seem to be advisable to have some restrictive measure
  provided in the admission to citizenship that would condition the
  admission of a married man to the responsibilities of citizenship
  upon the qualifying of his wife.... Since the local educational
  authorities are both willing and anxious to afford these women, as
  well as their husbands, every educational facility and opportunity,
  a requirement of an educational nature would not seem to be unjust.

This would be pretty drastic, and almost put the husband in the
same position that the wife is in now--making _his_ citizenship
dependent upon _her_ fitness! The trouble is not that the wives
of the naturalized males are ignorant or unfit, but that they are
automatically made into voters regardless of their fitness. Why
penalize the man? Why not devise a way of enfranchising him, if fit,
while withholding the ballot from her, if unfit?


The judges see it more directly. The Americanization Study addressed
a questionnaire to all of the naturalizing judges, containing two
questions on this subject:

  _First_--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?

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

It is impossible to tabulate the answers, because of the many cases
in which the judges advance qualifications preventing their replies
from being classed as categorical; but generally it may be said that
of 333 replies to the first question, 204, or nearly two-thirds,
are in the affirmative, 104 are in the, negative, and 25 are
noncommittal, uncertain, or so qualified as to represent doubt.

To the second question, of 364 replies, 220, again not quite
two-thirds, are in the affirmative, 127, or almost exactly one-third,
in the negative, and 17 noncommittal. Curiously enough, many of those
who answer “Yes” to the first question answer “No” to the second, and
a large number would condition their affirmative to both questions
upon the woman’s permanent domicile in this country. Of those who
vote “No” on the second point many express the sentiment:

  If an American woman isn’t satisfied to marry an American man, let
  her lose her citizenship.

A somewhat conspicuous fact is that, generally speaking, the judges
of the East and South are opposed to any change in the law to admit
women on their individual responsibility or to save citizenship for
American women marrying immigrants, while those of the West generally
favor both--especially the former proposal.

  “The law looks upon a married couple as _one_,” says a New Jersey
  judge, “and I do not think it would be good public policy to split
  their nationality.”

  “It would introduce great confusion in certain parts of the law,”
  objects a Federal judge in New England.

  “We favor no such pussy-willow policy,” answers one Ohio judge,
  who, by the way, would require “twenty-one years’ continuous
  residence,” admit at all “only heads of families with children,”
  and generally “make it harder for foreigners to become naturalized.”

  “Few men,” objects a judge in Indiana, “would feel right toward
  either the government or his wife (_sic_). Few men have reached
  that stage of mind where he would be satisfied with such

  “With the husband of one nationality, and the wife of another, what
  would be the nationality of the children?” demands a New Jersey
  judge. “What laws would govern the taking of personal property or
  the inheritance of real estate? A citizen married woman might have
  an alien enemy husband!”

A Federal judge in Maryland dwells upon the physical fact, that
the children are a joint product, even though husband and wife
are separate individuals. And he seems to think that both of the
questions imply the opening of large danger, in respect of the
enforcement of Chinese and Japanese exclusion, though he does not say
why or how such a peril would arise.

From a Texas judge and many others come warnings that such a policy
would give rise to endless domestic friction. An Alabama judge would
cut round this by permitting the woman’s declaration of her desire to
be or remain an American citizen, notwithstanding the alienage of her
husband, to naturalize her minor children.

The general trend of opinion among the judges is to the effect that
the institution of woman suffrage has abolished the old idea that the
wife must accept her politics from her husband. As one Nebraska judge
puts it:

  It is an outrage that the status of the wife should be influenced
  by that of the husband. A man and wife are two; we long since
  departed from the theory that they are one.


The logic of the situation in which we find ourselves seems
inexorable. Whatever the theory upon which a woman takes the
nationality of her husband, the fact is that once she has been
naturalized and become available as a voter, she is potentially as
much a force for good or ill politically as he. However much pains
may have been taken to ascertain and certify his fitness, she comes
in substantially without examination, without any of the precautions
which are at least presumed to protect the ballot box from unfit or
unworthy approach.

The Commissioner of Naturalization reported[153] at the end of the
year 1918-19, that, during the thirteen years since the enactment of
the law of 1906, the total number of certificates of naturalization
issued had been 1,079,459. If it be correct to assume that 60 or more
women are swept into citizenship with every 100 certificates, this
would mean that during those thirteen years something like 650,000
individuals, available as voters wherever woman suffrage prevails
(subject to the five-year-residence limitation in certain states),
have been automatically made citizens regardless of any fitness or
volition of their own. And this says nothing of the additional future
voters added through the automatic naturalization of children. In his
previous report Commissioner Campbell said:[154]

  Since 1906 there have been 861,819 who have been admitted to
  citizenship upon direct application, and an equal number of
  wives and children have derived citizenship from the act of the
  petitioner. Following this average through, and the average has
  been higher down to and including the last fiscal year, it will be
  seen that about 1,250,000 have had the title conferred upon them
  without justifying the nation in any belief that its ability for
  self-government has been increased thereby.


We are dealing now, however, chiefly with the question of the married
women, mothers and housewives, who are or now have been herded into
the mass of voting citizens without volition or substantial interest
or appreciation on their part. The children, particularly those under
sixteen, may be left to the process of the schools and their general
absorption into the life of the streets and the contacts of social
life which quickly teach them not only the English language, but
some sense of what it means to be American. In no appreciable degree
are the adult women subjected to this Americanizing process.

In the vast majority of cases, the potential vote thus added is an
uninformed and often ignorant vote. Its characteristics are well
summarized in a memorandum prepared by Miss Cornelia Marvin, State
Librarian of Oregon, in the course of which she says:

  Women are left behind in intelligence by the fathers and children.
  They do not learn English, they do not keep up with the other
  members of their families who are constantly in touch with
  Americans, and there is frequently the tragedy of the mother of
  the family who cannot read English and cannot understand the
  conversation in English which goes on about her. She is a “back
  number,” and as such cannot be an effective citizen.

  Women may, and undoubtedly will be, voted in herds, quite
  ignorantly, and so will be a menace--if they vote at all. This
  cannot be prevented entirely by naturalization, but a woman who has
  gone through the naturalization ceremony, who has prepared herself
  for the examination, and who has taken the oath of allegiance, will
  not be so easy a subject for the unscrupulous.

  It is dangerous in war times to have alien enemies who are unknown
  as such. During the last year or two there have been cases of
  people who were enemies to our country, who swore that they were
  naturalized against their wills by the acts of their husbands; that
  they never had any desire to become American citizens.

  It is inconvenient at present for women not to have their own
  certificates of naturalization, as, at the time of registering
  for election, and in some other cases, it is necessary to present
  evidence of citizenship, and the woman must present her husband’s
  certificate of naturalization. The Bureau of Naturalization
  proposes that a woman may receive an honorary certificate chiefly
  to remedy this.

  Not being required to go through the naturalization ceremony
  the women miss the opportunity for education, and we miss the
  opportunity to stimulate and educate them through the preparation
  for the examination, and through the ceremony.

  If women should become naturalized through their own acts, they
  will prepare for the examination, and they will undoubtedly urge
  on backward husbands. Often it would be a great advantage to have
  the wife studying for the examination at the same time, as she
  ordinarily has more leisure than the husband who, after a hard
  working day, needs the stimulus of his wife’s interest in order to
  apply himself to the history and laws necessary for him to acquire
  before his appearance in court.

  Possibly [Miss Marvin adds], if we open the opportunity to foreign
  women through the naturalization process, the time will come when
  American-born women, arriving at the age when they may vote, will
  take the oath and will go through some dignified ceremony which
  will impress upon them their responsibility as citizens.

Still remains, regardless of any steps which may be taken in the
future, a great mass of woman citizenry, to be reached by some
process of education at least designed to awaken these potential
voters to a sense of their privileges and their obligations. How may
this be done?


Their mere indifference to politics hardly can be urged against
them. Our own people are notorious sinners in this respect. The
Commissioner of Naturalization repeats ancient history when he

  Surveys have been made from time to time to ascertain the
  participation in the various rights of American citizenship by
  native, and foreign-born citizens. In one large city a survey
  showed that of the first seven prominent business men approached
  none had registered. Of the 80 preachers who were requested to
  state whether they had voted or registered, 12 had registered and
  6 of them had voted. Among the foreign-born citizens and newly
  naturalized 97 had registered and voted.

But these voters were men. Nearly all of the statistics on which
generalizations have been based deal with “foreign-born males of
voting age.” The statistics of over 26,000 naturalization petitions
gathered by the Americanization Study deal almost exclusively with
men, save as they show that every ten certificates bring into
citizenship more than six married women and more than three minors.
With the ratification of the Suffrage Amendment to the Constitution,
these six or more married women acquire the ballot. In many states
they had it long before that. What about them?


With enthusiasm entirely commendable, the Naturalization Bureau
describes its efforts to arouse in the foreign-born seekers after
citizenship an interest in the opportunity before them, by notifying
each candidate, declarant, or final petitioner, of the school
privileges available for him. In the report of the Bureau for 1916,
the Commissioner says:[156]

  During the year, for the purpose of including the wife in this
  citizenship-betterment campaign by the public schools, the bureau
  wrote a special letter personally addressed to the wives of 49,094
  petitioners and declarants, telling them of the advantages which
  would result from their attendance upon the public schools. The
  name of each wife was also sent, upon an individual card, to the
  public school in the community where the candidate lived. This
  inclusion of the wife in the scope of this activity was to enable
  her to get some conception of the meaning of an American home and
  aid her in establishing it for her family.... Intense interest is
  manifested upon the part of these wives and mothers, as in many
  instances they bring their babies to the schoolroom and while they
  sleep the mothers devote their time to learning to read, speak,
  and write our tongue in addition to receiving instruction in the
  more domestic subjects. In order to insure extending this influence
  to the wife of every declarant the bureau, with the approval of
  the department of labor, changed the form of the declaration of
  intention so as to require the inclusion of the name of the wife
  therein, no provision having been made for her name in the form as
  originally prepared. Approximately a quarter of a million women
  of foreign allegiance will be thus brought within the province of
  the Bureau of Naturalization through the filing of declarations of
  intention and petitions for naturalization by their husbands.

Well, this is all very fine as rhetoric and the expression of pious
wishes. But what comes of it in reality? An elaborate table in the
report for 1919[157] shows that in the fiscal year ended June 30th
the names of 108,395 wives of candidates were furnished to the school
authorities in cities and towns showing a total population of nearly
35,000,000 people with a “foreign-born white male of voting age”
population of more than 4,400,000. And on the next page are tabulated
reports of 166 school superintendents as to classes for foreign-born
persons in English and citizenship, showing:


  STATES IN 1919

    Men                         |    11,854
    Women                       |     2,733
    Unclassified                |     1,287
        Total                   |    15,874

Every bit of it valuable, no doubt. Presumably, also, the complete
figures would present a much larger total, but, as an exhibit of
goods, it is hardly up to the promises of the show window!


The fact is that the married women of foreign birth, who are made
citizens by the naturalization of their husbands, have had, as a
whole, not the slightest practical interest in any stage of the
business. In the old country from which they came they had, as a
rule, no participation in government; the traditions of the society
in which the majority of them grew up relegated women to domestic
employments, made them subordinate to their husbands in every phase
of public life; they have been slow to learn the language here,
and the proposal that they go to school in order to fit themselves
for a function about which they know nothing and care less meets
with little enthusiasm on their part--as the statistics of the
Naturalization Bureau plainly show.

The intelligent woman’s advent to politics always has been dreaded
by the professional politician. He felt it in his bones that she
might not have the political superstitions and docility that have
been exhibited by the average male voter; she might ask questions and
display initiative; she might remember with an eye to reprisals the
things that politicians, legislators, and executives have done to the
interests of women in ages past. He grew eloquent about the “place of
woman in the home,” the demoralizing atmosphere of the polling place,
and so on. And, as for the foreign-born woman, he knew, first, that
the foreign-born husband as a rule was opposed to having his wife and
daughters meddling in such matters, and second, that all she would
do, anyway, would be to duplicate the vote of her husband or father.


As has been said, very few of the foreign-born women, made citizens
and voters by the naturalization of men, thus far have displayed much
interest in politics. Where there has been participation by them,
what has been their attitude? There is not much testimony on the
subject, but what there is is largely to identical effect.

  The rule is [says an investigator at Los Angeles] that the wives
  follow the party allegiance of their husbands, and vote with them.
  The more intelligent, however, often think and act independently,
  voting for what they believe is the good of their children. The
  parents of the public-school children teach them to follow the
  guidance and advice of the teachers. I myself, as one of the
  accredited speakers of the Parent Teachers’ Federation of Los
  Angeles, have marked hundreds of ballots for foreign women, and I
  am called up on the telephone before each election and questioned
  about candidates and measures. As a rule my advice is taken without
  question. The foreign woman acts in such matters according to her
  individual nature and her intelligent understanding. Some of them
  vote secretly because their husbands have forbidden them to go to
  the polls.

Miss Jane Addams, whose long and intimate acquaintance with
foreign-born women, through her protracted residence in Hull House,
Chicago, entitles her to speak with peculiar authority, describes a
typical experience at a polling place in the Hull House neighborhood,
which is populated almost entirely by immigrant families:

  It was a great satisfaction to me to see what good judgment the
  women showed. There was one Irishwoman, very bright, who could
  not read, and therefore I was allowed to go into the booth with
  her to help her mark her ballot. The first proposition was about
  bonds for a new hospital. The Irishwoman said, “Is the same bunch
  to spend the money that run the hospital we have now? Then I am
  against it.” The next proposition was about a subway; the next
  about a hospital for contagious cases, and so on. There were ten
  propositions to be acted upon. I was scrupulous not to influence
  her; yet on nine of them she voted, from her own common sense, just
  as the Municipal League and the City Club had recommended as the
  result of painstaking research. Italian women came in to vote who
  knew more about our city than their husbands, who were away digging
  railroads during six or nine months of the year.

Mrs. Emma Smith Devoe, President of the National Council of Women
Voters,[158] describes the foreign-born woman citizen as taking in
governmental affairs, as soon as she realizes that she is a voter, a
most serious and conscientious interest, “making almost a religious
duty of it.” The women, she says “are particularly impressed with the
sacredness of the ballot, and they always vote for the betterment of
humanity as they see it.”

  Almost every foreign woman’s vote [says Mrs. Lucy B. Johnstone,
  wife of the Chief Justice of Kansas][159] “represents a home where
  there are children who are going to the public schools now and fast
  becoming Americanized. The foreign-born women are, in the main,
  ambitious for their children, and for that reason are learning,
  in their way, about our institutions, and are zealous to take
  advantage of our free educational opportunities”.

Senator Helen Ring Robinson of Colorado remarking that “the Italian
women frequently do not vote, while the Pole always votes and takes
a keen interest in local politics,” says:[160]

  In the matters affecting the family purse, such as voting of a
  bond issue, the acquisition of the water supply by the city, etc.,
  I find the immigrant woman usually more keenly concerned than her

  The immigrant woman in the coal camps--like the immigrant
  man--often votes blindly at the dictate of the boss; but the
  daughter of the immigrant woman often shows an independence, an
  understanding, and a vision, in matters of public concern, well
  worth the emulation of Daughters of the American Revolution I wot
  of--and Colonial Dames. It is the daughter of the immigrant woman,
  grown to the full stature of citizenship, who is proving one of the
  most useful elements in our Colorado electorate.

Miss Edith Knight Holmes, editor of the Woman’s Department of the
Portland _Oregonian_, wrote that:

  Personally, I have noticed women who were born in various European
  countries going early in the morning to vote, as soon as the
  breakfast was over. They study their ballots carefully and seem
  most conscientious in marking them. I know an old Scotch lady who
  sat up half the night to study her ballot. A little English lady
  whom I know always tries to be at the polls. She goes with one of
  her sons to vote.

  In families where there are several little children, sometimes the
  mother next door will stay with the babies while the mother of
  the family votes, and then when she returns she takes care of her
  friend’s baby while she, too, casts her vote.

Of course, this is special pleading, and it is easy to exaggerate.
Over against it might well be told that ancient story of the
housemaid who was said to favor woman suffrage on the ground that it
would augment the family income:

  My father and my two brothers each gets five dollars for his vote,
  and now mother and me will each get five--that makes twenty-five
  dollars, all for a little while in one day.

The fact is, abundantly verified, that the foreign-born woman, when
she votes at all, brings to the function a deep sense of solemnity;
it is new to her to participate in government; she has not acquired
from the streets a cynical contempt for the ballot, as her husband
and sons are likely to have done. The effect of government upon her
home and her children is a more desperate matter to her, and it will
take long to demoralize her attitude on the subject.

But the fact is, also, that foreign-born women have not in any large
measure awakened to the opportunity. Their devotion to their homes
has taken on no public or political aspect. They are confined to
those homes, not only by tradition, ignorance of American life and
the English language, and the inertia of their existence, but even
more by overwork and by the unremitting detail of family duty and
care. They have hardly heard of their new and increasing privileges,
and generally regard them, when they do hear of them, as only a new
burden, unfamiliar and to be ignored if not resented. It is only in
the home, and by a realization of its direct and inevitable effect
upon the home, her home, that any interest in or enthusiasm about
political action can reach her.


There would seem to be four ways in which the foreign-born woman
citizen can be reached with effort to interest her in the political
aspect of her citizenship:

1. The normal, direct attack of the political organizations, and
voluntary efforts, organized and unorganized, of public-spirited
citizens or others interested in “getting out the vote.” Generally
speaking, the politicians have scarcely as yet discovered the voting
power of the foreign-born woman citizen--especially such as do not
speak the English language. The vote and political influence of the
foreign-born woman have been negligible everywhere--except possibly
in a few places where they have been rallied in a local-option
election. One investigator reports two or three towns in Illinois
where a “wet” result was attributed to the vote of foreign-born
women. Other reports would indicate that the foreign-born woman, like
her English-speaking sisters, have tended to favor the abolition of
the saloon with its resulting (or, anyway, expected) reduction of
home-coming drunkenness and deductions from the pay envelope.

In districts where politically active social settlements and
similar organizations are influential, and in states which have
had woman suffrage the longest, there is a considerable appearance
of foreign-born women at the polls. But they are relatively few
in numbers, and consist of younger women from the more radical
parties, from those racial groups which display the keenest and most
aggressive social intelligence, such as the Bohemians, and from such
as in their own countries have had some experience with some measure
of woman suffrage, such as the Swedes and Finns. There is quite as
much tendency among foreign-born women as among native-born--perhaps
considerably more--to follow the husband’s lead in politics and to
duplicate his vote. In general, the political organizations have as
yet made little effort to capitalize the “derivative vote.” The mass
of it stays at home.

2. The campaign of the public schools, with or without the
inspiration of the Naturalization Bureau, to induce the foreign-born
woman to avail herself of formal educational work in the schools.
As we have seen, she does not, to any appreciable extent, respond
to this campaign. Social settlements, even attributing great
influence to them--though as a matter of fact few of them exert any
political influence whatever--are relatively few and far between;
churches, as such, and other institutions of the same general kind,
cannot be counted as substantially effective in this direction. The
foreign-born woman goes to church in large numbers, but she does not
get there any great impulse to interest herself in community affairs.
She goes back to her babies and her washtub.

It is in her home, in the intervals between domestic duties and
within arm’s length of the cradle and the kitchen table where she
feeds her children, that she must be reached with this inspiration
and instruction, if in any large measure she is to be reached at all.
This brings us to

3. The Home Teacher. The movement in favor of the creation of a
teaching force, employed by the public and organically a part of
the public-school system, to go into the neighborhoods and into the
homes and carry instruction in English, common-school branches, and
the elements of civics, follows logically from the treatment of the
foreign-born woman citizen as an individual, and from the fact that
she must be dealt with in or close to her home. Classes grouped
within a small section of a neighborhood, intensively instructed
by teachers who realize the difficulties and limitations of their
pupils, take on the aspect of social occasions, help to arouse
a neighborhood spirit, encourage mutual acquaintance, and most
effectively instruct those whom it is desired to reach. A movement
of this kind, spreading over the country and backed by the public as
such, follows the natural line of least resistance and tackles the
problem where it really lives.

4. The direct and indirect influence of the children upon the mother.
This is the best of all. And, while we are exciting ourselves about
the ignorance and indifference of the foreign-born woman, and
bemoaning her possible influence upon her children, it is well for us
to remember that these children are in the American public schools,
talking the English language, absorbing whatever there may be of
“Americanism” in the social atmosphere about them, in daily sight of
the Stars and Stripes, singing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” gaining
enthusiasm for and pride in our country, and, what is most important,
taking home daily to their foreign-born parents the direct and
indirect influences of what they are learning, seeing, and feeling.
The extent of this leavening process is impossible to estimate, but
undoubtedly it is enormous.


Perhaps the most striking and unmistakable exhibit of this process is
to be found in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, where the work of
the Americanization Society presents concrete and visible results.
The work in process there since the fall of 1918 is susceptible of
definite and even statistical study. It has produced effects upon
elections which can be stated in figures, and results in homes upon
concretely discoverable human beings about which there can be no
question. It is socially physiological, so to speak; working in a
normal way in consonance with known political methods and customs,
along the rational lines of least resistance--making use of the
natural, spontaneous life of the people in their ordinary social and
political relationships and in their homes.

A battle with machine politics over a matter of local administration,
especially as affecting the treatment of the poor, convinced those
interested in the unselfish conduct of the city’s business that the
way to win, and the only way, was to appeal to the people direct and
get them to vote. There was no fear as to how they would vote, but
the effort was not addressed to that aspect of the question. The
slogans speak for themselves!

  Whether or not you vote is not your business; it is Uncle Sam’s
  business. HOW you vote is your business.

  It’s always safe to trust all the people. If all the people vote,
  they will vote right.

  Cast your own ballot. When you don’t vote, somebody else votes for

  How many votes has a man? You say one. If you don’t vote somebody
  else has TWO votes.

Tags were the weapons directly used, and they had a profound effect.
Committees of women, drawn from mothers’ clubs, women’s clubs,
parents’ associations, etc., gave out the tags at the polls, asked
the voters to wear them, and pinned them on when they could. The only
way to get a tag was to vote; everybody who voted found it to his
interest to wear one; and those who didn’t have tags wished they had.
For the tag said:

  “I am an American. I voted. Did you?”

The effectiveness of these tactics in arousing not only sentimental
enthusiasm, but that kind of practical personal action _at and in the
ballot box_ which decides elections, is convincingly attested by the
great increase in the registration and in the total vote.[161]

The essential purpose of the job was to get to the polls every
individual entitled to vote; but incidentally, or perhaps better
to say, fundamentally, to train the rising generation as to their
privilege and duty of participation in public affairs, and to
accelerate the naturalization and Americanization of the alien.
In order to accomplish the first of these last two purposes, the
campaign was carried into the public schools; in order to accomplish
the second, great stress was laid upon naturalization. There were
three other slogans:

  Send the alien to the county clerk.

  An early tag helps the flag.

  Get your tag early. Ask the man who has none WHY?

This meant embarrassment for the untagged, and when the school
children began to plague the untagged adult males it became
unendurable. Woe to that father who came home at night without a tag!
The family was disgraced in the eyes of the children. He was nagged,
not about _how_ he voted, but about why he didn’t vote at all!

Meanwhile, woman suffrage was established in Michigan, and the women
came in for their share of the bombardment. A great campaign was
begun to make the women realize their political responsibilities.
It bore fruit in the registration of 26,000 women for the election
in April, 1919; in one day 1,500 women registered. For the primary
election in March the tag system got out 28,700 votes, and it was
estimated that a blizzard raging on that day prevented at least 3,000
more. At the April election all the candidates recommended by the
Citizens’ League were elected, although the tag system involved no
pressure as to particular candidates or causes. There were thirteen
different matters to be voted upon, and the result showed notable
discrimination in the voting--by 37,000 voters, while from 5,000 to
7,000 votes could not be cast because of inadequacy of the polling


The children were a vital factor in the campaign. After the elections
they were asked to collect tags and bring them to school. Out of
29,000 tags given out at one election, they brought back more than
17,000. After the next election they brought back 27,000 out of
37,000. Flags were given as prizes to the schools showing the highest

In the schools--and all schools were enlisted, parochial and
private as well as public schools--the children wrote letters, and
later little essays, describing their experiences, telling why it
was important to vote, and what the issues were. The response was
instantaneous, enthusiastic; and it requires no special imagination
to infer the effect in individual homes, not only in compelling
American citizens to vote, but in virtually forcing alien fathers and
mothers to avoid embarrassment at their own firesides by expediting
their efforts to gain citizenship.

Space is not available for extensive quotation of the children’s
essays; but their general tenor, and the reflex influence of their
spirit upon the homes, may be imagined from such excerpts as these:

  By an eleven-year-old boy, fifth grade: The men and women who are
  citizens of the United States are regular voters; if they are not,
  they should be.... If all the people voted, we should have a clean
  city. If your mother has to do all the dishes, you can say, “Why,
  mother, I can do the dishes while you go and vote.” Your father may
  have to rake the yard. Why not rake the yard yourself and let your
  father go and vote? Then the children and their parents will be
  good citizens.

  By a girl in the sixth grade: The American government is governed
  by the people by means of voting. If people do not vote it is their
  fault that we have poor officials.... The anarchist and the other
  people who ignore our government are both destroying it, only the
  anarchist destroys it violently and the people who ignore it,
  slowly. Some aliens come here to enjoy all our privileges without
  becoming citizens. They save their money and go back to their old
  country. But some aliens appreciate our government, and are now
  of the best citizens we have.... Join hands with the American
  government. Mother, do not let Dad do it alone!

There is plenty of direct testimony as to the effect of this
enterprise in the home, not only of the American citizens, but of
the aliens. Thousands of mothers who otherwise might have remained
prisoners to indifference and drudgery have been fairly driven out
into the liberation of social contacts and into a broader life of
interest in all the things that make for responsible citizenship _by
the interest of their children_.

It is _in their homes_ that the foreign-born women must be reached
with inspiration and enlightenment as to their part in the process of
self-government and the privileges, duties, and responsibilities--and
activities--which are essential to anything worthy to be called
American citizenship.



There is not and never has been in the United States anything that
could be segregated as the “labor vote,” although such a thing has
been the dream of many labor leaders, the bugaboo--or rather the
_ignis fatuus_--of politicians of many parties, and a permanently
legendary figure in the popular speech. The absence of such a vote
is the principle reason for the political futility of most of the
efforts of the Socialist parties.

Time and again, since the beginning of our existence as a nation,
efforts--some of them with a measure of success promising or menacing
according to one’s sympathy and point of view--have been made to
get united political action on the part of citizens who worked with
their hands as supposedly distinguished from those who worked with
their brains. The effort never has come to other than temporary
local success; although it may be conceded that, in some measure,
the issues upon which the efforts were predicated afterward came to
be those upon which the great parties fought out their battles; or,
more likely, came slowly to substantial acceptance through economic
development or sometimes as the direct fruit of campaign agitation.

The reasons for this failure to precipitate and organize the mythical
“labor vote” are many and diverse, but certain of them are essential
and fairly evident:

First, the fact that in this country social and industrial conditions
have hitherto been, and probably for an indefinite period will
continue to be, such as to emphasize individualism. It is true,
despite any denials or theories, that industry, initiative,
enterprise, always have won, still win, and will continue to win
advancement above the herd. The top is still open for those who can
win to it by their own inherent qualities. There has been here, there
is now, no permanent industrial or social caste classification to
circumscribe ambition and create either a persisting intellectual
leadership of “labor” or a stable body of hand-workers susceptible
of political coherence or direction. All efforts to crystallize
“class consciousness” for political action have failed, and probably
will continue to fail as long as the social bars are down so that
individuals can pass freely from one class to another.

Second, the immensity of our territory and the great diversity of
interests and issues in the forefront of public attention in one
section and another. Seldom, if ever, have the conditions which might
have solidified any class been sufficiently widespread or synchronous
to serve the purpose of united political sentiment or action. Add to
this the fact that politicians of both the great parties, more or
less intentionally, have managed always to frame the issues so as to
encourage this diversity.

Third, the deliberate and long-standing policy of the most
influential of the general leaders of the labor organizations--Mr.
Samuel Gompers for the most conspicuous example--of keeping those
organizations free from the entanglements and distractions of party
politics, definitely preventing their acting as a political unit; by
intention confining their activities to the industrial, the economic
field. This alone, without regard to the fact that the higher-grade
unions (using that expression solely with reference to skill) seldom
see their interests to be common, so far as the ballot box is
concerned. The radical agitation for the establishment of “One Big
Union,” to include all classes of laborers as distinguished from
capitalists, while it contemplates chiefly the exercise of industrial
and economic power, includes the intention to concentrate political
power as well.

Fourth, and most important, the fact that “labor,” in the sense in
which most politicians, and virtually all of the public, use the
term, means chiefly the _unskilled_ workers who contribute _muscle_
to industry. These are to a great extent unorganized, without any
conscious unity of interest or purpose; their approach to both
industry and political action is as individuals--individuals of
more or less shifting residence and comparatively little feeling
of political responsibility. Moreover, it is a matter of common
knowledge that the great industrial concerns have fostered the
existence of masses of unskilled labor, in excess of the actual needs
of industry, in order to maintain an “overstocked” labor supply,
for the purpose of constant wage-competition to keep down costs.
This competition has the inevitable effect of discouraging united
action of any kind. And, still further, we have found[162] that the
unskilled laborer of foreign birth, on the average, is not available
for political activity because he is not naturalized.

This body of the unskilled, industrially indispensable, but
politically unassimilated, inarticulate, and unwholesome,
consists almost entirely now, and must consist increasingly,
of immigrants. Like any other mass of material in an organism,
potentially digestible and useful but actually undigested and in
the circumstances indigestible, it has clogged the process of
assimilation and is infecting the body politic with dangerous toxins.
The wonder is that we have got along with it so well. One of the
reasons may be the very fact that its influences are not in the
ordinary sense _political_.

Foreigners: the word is used advisedly. For out of the welter of
prejudice and misinformation surrounding the subject has emerged
clearly the fact that by the time the alien _man_ reaches the point
of applying for citizenship and the political power that goes with
it, he has been in this country _upward of ten years_, has advanced
materially in social and economic status, and the process of
assimilation is far on its way, if not substantially complete. In
a majority of cases, he has passed out of the category of what is
usually known as “common labor.”


Another thing, conspicuous here as in no other country where “labor”
might be regarded as directly a political factor, is the fact that
even had these thousands of men been individually available for
prompt assimilation, or manageable in their groups as material for
political manipulation, they have constituted such a hodge-podge
of conflicting racial and national antecedents, prejudices, and
inhibitions that any coherent political action by them always has
been out of the question. Scandinavian and Slav, Austrian and
Italian, British and German, Greek and Turk; Protestant and Catholic,
Jew and Gentile--to say nothing of those smaller clan, village,
and even family feuds, often of long-forgotten origin, within the
racial groups ... at every turn some hoary animosity, born, perhaps,
centuries ago out of historic or obscure conflicts of which the
average native-born American maybe never heard in his life, has kept
and doubtless long will continue to keep these racial groups apart
and practically preclude any possibility of getting them to work
together. The events and political by-products of the World War have
only further confused and intensified these causes of disunion.

The Socialists alone, of all the considerable political parties, have
tried to unite “labor” (chiefly meaning unskilled labor) by efforts
to convince all the racial groups of a common political interest
superior to any racial interest. They have almost completely failed.

Politicians, large and small, have been to some extent aware of
this diversity of traditions and interests among the racial groups,
based upon ancient or current controversies in old countries; but
their approach to the subject always has been pragmatical and
opportunistic, and usually unintelligent without real information
about or understanding of the explosive matters with which they
were meddling, or any but temporary or local concern about the
consequences. The Fiume controversy, interesting both Italians and
Jugo-Slavs; the Irish situation; the war between the Poles and the
Bolsheviki in Russia; and conspicuously the whole stupendous question
of the League of Nations--all are fine examples of international and
interracial conflicts and emergencies of which American politicians
of both parties have taken advantage for their own purposes without
regard to consequences to the welfare of the world--or of their own
country, for that matter.


As we have seen, the foreign born who become citizens, and as such
are eligible to participate in our political processes, do so on
the average only after a residence in this country of more than
ten years. Also, notwithstanding the legend to the contrary, there
appears to be no material distinction of race in their interest in
our politics or their desire to become citizens. But it would be a
cardinal mistake to suppose that the great mass of the unnaturalized
foreign born, who have no votes themselves, represent no political
influence. Neighborhood sentiment is a very great force in politics.
The politician pays special heed to the wishes of voters; but he
is exceedingly mindful of the desires, enthusiasms, and hatreds of
those in his district who are audible all the year round. This is
all the more true when he is of the same racial origin as the bulk
of the population that surrounds him in a “Little Italy,” a “Little
Hungary,” a “New Bohemia,” or a “Ghetto.”


What we have said of the mythical “labor vote” is equally true of
the mythical “foreign vote.” Under circumstances of tense feeling
between Italians and Jugo-Slavs, between Irish and English-born,
between Swedes and Norwegians, the vote of Italian-born citizens
and those of Serbian antecedents cannot be corralled together for
a candidate of either racial origin, or for a ticket representing
sympathy or tolerance for either, and so on down the lines; but no
politician ever has been able to unite in one political movement all
the heterogeneous mass that could, by any stretch of words, be called
the “foreign vote.” There is no “foreign vote,” any more than there
is a “labor vote.”

The wholesale enfranchisement of women, native and foreign-born
citizens alike, under the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, brings into the situation a new and confusing
factor, about which it would be perilous to prophesy. Foreign-born
women, largely ignorant of everything that we are accustomed
to regard as “American,” subject to all of the influences and
limitations involved in the word “foreign,” are swept by our
naturalization laws helter-skelter into citizenship by the mere fact
of their marriage or filial relation to a naturalized man, without
any restrictions as to length of residence or personal fitness. And
now the constitutional amendment has armed them with the ballot, with
the potential capacity not only to strengthen, but to offset and
nullify, the vote of the intelligent; not only to offset and nullify,
but to double the political power of the ignorant, the misled, and
the corrupt. Fortunately, however, as we have pointed out elsewhere,
this is a potential rather than an actual peril. The foreign-born
woman is, and will continue to be, very slow in assuming the power
for mischief, or for good, which we have thrust upon her.[163]


There was a day in American political history when, especially in
the great cities along the Atlantic seaboard, the immigrant, in many
cases the newly landed immigrant, was herded to the ballot box,
sometimes without even the empty formality of naturalization, to cast
an open ballot thrust into his hand by his padrone or some one else
of his race who saw to it that he got his pay, usually in cash, but
sometimes in the form of a job. Such practices, while they survive
sporadically in out-of-the-way mining regions or the like where
supervision of elections is lax or lacking, are no longer in vogue.

The naturalization law of 1906, faithfully executed by the
Naturalization Bureau, has completely abolished the old
naturalization frauds and abuses, and the increasingly effective
protection surrounding the ballot box, with the substitution of
official ballots for the old voting ticket or open ballot, with more
or less of the nonpartisan, alphabetical arrangement of candidates
known as the “Australian” ballot, has made direct corruption, vote
buying, not only perilous as a form of crime, but relatively useless
because of the difficulty of knowing whether the goods are delivered.
There is still bribery, but more and more it takes the form of
payment for voting at all, of continued tenure of jobs within the
gift or control of politicians and other oblique and indirect forms
of remuneration.

It would be possible to occupy much space in this volume with a
history of bygone days, when naturalization was a farce and a
scandal, and the ignorant immigrant vote a real factor in American
politics. As early as 1835, this was a source of alarm to the native
Americans, the emotion being intensified and complicated by the
religious sectarianism which was a large factor in the nativistic
Know-Nothing movement. Congress was memorialized about

  ... the ease with which foreigners of doubtful morals and hostile
  political principles acquired the right to vote, and pointed to
  this as a source of real danger to the country. The petitioners saw
  with great concern the influx of Roman Catholics. To such persons,
  as men, they had no dislike. To their religion, as a religion, they
  had no objection. But against their political opinions, interwoven
  with their religious belief, they asked legislation.[164]

In those days the “New Immigration,” though the distinction
between “old” and “new” now current had not been created, was more
particularly of Irish and German--both races now generally regarded
as of the “old,” the more desirable kind!

Ostrogorski, in his _Democracy and the Party System in the United
States_, says:[165]

  Owing to the facilities offered by the American naturalization
  laws, the immigrants began to enjoy the rights of citizenship after
  a short period of residence. Ignorant, with no political education,
  these new members of the Commonwealth took service at once in the
  party organization, and blindly followed the word of command.
  Coming from countries the inhabitants of which were languishing in
  wretchedness and degradation, as in Ireland, or gasping under the
  vexatious regime of police-ridden and grandmotherly governments,
  as in Germany with its _Polezei-Staat_, the immigrants could not
  resist the seduction of the word “democrat,” and joined the ranks
  of the Democratic organization wholesale, bound hand and foot.

Ostrogorski took his view from the situation in New York City, as
many other writers have done; overlooking the fact that to a great
extent the new voter, both native and foreign-born, has usually and
naturally followed first the political partisan preference of his
father and his racial associates, and second, the trend of party
success. The dominating party machine in any city naturally has the
prestige of success, and its ability to deliver patronage, large
and small, draws those to whom a job is the vitally important thing
in life. In New York City the power of the ignorant vote always has
been a great source of strength to Tammany, which happens to be
Democratic; in Philadelphia the same thing may be said of the local
organization, which happens to be Republican.


It is a common impression that the backbone of political corruption
lies in the so-called “foreign vote.” Ostrogorski paid his respects
to that idea. Said he:[166]

  The most shameless venality is often met with in the country
  districts, particularly in the states of the Atlantic seaboard;
  nay, even in New England, inhabited by the descendants of the
  Puritans. Votes are sold there openly, like an article of commerce;
  there is a regular market quotation for them. And it is not only
  needy people Who make a traffic of their votes, but well-to-do
  farmers, of American stock, pious folk who always go to church on
  Sunday. If the farmer’s son is an elector and dwells under the
  paternal roof the father receives the price of his vote and that of
  their help, who is under a sort of moral obligation to vote for the
  same candidate as his master. A good many would not take a bribe
  from the party which they regard as hostile; they keep faith with
  their own party, but they, none the less, demand money for their
  vote, in the form of an indemnity for their trouble, for loss of
  time, for traveling expenses. In some country districts a quarter
  or a third of the electors make money out of their votes.


Once at least in our political history we had an opportunity to
see Ostrogorski’s assertion convincingly illustrated, and legally
attested by “judicial notice” of a competent court, in the case
of Adams County, Ohio, where, a decade ago, in 1910, one brave
local judge, by the name of A. Z. Blair, haled before him a whole
countryside of farmers, and disfranchised for confessed corruption
pretty much the whole population. Here was exactly the situation
described by Ostrogorski--“votes sold openly, like an article of
commerce,” ... “a regular market quotation,” ... “well-to-do farmers,
of American stock,” ... “a third of the electors make money out of
their votes.” By stress of a special grand jury Judge Blair brought
out complete and all but universal confessions, and imposed fines and
disfranchisement upon the majority of voters in a whole rural county.

  It is instructive [said the _Outlook_ in its editorial comment]
  to note that this slump of citizenship has not occurred among
  foreigners or negroes, nor in the slums of cities, but in a purely
  rural population, and among voters of native American stock.[167]


Incidentally it may be remarked that in all this business of
election bribery, which in past years has been all but omnipresent
in American politics, the emphasis is laid upon those, American or
foreign-born, who _sell_ their votes. Even if it were true that the
purchasable voter was chiefly the voter of alien race, _every sale
implies a purchase_. Before any voter can sell his vote, somebody
must be prepared to buy it. The seat of corruption lies, not in the
venal voter alone, but also in the system that gathers money for the
purpose of buying him. And that system, from the very beginning, has
been devised and engineered by the American politician, and those
behind him in American business life who desire to control elections
and the people’s representative selected therein, for their own
“business” ends. It would not be difficult to point to elections of
very great importance in America--even Presidential elections--in
which the vote of great states was swayed one way or the other by the
margin represented by the out-and-out purchase of votes at so much
per head. Nor would any person above the age of six years seriously
debate the question of the native-American origin of the people who
incited and paid for the corruption.

William S. Bennet, then a member of Congress from New York City, and
of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, put his
finger exactly on the center of this question when he said:[168]

  Much of our trouble in the past has sprung from the belief among
  newly made citizens, justified by far too much evidence, that we
  ourselves have regarded elections as contentions to be decided
  not at all by argument, persuasion, or reason, but by trickery,
  treachery, bribery, perjury, assault, forgery, deceit and even
  murder.... The new and impressionable citizen of even but twenty
  years ago had held out to him at election inducements to all that
  was worst in his character. If he held our elections and our
  institutions lightly, we had ourselves to blame for it.... Man
  moves much along lines of least resistance, and the stranger adapts
  himself to conditions as he finds them. Make your elections riotous
  and corrupt, and your new-made, foreign-born citizen riots and
  sells his vote with the native-born....

  The new citizen has neither political inheritance, prejudice, nor
  scars of conflict. He votes always in the present, sometimes for
  the future, but never in the past. Being poor, it is quite true
  that when there is corruption, he is among those approached. Being
  ambitious, the lure of minor place sometimes weighs with him more
  than principle.

Mr. Bennet, on the same occasion, emphasized the fact that a sharp
distinction must be drawn between the mass of immigrants constituting
the bulk of the foreign population, especially in the cities, and the
small portion thereof actually participating in political activities:

  It should be carefully borne in mind that in no great city is
  the naturalized voter a newly arrived immigrant.... In cities
  the newly made voter is a resident in this country certainly for
  five, and usually for more, years, before he votes even for the
  first time. Candidates in foreign-speaking localities frequently
  address audiences the majority of whom, either by age or alienage,
  are unable to vote.... The 644,000 electors who had a right to
  participate in our recent election were, thus, either native-born
  or having five years or more of residence. Of the 644,000 who
  registered about 590,000 voted. These divided their votes roughly
  as follows: Gaynor, Tammany and Democrat, 250,000; Bannard,
  Republican and Fusion, 175,000; Hearst, 150,000. Four years ago,
  the vote was, Tammany, 226,000; Hearst, 224,000; Republican,
  137,000. Therefore this year both the Tammany and Republican
  candidates gained at the expense of Hearst. The exact significance
  of this is immaterial and accounted for readily by a variety of
  causes. The important fact remains that 150,000 voters, without
  particular leadership or organization, left the party ranks and
  voted for an individual of their choice.

There is no substantial support, either in any careful study of
elections as a whole or in particular, or in the experience of those
who have lived close to the political processes of our country, for
the widespread impression that the foreign-born voter is more given
to or victim of political corruption than any other class.


It is exceedingly difficult to identify the part played in any
particular election, or in elections generally, by foreign-born
voters. Political leaders and others who make analyses of election
returns have their theories and prepossessions, and find in figures
what they want to find, to defend policies, support theories, and
sustain positions generally. In the presidential election of 1920,
this was especially evident. Those who supported the Republican
ticket and platform and those who supported the Democratic; those
violently opposed to the League of Nations and those devotedly in
favor of it--alike found in the election returns, manipulated to
suit their views, sustenance for argument as to the part played in
the result by this, that, and the other racial group or political
faction. Even the Socialists, whose basic theory is the most
definitely declared of all political theories, find in a growing vote
evidences of wide acceptance of their doctrines; in its shrinkage
merely the desertion of mere protestors or sentimentalists who
really do not understand Socialism at all! Personal prejudice and
predilection exhibit themselves notoriously in political figuring.
The process usually consists of more or less gratuitous assumptions,
from which one may prove statistically--whatever he wants to prove.

An exceptional instance of an attempt to analyze an election without
preliminary bias appears in a study of “The Political Mind of
Foreign-born Americans,” contributed by Dr. Abram Lipsky to _Popular
Science Monthly_ several years ago,[169] in which he undertook by
analysis of the election returns from a number of Assembly Districts
in Greater New York, predominantly of a certain racial complexion, to
infer the attitude of those racial groups on certain subjects. But it
is clear that the inferences, however they may have been justified
by the figures from this election, were based upon questionable
assumptions. Still more important, it is altogether fallacious to
assume that in another election, wherein the issues were stated
differently or the general political atmosphere was different, these
very districts, these very individual voters of whatever race, might
not vote quite otherwise. A state of mind among the Italian-born
voters, provoked, for example, by their understanding of the attitude
of Mr. Wilson on the subject of Fiume, might produce Republican
votes in one election; whereas a year later, in an election in
which their interests at home or abroad were believed by them to be
otherwise affected, their votes might be overwhelmingly Democratic.

One of the questions which Doctor Lipsky undertook to answer from the
election figures was whether the voters in the selected districts
“read the Hearst papers regularly.” He inferred his answer from
the vote cast in those districts for the candidates which happened
to be favored by the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst.
But the basic assumption was fallacious, overlooking entirely the
notorious fact that repeatedly elections in New York City have been
won in spite of the opposition, or lost in spite of the support,
of virtually the entire newspaper press of the city. As logically
might one assume from any election that the vote, pro or contra, on
any subject represented the circulation of some particular group of
newspapers whose views the election indorsed.

Nearer the probabilities, but still subject to the same kind of
discount, is Doctor Lipsky’s generalization as to the showing of one
election on the subject of the attitude of certain racial groups as
regards Tammany Hall and Socialism. This analysis is not without a
certain degree of general significance.

Doctor Lipsky’s conclusion that “native-born Americans of American
parents are opposed to Tammany government” is based upon a comparison
of figures from districts predominantly of native Americans, in the
elections for governor in 1910 and for mayor of New York in 1913, his
primary assumption being that the candidacy of Judge Edward E. McCall
for mayor embodied “Tammany” pure and simple, while that of John A.
Dix for governor did not make “Tammany” a state issue. From this
point of view Doctor Lipsky interprets the fact that the percentage
of votes for McCall in those districts was strikingly lower than
those for Dix in the state election of three years before:



                      |  PER CENT |          |
    ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | OF NATIVE |   1913   |    1910
                      |  PARENTS  |  MCCALL  |    DIX
  15th Manhattan      |   45.3    |   33.7   |    58.1
  19th    “           |   40.0    |   33.2   |    52.3
  25th    “           |   44.1    |   35.3   |    48.4
  27th    “           |   51.5    |   37.6   |    55.8
   4th Queens         |   41.3    |   31.1   |    46.2
  17th Brooklyn       |   45.6    |   24.7   |    43.6
  11th    “           |   38.0    |   34.9   |    50.5
  18th                |   39.0    |   28.3   |    46.3
   5th                |   38.1    |   25.3   |    44.1
  10th    “           |   38.6    |   36.6   |    53.3

But the Russians and Austrians also said “No” to Tammany, as Doctor
Lipsky reads the figures:



                 |RUSSIANS|AUSTRIANS|  BOTH  |        |
     ASSEMBLY    |  PER   |   PER   |   PER  |  1913  |  1910
     DISTRICT    |  CENT  |  CENT   |  CENT  | MCCALL |   DIX
   8th Manhattan |  54.4  |   14.2  |  68.6  |  40.2  |  52.3
   6th    “      |  30.4  |   30.8  |  61.2  |  22.8  |  40.0
   4th    “      |  35.6  |   25.2  |  60.2  |  51.1  |  61.7
  26th    “      |  34.6  |    6.7  |  41.3  |  30.0  |  41.0
   2d     “      |  35.6  |    1.4  |  37.0  |  57.6  |  67.5
  10th    “      |  22.3  |   12.5  |  34.8  |  29.3  |  52.2
  31st    “      |  12.9  |    4.9  |  17.8  |  24.1  |  44.7
  21st Brooklyn  |  31.2  |    5.9  |  37.1  |  27.1  |  48.6
  23d     “      |  33.3  |    3.9  |  37.2  |  25.7  |  40.9
  14th    “      |  16.1  |    5.9  |  22.0  |  46.6  |  61.5
  22d     “      |  13.0  |    3.0  |  16.0  |  24.3  |  38.5

The Irish voted for Tammany, as usual:



   ASSEMBLY DISTRICT | PER CENT |  1913  |  1910
                     | OF IRISH | MCCALL |   DIX
  13th Manhattan     |   16.4   |  61.0  |  58.1
  16th    “          |   14.0   |  51.7  |  61.4
  11th    “          |   12.2   |  55.6  |  60.5
  14th    “          |   12.4   |  54.7  |  61.2
   5th    “          |   11.2   |  64.4  |  67.6

Allowance must be made here for some falling off of the vote in a
municipal as compared with a state election; but a still greater
allowance must be made for the fact that “Tammany” was indeed a
state issue--Dix was distinctly charged by the opposition with
being Tammany’s candidate, and there were, as always, confusing and
inestimable factors of a subtle kind--such, for instance, as the fact
that McCall had an Irish name, and Dix didn’t; or that the name “John
A. Dix” had a sound historically familiar--even if not one regularly
American-born person in a hundred could remember who the historic
“John A. Dix” was!

Some years the Germans are supposed to have supported Tammany; this
particular time Doctor Lipsky seems to find that they did not--in
districts in which Germans made up a considerable percentage of the
population. (See Table XL.)

Think what you will of the Italians’ attitude toward Tammany; you
can stress the fact that the vote for McCall was so much below that
of three years before for Dix, or you can philosophize about the
fact that it was no greater! Doctor Lipsky’s inference that, on
the whole, they supported Tammany is based on the figures from six
districts. (See Table XLI.)



    ASSEMBLY DISTRICT |  PER CENT  |  1913  |  1910
                      | OF GERMANS | MCCALL |   DIX
   3d  Queens         |    21.4    |  31.1  |  49.8
  20th Brooklyn       |    20.2    |  26.8  |  41.8
  19th    “           |    13.6    |  31.9  |  48.3
  23d     “           |    11.2    |  34.6  |  49.4
   1st Queens         |    11.1    |  41.4  |  55.2
  22d  Manhattan      |    21.2    |  38.4  |  50.2



     ASSEMBLY DISTRICT |  PER CENT   |  1913  |  1910
                       | OF ITALIANS | MCCALL |   DIX
   3d  Manhattan       |    30.3     |  67.6  |  77.7
   1st    “            |    25.2     |  59.6  |  67.8
  28th    “            |    26.8     |  42.6  |  55.8
   3d  Brooklyn        |    23.2     |  63.7  |  73.1
   2d  Manhattan       |    18.5     |  57.6  |  67.4

“We are able,” says Doctor Lipsky, “to say that a decided ‘no’ was
given to Tammany by native Americans of native parents, and by the
Russians and Germans; a decided ‘Yes’ was given by the Italian and

The thing that stands out in these figures, whatever else may be
said, would seem to be the fact that, like the native Americans of
native parentage, the voters of foreign racial antecedents changed
their support with changing circumstances and influences. The
conventional view of the foreign-born voter is that he votes in
herds, as he is told to vote, and that in New York City Tammany does
the herding. Well, in the mayoralty election of 1913, judging by
these figures, it is evident that Tammany’s “herding” was not wholly
successful with those “new-immigration” voters classed as Russians
and Austrians! All sorts of factors, local and general, fundamental
and temporary, almost Wholly incalculable, enter into elections, and
one is free to analyze and interpret to suit himself.

On the subject of the “political mind of the foreign-born voter” as
regards Socialism, Doctor Lipsky presents some interesting figures
from ten assembly districts in which the Socialist candidate for
mayor in 1913 received over 10 per cent of the total vote.



                |  SOCIALIST  |NATIVE|      |      |     |      |
     ASSEMBLY   |    VOTE     |  OF  |      |      |     |      |
                | 1910 | 1913 |PAREN-| IAN  |      |     | IAN  |  IAN
                |      |      | TAGE |      |      |     |      |
  21st Brooklyn | 12.4 | 16.1 | 12.6 |  5.9 |  4.1 | ... |  9.1 | 31.2
  23d     “     | 12.5 | 15.8 | 19.6 |  3.9 |  2.2 | 1.6 |  4.6 | 33.3
  19th    “     | 11.0 | 12.8 | 12.6 |   .8 | 13.6 | ... |  9.9 | 11.9
   4th Manhattan| 12.6 | 11.9 |  7.0 | 25.2 |   .4 | 1.1 |  2.5 | 35.6
  26th    “     | 10.2 | 11.8 |  7.1 |  6.7 |  4.6 | 3.8 |  1.4 | 34.6
   8th    “     | 14.6 | 11.7 |  2.5 | 14.2 |   .7 | ... |  4.1 | 54.4
  22d     “     | 13.1 | 11.7 | 10.6 |  4.6 | 21.2 | 5.3 |  1.6 |  3.6
   6th    “     | 10.0 | 11.2 |  2.4 | 30.8 |  1.1 |  .7 |   .7 | 30.4
  24th    “     | 10.4 | 11.2 | 11.1 |  3.9 |  4.3 | 6.2 | 11.1 | 20.6
  10th    “     | 11.1 | 10.8 |  5.9 | 12.5 |  4.7 | ... | 13.9 | 22.3

“Our conclusion therefore is,” says Doctor Lipsky, “that the bulk of
the Socialist vote is derived from the foreign Jewish element, and
to a less degree from the Germans.”

Perhaps, but one may not ignore, for instance, the fact that in
the district of these containing the largest percentage of native
Americans of native parentage, the Socialist vote for Governor in
1910 was 12.5 per cent of the whole; or that in the one in which the
Russian and Austrian percentage was very small and the German larger
than in any other of the districts selected, the Socialist vote was
about 13 per cent. We shall see later in this chapter the importance
of the German factor in the Socialist party.

All such analyses of particular elections, we may say again, are
interesting and in a measure instructive; but generalizations
are exceedingly perilous and greatly conditioned by personal
preconceptions, special temporary and local forces and circumstances,
and the purposes of the statistician for the time being--for all of
which the candid student will, and must, make heavy discounts.


Coming to the question of the Progressive party’s campaign in 1912,
Doctor Lipsky says, in part:

  One of two facts in the election of 1912 ... are extremely
  suggestive even though they do not cover the whole ground. In that
  election Roosevelt ran ahead of Wilson in only four districts of
  the city. One was the 23d of Manhattan, in which Taft also ran
  ahead of Wilson--a strong Republican district. The other three
  were the 6th, the 8th, and the 26th, the three districts in which
  the Russians and Austrians constitute the great majority of the

So there you are--make what you will of it. Why should the very
districts in which we found heavy percentages of Russians and
Austrians, and a relatively heavy Socialist vote, produce a
preponderant vote for Roosevelt and the Progressive platform? Is
there, after all, a common factor, overlooked--or anyway not dwelt
upon--by Doctor Lipsky, to account for what otherwise might seem
inexplicable? Here again one may philosophize to suit himself, but it
is worth while to consider one phase of the matter too often ignored
in discussions of the motives and impulses behind the radical vote.

William S. Bennet, previously quoted in the same address, dwelt upon
this matter in speaking of the influence of Mr. Hearst:[170]

  Mr. Hearst’s vote among the foreign born was great, and, more
  than the other two candidates combined [speaking of an election
  in which Mr. Hearst was himself a candidate], he attracted that
  vote. It becomes important to analyze Mr. Hearst’s appeal. Much
  of it we find to have been on right lines. We cannot quarrel,
  because of those views, with a candidate who asks votes because he
  has fought against railroad rebates, corporation exactions, and
  fraudulent elections. Under New York City conditions we cannot
  quarrel with one who advocates the building of immediate transit
  facilities with city money. It was also rather begging the question
  to assert that Mr. Hearst exaggerated his efforts and usefulness
  in relation to those matters. The personal and temperamental
  fitness of a candidate is always an element to be considered,
  and in Mr. Hearst’s case it was, though more in private than in
  public discussion. His record as a persistent absentee during his
  congressional service and the legitimate argument from it that he
  would be a negligent mayor, cost Mr. Hearst more votes among those
  friendly to him among the foreign born than he probably imagines.

  Mr. Hearst never made an appeal for support on the ground that
  it would be of any personal assistance to himself. His appeal
  was frequently to the self-interest of the individual, and quite
  generally to his highest interest as a citizen in the welfare
  of the whole body politic. He favored policies because, in his
  expressed judgment, they were right, not because they might be
  immediately successful; and opposed others because wrong, though by
  many deemed expedient.

The point to be noted, then, is that in the propaganda of the
Socialists, of the Progressive party, of Mr. Hearst, there was much
stress upon and slogans about the common welfare, the improvement of
social conditions, the square deal, honest politics and government,
human brotherhood. The note never was outwardly selfish or
materialistic. Always, in the main, it was idealism--whatever may
have been the private motives actually underlying in any particular

It is the common experience of those who have worked with the
foreign-born voter that he usually is responsive to this kind of
appeal. Is it not really a tribute to ourselves, as well as an index
of his own idea of what “America” stands for, that he acts at the
ballot box as if he would like to see these things incarnated in the
life of his adopted country?

Mr. Bennet went on to say that “we learn, certainly, concerning our
most recent citizens, from the Hearst vote”:

  1. They are independent voters.

  2. They are not constrained to remain in the party in power

  3. Nor do they remain with a party simply because it is usually
  dominant locally.

  4. They are not afraid to sacrifice immediate possible benefit by
  attaching themselves to a lesser party and temporary movement.

  5. They are moved by appeals to good citizenship.

  6. They are quite certain to range themselves on the right side of
  a question of morals.

  7. A certain proportion of them are moved by direct appeals, based
  on alleged class distinctions.

  8. The thinly veiled policy of license advanced by the Tammany
  candidate did not draw them from Mr. Hearst, though he vigorously
  condemned license and its advocacy.

And Mr. Bennet added, “these things have been proved concerning the
immigrant. Without going into specifications, which are, however,
well understood locally, these things are _not_ proved”:

  1. That he always votes for a fellow countryman or a coreligionist.

  2. That he can be invariably stampeded by a race or religious issue.

  3. That he votes blindly.


It is impossible to forecast the working out in our politics of the
passions aroused by the World War among the various racial groups by
the relations and enmities of their respective fatherlands in that
vast turmoil, and the effects of the behavior of native-American
elements toward particular races, and even toward “foreigners”
generally. It is evident that for any intelligent understanding of
what, in the long run and under approximately normal conditions, are
the political attitudes and activities, we must derive our facts
largely from an earlier period--at least antedating the armistice
and the bitter conflicts growing out of the Peace Treaty and the
partisanship characterizing the controversy about the League of
Nations which so greatly confused the issues in the presidential
election of 1920.

A series of elections in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, in the period
between 1911 and 1918 seemed to offer opportunities for study of a
number of large racial groups under reasonably normal conditions.
It is not claimed that this Study was conclusive in its results
or fully scientific in its method; but it certainly produced a
significant exhibit of facts, and in general confirmed what is
known to everyone who ever has worked With or candidly observed at
first hand the part played by the foreign-born voter in American
politics--namely, that he is in no important respect different from
the native-born; that he is swayed by the same motives and emotions,
and is not essentially different in respect of responsiveness to
appeals to his civic pride.

The first step was to select for study a group of election precincts
including as large a proportion as possible of the various
nationalities, and for comparison another group of districts which
would show the action of native-born voters. Ten of the latter
were selected, including populations both relatively wealthy and
relatively poor, and both habitually Republican and habitually
Democratic. For foreign-born racial groups the following were
selected as most important: Czechs, Magyars, Poles, Jugo-Slavs,
Italians, and Jews. Owing to the scattered nature of the racial
distribution, it was impossible to find a large number of districts
predominantly of any particular race; but it was possible to
segregate three for each of these races, and four for one, for
comparison with them of the native born; so that 29 precincts were
studied, as follows:



          Native born                       |  10
          Czech                             |   3
          Magyar                            |   3
          Polish                            |   3
          Jugo-Slav                         |   3
          Italian                           |   4
          Jewish                            |   3
               Total                        |  29

Eight elections were covered by the inquiry, comparing the votes for:

  Mayor         1911--Baker _vs._ Hogen.
  Mayor         1913--Baker _vs._ Davis.
  Mayor         1915--Witt, Davis, Ruthenberg.
  Mayor         1917--Stinchcomb, Davis, Ruthenberg.
  President     1916--Wilson, Hughes, Debs.
  Governor      1916--Cox _vs._ Willis.
  Governor      1918--Cox _vs._ Willis.
  Congressman   1918--Candidates differing in different districts.

The returns were examined also for indications as to attitudes about
woman suffrage and the question of no-license and prohibition, in
elections between 1912 and 1918.

Of the native-born precincts, so called, five indicated almost
straight Democratic tendencies; three were consistently Republican;
and two were of varying complexion as between the two great parties.
It should be remembered that the prevailing general complexion of the
city of Cleveland in recent years, and regardless of the “landslide”
of 1920, has been Democratic. Therefore the districts selected to
show the tendencies of the native born were fairly representative of
the situation.

The first election, 1911, was a straight partisan contest between Mr.
Baker, a Democrat, and Mr. Hogen, a Republican. In 1913, the city
tried, for the first time, its municipal nonpartisan ballot; but in
that year the old political parties were as powerful as ever. In the
election of 1915, Mr. Baker was not a candidate, but Peter Witt, long
associated with Mayor Tom L. Johnson, was the Democratic candidate.
This election exhibits circumstances and results significant not only
of the attitude of the foreign-born voter and his responsiveness to
political cross-currents, but of the extreme difficulty of isolating
particular factors as especially influential upon these voters.

Mr. Witt had just completed four years of service as Street Railway
Commissioner, and among the business and professional classes of
the town had won a rather reluctant recognition for efficiency, the
reluctance being largely due to the fact that in days when he was
campaigning for Tom Johnson he had been regarded as ultra-radical.
But his opponent in this campaign had no recognized record of
administrative capacity, and the Republicans themselves acknowledged
some doubt as to his ability, compared with the known ability of
Witt, to fulfill the duties of the mayoralty. Both candidates
were regarded without opposition by the “wet” element, though Mr.
Davis was perhaps more circumspect in his utterances on the liquor
question. The campaign did not touch the questions involved in the
European War until the very end, when, on the Sunday before election,
some supporter of Davis published and widely circulated among the
Bohemians (Czechs), Russians, and Italians a pamphlet in which Witt
was bitterly accused of being pro-German.

Now the results of the election in the wards dominated by those
nationalities might rationally be held to show a pronounced effect of
that propaganda, but it was no secret, the old “aristocratic” wards
were presumably as keen about pro-Germanism as those inhabited by
voters of alien origin, and there, if anywhere, would be the seat
of the prejudice against Witt on the ground of alleged radicalism.
Why, then, did the native-born conservatives waive their prejudices
against Witt, the supposed radical, and overlook the charges of
pro-Germanism? And why did the foreign born, who are conventionally
expected to be radical, suddenly turn and vote against the only
candidate who was accused of being radical? Why did Mr. Witt gain
nothing in the heavily German wards (as in fact he did gain nothing)
from his German name, his remote German ancestry, and the accusation
of pro-Germanism? It was further noted at the time that among the
Russian Jews the attack upon Witt turned many normally Democratic
votes to the Davis Republican candidate. Why?

The following tables show what happened in the precincts studied:



                      | NUMBER OF VOTES | NUMBER OF VOTES
      PRECINCTS       |       1913      |       1915
                      | Baker  |  Davis |  Witt  |  Davis
  Native born         |   945  | 1,091  | 1,039  |   925
  Czech               |   343  |   223  |   275  |   373
  Magyar              |   207  |   204  |   302  |   204
  Polish              |   263  |   208  |   205  |   473
  Jugo-Slav           |   283  |   135  |   279  |   137
  Italian             |   239  |   282  |   136  |   394
  Jewish              |   260  |   256  |   273  |   212

The three elections following--the presidential in 1916, the
mayoralty election in 1917, and the governorship election in
1918--exhibit no tendencies attributable either to the war or to
any special causes from which one may generalize anything with
regard to the political activities and attitudes of the foreign-born
voters which would distinguish them from the native-born. In 1912
Wilson carried Polish, Magyar, and Czech precincts. In 1916 he
repeated--this presumably not because of any aspect of the war, but
because those precincts are normally Democratic.

The Cleveland nonpartisan ballot provides for three choices. One of
the objections urged against the nonpartisan ballot has been that the
second and third choices would be used only by the more intelligent
voter; that the less intelligent would vote for but one. In the
elections studied in which this three-choice system was used, 20 per
cent of the native born expressed second choices; the foreign born
followed in this order:



                           |SECOND CHOICE| THIRD CHOICE
            RACE           |   PER CENT  |   PER CENT
  Native born              |      20     |      7
  Jugo-Slav                |      18     |      7
  Jews                     |      14     |      5
  Italians                 |      12     |      7
  Magyars and Bohemians    |      10     |      7
  Polish                   |       7     |      3

A smaller per cent exercises third choice, but three foreign-born
groups equaled the native born with 7 per cent. The Jews with 5 per
cent, Magyars with 4 per cent, Polish with 3 per cent, were the

While there is little in these figures to justify generalization,
it may be said that, on the whole, the voters presumably more
intelligent are in practice rather afraid of the second- and
third-choice business because they recognize some danger that in
expressing a second choice they may, in the final count, negative
their first choice; therefore there is a marked tendency among
the politically sophisticated to vote only a first choice. At all
events, no substantial distinction can be drawn from any available
statistics between native and foreign born, as such, with regard to
their intelligence or their tendencies in the use of such a device.

When one comes to consider what might be called the _human_ aspects
of politics, these elections in Cleveland show, what elections
everywhere show, interesting but in no way surprising facts. One
is that the voters of any race tend to support a candidate of that
race, or a man well known as friendly to its members. Mr. Davis was
exceedingly well known and popular among the Bohemians, who are both
numerically strong and racially influential in Cleveland. In the
first election studied, that of 1911, Mr. Baker, a Democrat, carried
the three Bohemian (Czech) precincts by substantial pluralities as
against Mr. Hogen. His total vote in these precincts aggregated 445
to Hogen’s 183. But in 1913 Mr. Davis carried one of the precincts.
And over against this fact is the consideration that in 1913 Baker
was generally much weaker as a candidate than in 1911--for reasons
having no appreciable racial bearing. In 1915, as shown in the table
above, there was a heavy swing in the three Bohemian districts in
favor of Davis, the Republican candidate.

Under the head of _human_ tendencies one may consider the question
of the immigrants’ attitude toward prohibition. The reaction is just
what would be expected from voters of foreign extraction. The Magyars
(Hungarians), normally Democratic, swung greatly enhanced Democratic
pluralities when that party was recognized as opposed to prohibition.
And the old-country attitudes about the position of woman showed
clearly in the vote on woman suffrage, as they all voted against the
“dry” proposals and candidates.

In the earlier days in Cleveland the Italians were led by a very
influential Italian who was a Republican, and until recent years
the Italian vote was preponderantly Republican. Now, however, the
Cleveland politicians will tell you that this preponderance has
passed; the Italians are said to be fairly evenly divided. But in any
particular election the Italian vote may sway this way or that, under
the influence of temporary factors that swing elections everywhere.
In one Italian precinct, in four municipal elections, the Republican
candidate was preferred in every case. Hughes had a small plurality
over Wilson. But in two state elections the Democrats won--admittedly
because the Republican candidate was regarded as “dry.”

Again the human factor--take the Jews. One of the Cleveland precincts
studied is made up of an overwhelming majority of the more prosperous
class of Jewish people. The other two are located in the Ghetto of
the city. There is no similarity in the political trends of the two
parts of the city. The wealthier Jews vote as a rule for Democrat or
Republican. In 1917 the Socialist candidate for mayor carried both of
the poorer districts. But do the Jews move away from the Socialist
districts because they are opposed to Socialism, or do they turn from
Socialism when they become more prosperous?

Persistent in most of the studies of this subject is the fallacy of
assuming or attempting to find some constant factor attaching either
to this or that particular race, or to the state of being foreign
born or of foreign antecedents. The Jugo-Slavs in Cleveland are said,
and appear to be shown in the statistics above, to be preponderantly
Democratic. In 1916 Wilson received in the three Jugo-Slav precincts
more than 70 per cent of the total vote. But, aside from the fact
that Socialism is or has been at times politically strong among the
Jugo-Slavs, we have no data to show how Jugo-Slavs voted in districts
where they are in the minority; we do not know why they voted for
Wilson in 1916, or how many of them did so vote. The 70 per cent
above referred to included large numbers of voters in those precincts
who were of other racial complexion, and the individual ballot in no
instance discloses the inner mind of the voter.


When we come down to the larger question, of the response of voters
of foreign birth and origin to constructive efforts to interest
them in civic matters, we are on surer ground. Given a sufficiently
comprehensive survey, we can tell whether the “foreign wards” of
a city are apathetic toward movements which they can recognize as
embodying concrete things close to their own lives, and meaning a
forward step in public administration. The testimony of all sorts
of workers among the foreign born is unanimous on this point.
The foreign-born voters are more responsive to things of this
kind than the native-born. Possibly this is because their more
recent introduction into American life makes them more naïve, less
blasé--what you will as to the reason, the fact remains the same.

It so happens that we have a peculiarly apt and informing exhibit
of this in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in statistics of
five elections involving questions of municipal import, and showing
in most striking fashion the results of a sustained effort, not to
influence votes this way or that, but to impress citizens with the
importance of voting at all. The following tables show the total
vote cast in the three wards of the city of Grand Rapids at these


  GRAND RAPIDS, 1918, 1919

                               First Ward
          |     COMPLEXION    | 1918 | 1918 |  1918  | 1919 |  1919
   1st    | Lithuanian        |   95 |  144 |    178 |  222 |   316
   2d     | Dutch             |  267 |  402 |    443 |  483 |   601
   3d     | Polish            |  359 |  608 |    672 |  721 | 1,105
   4th    | American          |  197 |  311 |    347 |  358 |   593
   5th    | American          |  334 |  508 |    555 |  757 | 1,063
   6th    | Polish            |  239 |  386 |    407 |  532 |   764
   7th    | Polish            |  305 |  464 |    541 |  729 |   946
   8th    | American          |  213 |  338 |    386 |  536 |   719
   9th    | German            |  210 |  349 |    419 |  535 |   752
  10th    | Mixed             |  296 |  425 |    455 |  682 |   909
  11th    | Mixed             |  263 |  427 |    484 |  643 |   899
  12th    | American          |  260 |  403 |    461 |  685 |   940

                              Second Ward
   1st    | American          |  270 |  438 |    499 |  682 |   907
   2d     | American          |  251 |  322 |    423 |  557 |   796
   3d     | American          |  360 |  519 |    549 |  738 |   885
   4th    | American          |  227 |  393 |    434 |  475 |   658
   5th    | Polish            |  166 |  227 |    291 |  363 |   467
   6th    | Polish            |  277 |  449 |    514 |  721 |   952
   7th    | American          |  292 |  407 |    496 |  837 |   881
   8th    | American          |  206 |  300 |    375 |  574 |   732
   9th    | American          |  129 |  245 |    324 |  238 |   434
  10th    | Dutch             |  314 |  451 |    546 | 1,002| 1,139
  11th    | Dutch             |  240 |  373 |    418 |  594 |   726
  12th    | American          |  231 |  399 |    476 |  783 |   931
  13th    | American          |  409 |  588 |    671 | 1,063| 1,297
  14th    | American          |  331 |  457 |    544 | 1,085| 1,229
  15th    | Italian and Syrian|  291 |  486 |    618 | 1,168| 1,357
  16th    | Italian and Syrian|   89 |  155 |    187 |  187 |   285
  17th    | Italian and Syrian|  115 |  164 |    209 |  253 |   326

                               Third Ward
   1st    | Italian and Syrian|  178 |  247 |    328 |  379 |   540
   2d     | Italian and Syrian|   98 |  135 |    258 |  263 |   440
   3d     | American          |  318 |  551 |    680 | 1,004| 1,298
   4th    | American          |  354 |  546 |    619 |  980 | 1,203
   5th    | American          |  422 |  613 |    681 |  861 | 1,019
   6th    | American          |  241 |  380 |    433 |  674 |   848
   7th    | Dutch             |  292 |  480 |    511 |  628 |   952
   8th    | American          |  346 |  555 |    631 |  818 | 1,165
   9th    | American          |  255 |  416 |    509 |  720 |   979
  10th    | American          |  266 |  470 |    547 |  771 | 1,114
  11th    | American          |  188 |  360 |    450 |  516 |   812
  12th    | Dutch             |  291 |  488 |    578 |  717 |   986
  13th    | Dutch             |  218 |  367 |    413 |  463 |   658
  14th    | American          |  224 |  404 |    490 |  677 |   909
  15th    | American          |  124 |  224 |    272 |  417 |   604
  16th    | American          |  194 |  387 |    442 |  594 |   847
          |   Totals          |11,245|17,820|  20,774|28,705|37,983

The population of Grand Rapids, about 112,500 by the census of 1910,
by the spring of 1918 had grown to approximately 132,000. This would
afford a potential male vote of upward of 26,000; so that at the
primary election that March, considerably less than half of the
possible vote was polled. At the election in August, 1918, this was
increased to nearly 70 per cent, and to 80 per cent in November.

In 1919, however, the women came into the picture, and the efforts
of the Americanization Society[171] were redoubled to bring the
women out, first to register and then to vote. The report of the
secretary of the society (made at the annual meeting in January,
1920) states that on February 15th, the last registration day before
the March primary, 22,700 women had registered. And on March 20th,
the last registration day before the election of April 7th, women
had registered to a total of 26,500--an astounding proportion of the
possible total of women citizens of voting age in a population of
132,000. It looks very much like 100 per cent!

The last two columns in the table above show the totals including the
women voters, and the striking increase between the March primary and
the April election in 1919. With a possible total vote of upward of
50,000 we have the results of the Americanization Society’s work as
showing in the actual personal presence at the polls of at least 75
per cent of the voters of all racial groups. The vote cast on March
5, 1919, was 28,705, composed, it is said, of about half men and half
women. At the election on April 7th, nearly 38,000 votes were cast,
and it is estimated that from 7,000 to 10,000 voters were turned away
from the polling places because of inadequate election facilities. A
fairly impressive exhibit of the response of American citizenship
to an appeal to American, nonpartisan, _civic interest_, in a large
cosmopolitan city, regardless of racial complexion. Indeed, without
meaning to stress the point unduly, it may be remarked in passing
that the very few precincts which in any election failed to show a
substantial increase over the vote at the previous election, are
in every instance those in which the population is described as
predominantly of the native born.

That it was the appeal to civic interest and duty, and nothing
else, which in largest measure produced this result may be seen,
for instance, in a comparison of the registration of women in Grand
Rapids with that at the same time (February, 1919) in other Michigan
cities in which there was no such intensive campaign to get the women
out to the registration places:



          CITIES         | POPULATION|   WOMEN   | PER CENT OF
                         |           | REGISTERED| POPULATION
  Grand Rapids           |   132,000 |    22,700 |    17.0
  Saginaw                |    65,000 |     8,509 |    13.0
  Benton Harbor          |    12,000 |     1,506 |    12.5
  Traverse City          |    12,000 |     1,388 |    11.6
  Jackson                |    50,000 |     5,388 |    10.8
  Muskegon               |    42,000 |     4,500 |    10.7
  Bay City               |    50,000 |     6,290 |    10.6
  Port Huron             |    25,000 |     2,706 |    10.1
  Flint                  |    70,000 |     6,906 |     9.9
  Kalamazoo              |    50,166 |     4,308 |     8.6
  Detroit                |   986,699 |    65,040 |     6.5
  Lansing                |    55,000 |     3,000 |     6.3
  Cadillac               |    10,000 |       513 |     5.1
      Totals and average | 1,591,865 |   135,344 |     8.5

Even then, however, the Grand Rapids movement was spreading to other
Michigan cities; some of the results of that influence may well be
visible in the larger percentages shown by some of these cities.
Since then, indeed, the movement has become state-wide; and the
results already visible show notably the same facts and tendencies so
strikingly exhibited in the case of Grand Rapids, where it began.


The most conspicuously successful effort to mobilize all the
resources of a great city behind the general movement for honesty and
efficiency in city government is undoubtedly the Municipal Voters’
League of Chicago. Its record of accomplishment is too long and too
brilliant to permit any serious discouragement from the fact that
immediately following the war there appeared to be a setback and
reaction in Chicago’s local elections. For the time being there
seems to be everywhere a recession in nearly all forms of social
idealism. That is the inevitable result of the moral overstrain that
accompanies war. Much work must be done over again, but, at the
worst, it must be recognized that the tide of advance during the past
quarter-century left marks which will not be forgotten; standards
of social welfare and responsibility which, in the long run, will
continue to stand as a minimum of progress.

Another thing: Into Chicago has come, during the past few years, a
vast population of negroes from the South, among whom never anywhere
has a particle of work been done tending to teach them the smallest
thing about political responsibility or civic pride. In the election
of April, 1919, when William Hale Thompson was re-elected mayor of
Chicago, despite the opposition of all the constructive elements
in the city, a good deal more than half of Thompson’s plurality
was gained in the Second Ward, which is _the_ negro ward of the
city. It would be misleading to generalize from the results in the
foreign wards, because the issues were greatly confused by the war
and accusations of pro-Germanism against Thompson. Even so, Thompson
in that election carried only one of the heavily German wards. In
some of the wards, dominated by native-born voters, he won because,
in spite of his alleged pro-Germanism, he was the candidate of
the dyed-in-the-wool, stand-pat Republicans. The issue of decent
government, by which one would test the constructive influence of any
group of voters, was swamped in a wave of passion. So for any general
judgment of the response of racial groups, or of the foreign-born
voters as a whole, we must consider the whole experience of the
Municipal Voters’ League during its effort of twenty-five years to
raise the quality of character and public service in the city’s board
of aldermen.

The genius of this organization of public-spirited volunteers lies in
its reliance wholly upon _publicity of the records of candidates_.
These records, carefully investigated, with full opportunity for the
candidates or their friends to bring forward any facts or arguments
in their behalf, were published in the newspapers and spread
broadcast by means of pamphlets. The influence has been enormous and
accelerating. In the early days the main stress was laid upon mere
personal character--candidates must not be thieves; increasingly
during succeeding years the test came to be that of _capacity_ as
well as character. The war reactions and results have not destroyed,
but only interrupted, this magnificent work.

How did the foreign-born voter respond to this effort and propaganda?
The answer to this question, as found all through the twenty-odd
years before the entrance of the United States into the war, is
one of the most heartening things in American politics. But this
statement must be taken with discrimination, and subject to certain
qualifications. The League has had its hardest fights, and produced
the least results, in those wards where solid blocks of immigrants
of some one racial complexion encouraged a racial isolation; or
where great masses of population were under the domination of some
reactionary political or religious leadership, having some interest
in maintaining a subservient representation in the City Hall. In
the centers of poverty, where political strength is maintained by
leaders of the old type through control of day-labor jobs, gifts
of coal, shoes, and other forms of charity, it is difficult to
interest a population to whom even a vision of clean streets is of
importance secondary to to-day’s experience of empty stomachs. In a
general way it may be said that the degree of response to movements
like the Municipal Voters’ League is roughly commensurate with the
degree of material prosperity. As the immigrant gains in quality and
wage-return of his job, acquaintance with American essentials, and
comfort of material surroundings, he gains interest in the ethical
aspect of community life.

But the uplifting influence of a campaign like that of the League
penetrates even into the most obdurate regions. The Seventeenth
Ward of Chicago was long the scene of one of the hardest fights of
the League. Through the hard work of Prof. Graham Taylor and the
group of good citizens centering in and about the Chicago-Commons
social settlement, the work came to great success--and held it--as
long as the population was characteristically Scandinavian, German,
Scotch, and Irish. In recent years, however, these people gradually
moved out of the ward, and it came to be heavily Polish, under the
domination of a reactionary control of the Polish Catholic Church.
This element always has been hard to influence, and its priests are
active directly in politics. Nevertheless, in a recent aldermanic
campaign, a Polish Catholic alderman running for re-election told at
a public meeting how his daughter came home from school crying, with
a newspaper in her hand, demanding to know what her father had done
to justify the newspapers in saying he had a bad record--his record
set forth in cold type by the Municipal Voters’ League. This alderman
at that meeting declared that he had been receiving patronage for his
vote in the council, that he was going to drop that, try hereafter to
serve the best interests of his ward, and make a record of which his
children could be proud.

The Italians as a whole, in Chicago as in many other places, have
been more united in their action than most other racial groups,
and under their ancient habits of padrone leadership have shown
a tendency to accept boss rule, though the Italian voter as an
individual is no more amenable to corrupt influences than voters of
any other race.

Over the whole history of the League’s activity it has been true that
the races most responsive to its appeal are the Scandinavian, German,
Irish, and Bohemian. Given a candidate of any race, other things
being equal, the voters of that race will support him; as between two
competing outsiders, the voters of these races have been more than
willing to heed disinterested appeals from the point of view of good
government. Some of the best aldermen during the past twenty years in
Chicago have been Germans. The late Alderman Beilfuss, Republican,
a native of Germany and an excellent official, was re-elected time
after time in the Fifteenth Ward; but as the Scandinavians and
Germans--especially Lutheran Germans--moved away and the scale of
prosperity in the ward’s population deteriorated, his pluralities
diminished, and in the year before his death he won by a narrow

In the predominantly Bohemian Twelfth Ward aldermanic candidates
recommended by the League were elected almost without exception for
many years, regardless of political alignment. In that ward, from
1904 to 1909, inclusive, the Republican Bohemian and the Democratic
German candidates, both indorsed by the League, alternated in winning
elections, the pluralities running from 3,400 on one side to 3,100 on
the other--in a ward casting a total of perhaps 15,000 votes a shift
of 6,500. When Mayor Thompson, Republican, in 1915, carried the ward
by nearly 4,000, Alderman Kerner, a Bohemian Democrat of excellent
record, carried it in the same election by 3,350. In other words,
there was a politically independent swing of nearly one-half of the
15,000 votes cast in the election.

The Irish voters generally pay close attention to what the League
says. In the spring campaign of 1919, the League’s condemnation of
a Democratic Irish alderman in the Thirtieth Ward furnished his
opponent, whom the League recommended, with enough ammunition to
defeat him for renomination, whereupon an Irish Republican, a former
alderman with a good record, who received the final indorsement
of the League, turned in and beat the Democratic nominee. In the
Thirteenth Ward, largely Irish, which Mayor Thompson, Republican,
lost in 1919 by more than 4,000, a Democratic alderman condemned by
the League was defeated by a native-born Republican whom the League
indorsed, by more than 1,800 votes.


Dr. Charles W. Eliot told the Good Government Conference at
Cincinnati in 1909 of an incident in Massachusetts which reflected
the interest of foreign-born voters in political questions on their
merits regardless of racial or religious considerations:

  A few years ago, largely through the efforts of a single citizen,
  the Massachusetts Legislature changed the number of the school
  committee of Boston from twenty-four to five--in itself a
  prodigious improvement. Now, Boston is the home of three Roman
  Catholic races, the Irish, the French Canadians, and the Italians.
  The Italians have lately come in large numbers, and many of them
  are from southern Italy and not from northern Italy. What did the
  voters of Boston do in electing a school committee of five at
  large? The election was not by wards, but at large. They elected
  at the very first election--and have maintained the composition of
  the committee as then determined ever since--two Catholics, two
  Protestants, and one Jew, and the Jew has lately been the chairman
  of the committee. Now is not that creditable to the Roman Catholic
  majority in the city of Boston? They have a clear majority.
  Moreover, does it not tell us something encouraging about the
  manner in which voters of foreign birth will use the power of the
  vote in our country?

A. C. Pleydell of New York, on the same occasion, contributed a
testimony of the same general character:

  In New Jersey a large settlement of Italians in a small country
  township until lately have been the prey of the political leaders,
  who are just as corrupt as in the city. A gentleman whom I know
  who is, I believe, of a different political faith, moved out there
  some years ago and began to take an interest in the local life of
  the community. He started to clean up the school board and get
  decent schoolhouses. There were sixty or seventy Italian children
  at that little village school. The village has a population of
  only a few hundred. This man got subscriptions from these poor
  people, a little help from the outside, and contributed something
  himself. For two or three years they have had neighborhood meetings
  without regard to party, which these foreigners attended. One of
  the finest and most inspiring sights I have ever seen was at the
  school festival held in that little hall, largely filled by these
  foreigners.... These foreigners, under the leadership of this one
  man, have formed a good-government organization that has spread to
  neighboring townships.... He uses for its motto, “Put the circles
  on the square,” the square being the township and the circles being
  little group organizations. They have broken up the political ring
  in that township to-day by independent voting and nominations;
  ... as a result of this work in that township the movement has
  spread into another township which has been more corrupt, although
  inhabited almost altogether by native Americans. At the last
  election the people in that other township took an inspiration from
  the work that had been done by the foreign Italian population, and
  cleaned up their township....

  There is just as much democracy in those people as we have, and we
  do not want to lose sight of the fact that they are human beings
  just like everybody else. I am the son of an immigrant from another
  part of Europe. The immigrants from the southern part have just as
  much ambition as the immigrants from the northern part.

I. M. Wise of Cincinnati in the same discussion said:

  We have had a very fine example of the independence of the foreign
  voter during the last few years in Cincinnati. We had a movement
  started for the purpose of electing a prosecutor, and we found,
  after investigating the returns of the election, that the victory
  was due almost entirely to the foreign vote. But we had another
  example some years ago when there was a movement to sell the
  Cincinnati Southern Railway. This measure was defeated by a small
  majority, due entirely to the German citizens who usually show more
  independence than the other foreign citizens.

William Bennett Munro, in his _Government of American Cities_,[172]
discussing the reasons for the political misleading of the
foreign-born voter by corrupt leadership, points out that “the
discreet and sober use of the ballot is something not to be learned
in a day or even in a generation,” and that “it is not a matter for
surprise, then, if alien-born voters have often proved easy prey to
the sophistry and cajolery of claptrap politicians.” He says, further:

  We have the testimony of seasoned campaigners that the alien-born
  voter is inclined to think for himself if he has the opportunity;
  but too often he does not secure even that small amount of fair
  information which is necessary to furnish food for thought. As
  a rule, practically all he gets concerning the facts of the
  municipal situation comes to him in such form that it leads to one
  conclusion only.... Experience has proved that he cannot always be
  stampeded by appeals to class prejudice, or delivered blindly to
  some political faction. Given a fair chance, he is, according to
  authoritative testimony, a voter of at least normal independence.

Considering the bewilderment with which thousands of old-stock
native-born voters confront the complications of our Federal, state,
and local governments, and the complexity of our inordinately
long official ballots, it is small wonder that, like them, the
foreign-born voter, even after many years’ residence in this country,
follow shibboleths and leaders who to them represent a certain
definiteness and clarity of purpose and action. This is especially
true when the whole subject of governmental reform and efficiency
comes to them in the guise of relatively arid abstractions in
which they do not see their own interests, and by the voice of men
living in far distant parts of the community, who do not understand
their intimate problems, or speak the language of their daily
lives. In almost every instance in which the issue was made clear
and intelligible to them, the foreign-born voters of almost every
nationality have responded in surprising fashion.



It would require an exhaustive investigation, beyond the space limits
and the scope of this volume, to describe the part which the foreign
born have played in the various radical movements marking the history
of the United States. Of course, there is a sense in which anarchism,
philosophical or violent, works toward a “political” end. The attempt
to abolish all government and establish individual free will as the
only law, is in that sense political. From that point of view one
must discuss the influence of primitive Christianity, the teachings
of such philosophers as Herbert Spencer, Tolstoy, Emerson, Thoreau,
and a host of others in all countries. We confine ourselves here
to the activities of the foreign born as they affect our ordinary
political machinery and processes, participating or willfully failing
to participate at the ballot box, or at least directly influencing
political activities and policies.

We have to consider briefly the immigrant’s participation in these
forms of activity: (a) Political Socialism. (b) Populism--lately
embodied in the Nonpartisan League. (c) The Land Question--agitation,
for example, for the so-called Single Tax. (d) Antipolitical
organizations, as exemplified in the I. W. W., Communist party, etc.

It is a curious fact that radical movements in any country habitually
are attributed to the foreign born. Bismarck assured the Germans that
Socialism could not take permanent root in Germany because it was of
English origin; while Gladstone declared that the “Social Democratic”
doctrines could not abide in England because they were imported from
Germany. It is common in this country and elsewhere to assert that
Socialism is a movement inspired and carried on by Jews. There is no
sound basis for this or kindred assertions. Socialism, and radicalism
generally, are of no particular geographical or racial origin. Among
a really prosperous and contented people radicalism is an academic
affair; the common man is not interested. It is only when social
and economic conditions produce extremes of wealth and poverty, and
when primary discontent with the basis and atmosphere of daily life
is widespread, that political radicalism of any kind attracts any
but the fireside debaters. In the last analysis the only real and
effective agitator is injustice. The Socialist movement appeared in
Japan only after modern industrialism and the factory system had
reached a stage of development creating a psychological soil in which
it could grow.

Socialism appeared in America early in the nineteenth century, but
it did not assume any political significance until the country had
become rather industrial than agricultural. It did not originate
among the foreign born, nor were its early protagonists of alien

Long before the influence of Marx appeared in statements of
Socialistic theory in this country, or any other, the essentials of
Socialism were published and discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.
When Karl Marx was a little boy Robert Owen reprinted in England a
Socialist pamphlet by an American workingman. About the same time
one Thomas Cooper of Columbia, South Carolina, published a book
containing all that is essential of Socialist doctrine. And O. A.
Brownson, editor of the Boston _Quarterly Review_, was preaching
the inevitability of a class war, the abolition of the wage system,
and the necessity of the “triumph of the proletariat.” In 1829, when
Marx was eleven years old, Thomas Skidmore, R. L. Jennings, and L.
Byllesby exercised a marked influence with the preaching of what
would even now be recognized as “straight Socialism.” There was
no influence of Marx or any other immigrant in the substantially
Socialistic--and collectivist--teachings of such men as Horace
Greeley, George Ripley, Charles A. Dana, Parke Godwin, Higginson,
Channing, Margaret Fuller, Hawthorne, James Russell Lowell.

Socialism, in fact, is a spontaneous human reaction to individualist
capitalism. In that hour when the grouping of privately owned wealth,
in the hands and under the control of combined owners as partners or
in the form of corporations, was made necessary by the increasing
intricacy and expensiveness of machinery and the application
thereto of steam power--the institution, in short, of the factory
system--Socialism--the theory of the collective ownership of the
means of production--became the inevitable reaction in the minds of
persons and classes dissatisfied with the workings of the process.
Naturally, these persons would be chiefly of the class of those who
had nothing to contribute except their bare hands and brains--the
proletariat. Bear in mind that we are not here discussing the merits
of the theory.

What Marx did was to elaborate and systematize the theory. And he
did something else. The earlier preachers of Socialism were largely
idealists, most of them of the Christian faith, who appealed to the
sense of brotherhood, talked in terms of the Sermon on the Mount
and the Kingdom of God. Later came, notably in the writings of
Marx, the reduction of the whole business to materialist terms;
the disappearance of all sentimentalism and religious terminology
from the propaganda. Logically it is a short step to the atheistic
extremes of merciless dictatorship by minority and the harsh
suppression of opposition, exemplified in the rule of the so-called

This is very important, because it affords the psychological
background against which to see the reason why materialistic
Socialism has to so great an extent failed to hold the allegiance
of the naturally idealistic, church-bred, native American, and has
so largely come to be a movement supported by the foreign born.
For, whatever may be said about Socialism as not peculiarly of
foreign origin, it nevertheless is a fact that in this country, in
its aggressive political aspect, Socialism is preponderantly of
foreign-born personnel, and to a large extent, though by no means
exclusively, German and Jewish. It is impossible to present reliable
statistics as to the number or racial distribution of Socialists,
because, in the first place, there are thousands of persons of all
races entertaining Socialistic ideas and theories who do not call
themselves Socialists. The vote of the Socialist political parties
includes large proportions of votes due to reasons other than
Socialist views; the Socialist parties have in the past contained
thousands of members who were not voters. Furthermore, there is no
census or tabulation of Socialists that can be relied upon.


Some significance might be attached to the relative circulation
of the Socialist daily press, which is largely foreign-speaking.
There appear to be but two daily Socialist newspapers published
in English--the Milwaukee _Leader_, claiming a circulation of
37,000, and the New York _Call_, credited with about 15,000. The
potential circulation of these papers, and even more those in foreign
languages, no doubt is much larger than this, the difficulties of
distribution due in part to lack of capital, but still more to
mailing restrictions inflicted during the war, preventing their
free circulation. There are, or until a recent date were, at least
thirteen Socialist papers published in foreign languages--one
Bohemian, four Finnish, three German, one Hungarian, one Yiddish, one
Lithuanian, one Polish, and one Russian. According to the _American
Labor Year Book_ of 1916, nine of these foreign-language dailies
approximated a total circulation of 302,000. Against these dailies,
however, must be placed many Socialist and Socialistic periodicals,
weekly and monthly, published in English. One source of information
on this subject asserted that “those who have definitely accepted the
Socialist philosophy of life read the Socialist daily newspapers.”
This is hardly supported by the facts. For obvious reasons, the
Socialist dailies are not very satisfactory sources of news
information, and many convinced Socialists do not read them--perhaps
cannot get them--but rely for their Socialist reading upon
periodicals appearing at longer intervals. This would appear from
the circulation of such papers in English as the _Appeal to Reason_,
published at Girard, Kansas, which claims a circulation of 529,132,
and the _National Rip-Saw_, published at St. Louis, which claims
200,000. To what extent these papers represent deeply convinced
Socialists, and those holding more or less mildly Socialistic views,
it is impossible to say.


According to the _Appeal Almanac_ for 1916, the dues-paying members
of the Socialist party from 1903 to 1915 totaled:



         1903                              |     15,975
         1904                              |     20,763
         1905                              |     23,327
         1906                              |     26,784
         1907                              |     29,270
         1908                              |     41,751
         1909                              |     41,479
         1910                              |     58,011
         1911                              |     84,716
         1912                              |    113,371
         1913                              |     95,401
         1914                              |     93,579
         1915                              |     79,374

The year 1912 was the year of the Roosevelt Progressive revolt
against the Republican party; it may be that thousands of voters of
radical or liberal tendency who resented the Republican attitude,
but could not follow Mr. Roosevelt, or swung farther than the
Progressive party was willing to go, went into the Socialist party.
But it seems quite evident that the heavy slump between 1914 and
1915, when the figure dropped from 93,579 to 79,374, was due to the
reactions of the war, and in particular to the increasing resentment
of native Americans against the attitude of the party leaders which
culminated in the platform adopted by the party organization at St.
Louis--antiwar, and by most ordinary folk, including thousands of
perfectly good Socialists, deemed not only pacifistic, but definitely
pro-German. That situation alone drove a rift down through the
Socialist ranks, and certainly made it legitimate henceforth--for the
present, anyway--to regard the Socialist party, as constituted, as an
organization distinctively of foreign stock and foreign born.


Owing to the polyglot character of the Socialist movement, it became
necessary to organize language groups. This movement was well under
way in the years immediately preceding the war. The German Language
Federation, which was formed in December, 1912, at Newcastle,
Pennsylvania, at the end of the third year claimed a dues-paying
membership of 4,577.[173] The Finnish Socialist Federation was
credited with 10,616 in 1916. The French Language Federation reported
497 members in December, 1915. The Hungarian Language Federation
claimed membership “well above 1,500.” The Italian Socialist
Federation reported “about 1,000 members in good standing.” The
Jewish Socialist Federation was stated to have “about 5,000 members.”
The Lithuanian Socialist Federation stated that it had “a little over
2,000 members.” The South-Slavic Socialist Federation claimed about
2,000. The Scandinavian Federation gave its membership as 1,161, of
whom 265 were women. There were recognized also organizations of
Poles, Slovaks, Japanese, etc.

The Finnish _Kalenteri_ for 1918 gave a list of racial groups of
Socialists in the United States in this order of relative strength.
It is a striking fact that the Americans lead, but it must be
remembered that for their statistical purposes a naturalized citizen
may be as good an American as one native-born of old stock. (See
Table XLIX.)



        Rank                     |    Race
        1                        |  Americans
        2                        |  Finns
        3                        |  Germans
        4                        |  Jews
        5                        |  Slavs
        6                        |  Lithuanians
        7                        |  Scandinavians
        8                        |  Czechs
        9                        |  Hungarians
       10                        |  Italians
       11                        |  Letts
       12                        |  Slovaks

This is well enough for rough purposes, but it is too loose for
generalization as to racial tendencies. “Jews” might be of almost any
nationality, and “Slavs” might cover natives of almost any of the
countries east of the Carpathians and the Adriatic.

The foreign-language groups of the Socialist party in 1916 had an
aggregate membership of over 29,000, and if we accept the estimate
of the National Executive Secretary of the party, of 94,140, as the
dues-paying membership during the first four months of that year, it
would appear that 31 per cent of all dues-paying members of the party
were foreign-born persons, either not citizens or so unfamiliar with
English as to prefer to belong to a foreign-speaking branch of their
political party.

There are two ways of looking at all this. One is to assume that, but
for the war and the disorganization which it threw into the Socialist
party’s ranks, including a virtual decision to confine membership to
voters, there would have grown up a large political body of aliens,
of unknown and probably menacing potentiality. The other is to
recognize that, with the foreign-speaking organizations as a starting
point, the immigrant would have been brought directly and early into
an active interest in American politics, personal participation in
the study of its affairs, and susceptibility far greater than it is
common to acknowledge to the appeal of reason and experience in the
solution of political questions. The present writer believes that to
a considerable extent the fluctuations in the Socialist vote are due
to changes of mind about Socialism _on the part of individual voters
of all races_.


Previous to the organization of the Socialist party, the Socialist
political activity in this country was in the custody of the old
Socialist-Labor party. Its vote, as listed by the _Appeal Almanac_
for 1916, developed as follows:



          1888                              |   2,068
          1890                              |  13,704
          1892                              |  21,512
          1894                              |  30,020
          1896                              |  36,275
          1898                              |  82,204

After 1898 the vote of this party declined rapidly until, in 1914,
its candidate polled only 21,827 votes.

On the whole, the best index of Socialist political strength is the
vote recorded in the ballot box. A tabulation of the vote of the
Socialist party in the presidential elections since and including
that of 1900 is therefore germane. (See Table LI.)



                |   1900 |   1904  |   1908  |   1912  |   1916  |   1920
       STATE    |   DEBS |   DEBS  |   DEBS  |   DEBS  |  BENSON |   DEBS
  Alabama       |    928 |     853 |   1,399 |   3,029 |   1,925 |   2,369
  Arizona       |    ... |     ... |     ... |   3,163 |   3,174 |     125
  Arkansas      |     27 |   1,816 |   5,842 |   8,153 |   6,999 |   5,111
  California    |  7,572 |  29,533 |  28,659 |  79,201 |  43,259 |  64,076
  Colorado      |    684 |   4,304 |   7,974 |  16,418 |  10,049 |  8,046
  Connecticut   |  1,029 |   4,543 |   5,113 |  10,056 |   5,179 |  10,355
  Delaware      |     57 |     146 |     239 |     556 |     480 |   1,002
  Florida       |    603 |   2,337 |   3,747 |   4,806 |   5,353 |   5,189
  Georgia       |    ... |     197 |     584 |   1,026 |     967 |     465
  Idaho         |    ... |   4,954 |   6,400 |  11,960 |   8,066 |      38
  Illinois      |  9,687 |  69,225 |  34,711 |  81,278 |  61,394 |  74,747
  Indiana       |  2,374 |  12,013 |  13,476 |  39,931 |  21,855 |  24,703
  Iowa          |  2,742 |  14,847 |   8,287 |  16,967 |  10,976 |  16,981
  Kansas        |  1,605 |  15,849 |  12,420 |  26,779 |  24,685 |  15,510
  Kentucky      |    770 |   3,602 |   4,185 |  11,647 |   4,734 |   6,409
  Louisiana     |    ... |     995 |   2,538 |   5,249 |     292 |     ...
  Maine         |    878 |   2,106 |   1,758 |   2,541 |   2,177 |   2,214
  Maryland      |    908 |   2,247 |   2,323 |   3,996 |   2,674 |   8,876
  Massachusetts |  9,716 |  13,604 |  10,781 |  12,616 |  11,058 |  32,265
  Michigan      |  2,826 |   9,042 |  11,586 |  23,211 |  16,120 |  28,947
  Minnesota     |  3,065 |  11,692 |  14,527 |  27,505 |  20,117 |  56,106
  Mississippi   |    ... |     393 |     978 |   2,061 |   1,484 |   1,639
  Missouri      |  6,128 |  13,009 |  15,431 |  28,466 |  14,612 |  20,242
  Montana       |    708 |   5,676 |   5,855 |  10,885 |   9,564 |     ...
  Nebraska      |    823 |   7,412 |   3,524 |  10,174 |   7,141 |   9,600
  Nevada        |    ... |     925 |   2,103 |   3,313 |   3,065 |   1,864
  New Hampshire |    790 |   1,090 |   1,299 |   1,980 |   1,318 |   1,235
  New Jersey    |  4,221 |   9,588 |  10,249 |  15,900 |  10,462 |  27,217
  New Mexico    |    ... |     ... |     ... |   2,859 |   1,999 |       2
  New York      | 12,869 |  36,883 |  38,451 |  63,381 |  45,944 | 203,400
  North Carolina|    ... |     124 |     345 |     117 |     490 |     446
  North Dakota  |    518 |   2,017 |   2,421 |   6,966 |     ... |   8,283
  Ohio          |  4,847 |  36,260 |  33,795 |  90,144 |  38,092 |  57,147
  Oklahoma      |    ... |     ... |  21,779 |  41,674 |  45,190 |  25,638
  Oregon        |  1,494 |   7,619 |   7,339 |  13,343 |   9,711 |   9,801
  Pennsylvania  |  4,831 |  21,863 |  33,913 |  80,915 |  45,637 |  70,021
  Rhode Island  |    ... |     956 |   1,365 |   2,049 |   1,914 |   4,351
  South Carolina|    ... |      22 |     101 |     164 |     135 |      28
  South Dakota  |    169 |   3,138 |   2,846 |   4,662 |   3,760 |     ...
  Tennessee     |    413 |   1,354 |   1,870 |   3,492 |   2,542 |   2,239
  Texas         |  1,846 |   2,791 |   7,870 |  24,896 |  18,963 |   8,194
  Utah          |    717 |   5,767 |   4,890 |   9,023 |   4,460 |   3,159
  Vermont       |    371 |     844 |     ... |     928 |     798 |      25
  Virginia      |    145 |     218 |     255 |     820 |   1,060 |     807
  Washington    |  2,006 |  10,023 |  14,177 |  40,134 |  22,800 |   8,913
  West Virginia |    268 |   1,574 |   3,679 |  15,336 |   6,140 |   5,618
  Wisconsin     |  7,048 |  28,220 |  28,164 |  33,481 |  27,846 |  80,635
  Wyoming       |    ... |     ... |   1,715 |   2,760 |   1,453 |   1,234
     Total      | 96,116 | 402,321 | 420,973 | 897,011 | 585,113 | 915,302
  Total Socialist vote{2}| 408,230 | 424,488 | 901,062 |     ... |     ...
  Socialist-Labor vote{2}|  33,546 |  14,021 |  30,344 |     ... |     ...

  [note 1: _World Almanac_, 1920.]

  [note 2: _Appeal Almanac_, 1916.]

This table is compiled from the _World Almanac_. The column for 1920,
in particular, may be suspected of serious inaccuracy in detail. The
figures for Idaho, for example, would appear to be absurd, in view
of nearly 12,000 in 1912 and more than 8,000 in 1916. The _Appeal
Almanac_ for 1916 gives larger totals, and adds a surviving vote of
the Socialist-Labor party. The _World Almanac_ for 1921 adds a note
regarding the 1920 election:

  The total for the Socialist-Labor ticket approximated 20,896, but
  it is to be said that in a number of the states the Socialist-Labor
  electors were called Independent Labor, or Independent, or
  Industrial Labor, so that the true total is considerably above that
  named above.

In general, the table affords a sufficient basis for general
comparisons and judgment as to tendency.


Since the declaration of the St. Louis convention of the Socialists
in 1917, which most outsiders and a large proportion of the Socialist
rank and file regarded as not only consistently antiwar, but actually
pro-German, it has been the fashion for Socialists of other than
German leanings to minimize the German influence in the development
of political Socialism in the United States. From the point of
view of the loyally American or pro-Ally Socialists, of whom there
are many thousands, it would no doubt be pleasing to clear it of
the German atmosphere; but, unfortunately, the facts make such a
proceeding difficult.

A great impulse was given to Socialism in this country by the
German Socialists who were driven out of Germany forty years ago by
Bismarck’s anti-Socialist legislation. They were men of a high degree
of intelligence, largely mechanics of skill at their trades. They
brought to America the Marxian orthodoxy, and stamped With their
German rigidity of thought a movement which up to that time had been
more or less a sentimental thing. Let us examine some figures which
would seem to be significant.

The German-language press in this country has been largely confined
to nine states. To the total circulation of the German-language press
in the United States, their circulation in these nine states bears
percentage ratio as follows:



                                         | CIRCULATION{1}
                   STATE                 +---------------
                                         |   PER CENT
  New York   }                           |
  New Jersey }                           |     19.4
  Wisconsin                              |     15.4
  Illinois                               |     12.5
  Ohio                                   |     10.9
  Nebraska                               |      7.6
  Pennsylvania                           |      6.9
  Missouri                               |      6.2
  Minnesota                              |      5.8
        Total                            |     84.7

  [note 1: The circulation figures are based upon reports given in
  Ayer’s _American Newspaper Annual and Directory_ for 1916. The
  influence of the war emotions and the rising cost of news-print
  paper, and other factors would make later figures misleading as
  to the general situation. Where Ayer’s fails to give circulation
  it is conservatively estimated. New York and New Jersey are
  combined because the German papers in New York were largely read
  in the preponderantly German towns along the New Jersey bank of
  the Hudson River.]

It would thus appear that the German-language papers published in
these nine states claimed a circulation of nearly 85 per cent of
the total circulation of German-language papers in the whole United
States. It is obvious, therefore, that in these nine states one
would look for the bulk of the unassimilated immigrants of German
birth. The census of 1910 sustains this expectation, for of the total
of 2,501,333 German-born residents of the United States, 1,737,827,
or 69.5 per cent, lived in the nine states.

What percentage of the Socialist vote is found in those nine states?
We cannot answer this question as to the vote for the candidates of
the Socialist-Labor party prior to 1900; but the vote for Socialist
candidates subsequent to that gives us illuminating percentages.

In the table made up from the _World Almanac_ for 1921 is the vote of
the Socialist (or Social-Democratic) party in presidential elections
since and including 1900. Note the percentage of that vote cast in
the nine states named.



                                |                |  PER CENT OF
                                |      TOTAL     | SOCIALIST VOTE
               YEAR             |    SOCIALIST   |  IN THE NINE
                                |       VOTE     |    STATES
  1900                          |      96,116    |      55.6
  1904                          |     402,321    |      58.2
  1908                          |     420,973    |      50.5
  1912                          |     897,011    |      48.0
  1916                          |     585,113    |      45.8

It appears, then, that these nine states--New York and New Jersey,
containing the large cities of Greater New York, Jersey City,
and Newark; Wisconsin, containing the great German population of
Milwaukee; Illinois, containing Chicago; Ohio, containing Cleveland
and Cincinnati; Nebraska, containing Omaha; Pennsylvania, containing
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; Missouri, containing St. Louis and
Kansas City; Minnesota, containing Minneapolis and St. Paul; to say
nothing of the smaller cities and rural districts, largely inhabited
by immigrants of German birth--have contained more than half of
the voting strength of the Socialist parties. Some discount must
be allowed for the fact that these large cities contain also large
numbers of foreign-born voters of other races; but even a generous
discount for this fact does not nullify the predominance of the
German element in the Socialist voting strength. These nine states
account also for about half of the dues-paying membership in the
Socialist party; according to the _American Socialist_ of January 23,
1916, there were 44,132, or 47 per cent, of the total of dues-paying
membership of the party, in 1914, and 38,194, or 48 per cent, in
1915, in the nine states.


It is also true that the active propaganda of political Socialism
has increasingly attracted young Jews of foreign extraction. It
appeals to them in two ways. There is a tremendous fund of idealism
in the Jewish mind. For ages they have been taught to dream of an
earthly millennium, in which the freedom denied them by the world
everywhere would be attained, and the social ideals set forth by
their prophets in their Scripture could be effectuated. Also, they
have been bred to interminable discussion of abstractions and
theoretical relationships regardless of the practical things of
social life from which they were excluded by rigorous governmental
restrictions and the race prejudice under which they have suffered,
especially in Russia. It was to be expected that with the freedom of
movement and expression which they have enjoyed in America, together
with the tense economic and industrial conditions under which they
labor here, they would respond to the propaganda of Socialism with
its idealistic background, its promise of an economic millennium, and
its _minutiæ_ of theory and inexhaustible material for debate. There
are no reliable statistics--little data of any kind--on which to base
an estimate of the number or activity of Jews of any or all national
extraction in the Socialist movement; nevertheless, it is a matter of
common knowledge that they are both numerous and aggressive in its
councils and its propaganda.


What might have been the development of political Socialism in the
United States had there been no war in Europe it is impossible to
say. To what extent the Germanization, not only of the Socialist
party, but of large elements of politics in the old parties, might
have gone on, it is impossible to say. The reactions of the war
spirit, and of the variants of sympathy among the racial groups,
produced profound effects. They were marked in the Socialist
movement, tending to drive into the “left” or extreme radical wing,
and even out of the party into the nonpolitical and antipolitical
movements, many of the foreign-born Socialists who during past
years have been trying to make the Socialist parties and the labor
organizations of various sorts more and more radical, less and less
patient toward political methods and measures. Inevitably these
ultraradicals took on, or were regarded as taking on, the aspect
of opposition to the cause of the Allies, to the participation of
the United States in the war--to out-and-out pro-Germanism. That
this pro-Germanism among the ultraradicals was not imaginary may
be illustrated by one episode reported by an investigator for the
Americanization Study:

  In 1915, in the capacity of a field investigator of the conditions
  of unskilled labor for the United States Commission on Industrial
  Relations, I happened to visit Port Arthur in the eastern part
  of Texas, where a Standard Oil refinery is located. There was
  some labor excitement. A young German, 22 or 23 years of age, who
  had come to this country when a small boy and who was one of the
  local leaders of the I. W. W., addressed a meeting. In attacking
  all capitalists of all countries he also spoke of the war which,
  according to him, was started and prosecuted by the czars, kaisers,
  kings, and capitalists of all countries at the expense of the
  working classes, etc., etc..

  After the meeting I interviewed a number of local labor leaders.
  The youthful orator was sitting on a lumber pile a few feet from
  me. Oil barges were passing back and forth on the canal, carrying
  oil from the refinery to a large British tanker in the harbor. The
  boy intently watched the barges, and exclaimed, as if to himself,
  in a low tone of disgust and desperation:

  “Hm! Britain gets all the oil; Germany--nothing!”

  All his reasoning, based upon international class solidarity, had
  given way to his patriotic German heart!

There was, further, the inevitable influence of the fact that the
German Social Democracy has, on the whole, been more close-knit, more
effective in propaganda, and the German Socialist literature, from
Marx down, more widespread in its distribution, than the propaganda
in any other language. Even now, the Germans and pro-Germans in the
Socialist ranks habitually declare that the war was ended by the
German Social Democrats through a revolt against the Kaiser.

The native-born Americans, English, and other English-speaking
Socialists, most of whom had been in sympathy with the cause of
the Allies, revolted against the pacifist, antiwar, and pro-German
element in the Socialist party, and the turmoil shook the
organization to its foundation. The end of this is not yet; but one
big result in the Socialist party itself has been to reinforce the
influence of the moderate element and to some extent to drive the
extremists into the so-called Communist parties and the I. W. W.,
which, whatever else may be said of them, do not exercise themselves
directly about political affairs.

To the deep rift in the Socialist ranks on this account may be
attributed in large part the failure of the Socialists to live up
to their expectations and promises in the presidential election of
1920. It is far too soon to speculate with any confidence upon what
may be the course of political Socialism in the United States in the
years immediately before us when the emotions excited by the war die
down, the hysterical opposition to immigrants as such fades out, and
economic and industrial forces are permitted to operate “normally”
in their effects upon the motives of the working people and their
expression of those motives through their ballots.


At the root of all the radical movements in the United States lies,
actually or potentially, an unsatisfied land hunger, a feeling
that somehow the opportunity to have access to a standing on God’s
footstool is circumscribed by man-made restrictions and injustice.
It is to be remembered that the great majority of immigrants to this
country are peasants, whose whole life and social background have
reference to making, or being prevented from making, a living from
the soil. Even the Russian and other Jews, who, generally speaking,
have little or no actual experience of agriculture, come here with
a vision of a land where there is satisfaction for their deepest
longings, and at the bottom lies the longing to own a piece of the
face of the earth as a basis for subsistence. Generally speaking,
the first disillusionment that many a modern immigrant experiences
is in the fact that he cannot step from the ship into the ownership
of land out of which to dig his living. It is a short step from that
state of mind into one of general discontent with the difficulty of
finding the opportunity which, he had been told, waited for him in
the United States at every street corner and crossroad.

In the earlier days, when industrialism was younger in this country
and immigrants could pass more easily into agriculture and into
access to actual land, there was a wider and quicker interest on the
part of the immigrant in the land question as such. Probably that
is why he responded more than he does now to such movements as the
individualist single-tax agitation precipitated by Henry George. In
recent years, when his opportunities for employment came to be more
and more restricted to the cities and to great industrial plants and
mines, the appeal of the Socialist agitation seemed more applicable
to his situation. Furthermore, the single-tax movement represents, on
the whole, an earlier stage in the development of radical theory.

The same might be said of Greenbackism, Populism, and the present-day
Nonpartisan League movement. All three of these movements find the
body of their rank and file among the small farmers, small producers,
and the dissatisfied lower grades of the merchandising class, who
feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are getting the worst of it in
the development of law, taxation, finance, monopoly, or what not.
The contented foreign born, or the contented anybody else, does not
participate in or respond to radical agitation or movements for
drastic reform. There are thousands of foreign-born members in the
Nonpartisan League, but they are in it not as foreign born of any
race, but as farmers who think they are not getting a square deal.

The farmers of the Northwest, who make up the bulk of the Nonpartisan
League, are not at present amenable to Socialist doctrine. The
foreign born among them are largely Scandinavian and old-stock
Germans who have won their way to ownership of land and a measure of
personal prosperity. They might stand for the expropriation of the
powerful Eastern capitalist, but they are not willing to consider the
confiscation of their own hard-earned farms. Peter Alexander Speek,
in his monograph on “The Single Tax and the Labor Movement,”[174]
puts it well:

  It may be said that the Socialists understood the labor movement,
  its meaning and nature, better than did the Single-taxers. But
  what the Socialists failed in was this, that their philosophy,
  emphasizing as it did the social side of human life, was not
  acceptable to the majority of American wage-earners, who, though
  wage conscious and organized as a separate class, still were not
  yet class conscious--wage-earners among whom the individualistic
  spirit and a desire to become independent small producers prevailed.

Even so early there was visible a racial line of demarkation. The
Irish never have taken kindly to Socialism. Preponderantly of the
Roman Catholic faith, they were impervious to the implications of the
Socialist doctrines as affecting religion and marriage, and nothing
in their experience tended to modify their interest in the ownership
of land. Mr. Speek says:

  It is necessary to mention the fact that nationality of the members
  of the party (the United Labor party) also played its role in the
  conflict. The majority of the Irish element lined up with the
  Single Tax faction, the majority of the German element with the

  This division by nationalities was itself quite comprehensive.
  The Germans have always had a strong communal sentiment and social
  viewpoint upon human life, both being inherited from the centuries
  long gone by. Furthermore, many of them, before they came to
  America, were industrial wage earners in Germany--the homeland of
  Marxian Socialism.

  The majority of the Irish immigrants had been formerly land tenants
  in Ireland. They had an individualistic viewpoint, and were devoted
  Catholics. Hence their lining up with Henry George, as a land
  reformer and agitator for the Irish cause in Ireland, and with
  McGlynn, as a Catholic priest.

A large proportion of the farmers of the Northwest are Scandinavians.
They are of a naturally conservative type, they have been successful
in establishing themselves as individual property owners, and
the property owner does not as a rule afford good material for
the Socialist seed-sowing. You may regard the propaganda of the
Nonpartisan League, for example, as radical and in a general way
“Socialistic,” but it does not satisfy the Socialist.

The importance of this consideration is fundamental. There are great
areas, even whole states, in the Northwest particularly, where the
saturation of the foreign born is so complete that the foreign-born
and second-generation folk themselves _are_ the state. As one
newspaper man in St. Paul put it:

  It is not a question of “we” and “they”; _they_ are the whole
  thing. In Minnesota there is no “Scandinavian problem”--_they_
  are _us_. In a large measure they have become the best kind of
  Americans; others have not advanced beyond the grade of the
  ordinary American, but they are the people and the government,
  and the comparative handful of Yankees cannot pretend to draw a
  line around them and set them apart as “foreigners.” They are the
  voters, the legislature, the producers, the farmers, the merchants,
  and they represent all of us at Washington.

On the other hand, there has been a tendency in the Northwest, as
elsewhere, for little racial groups to center in special localities.
There are whole towns in Minnesota which are virtually entirely
German; others are entirely Bohemian. There is one community which is
entirely Belgian. This is partly due to the fact that many sections
were settled by colonies sent forth as a part of church missionary
effort, especially by the Lutherans and Catholics.

Out of this situation the war suddenly crystallized a real American
sentiment and enthusiasm. There was much shocking injustice and mob
hysteria in those parts, and many accusations of disloyalty; but the
fact that emerges upon any candid investigation is that these folk
of various foreign races gave a good account of themselves in every
form of war participation, whether in the furnishing of volunteers or
otherwise. North Dakota, a hotbed of Nonpartisan League sentiment,
and a preponderantly foreign-born population, nearly doubled its
Liberty Bond allotments and exceeded its quotas in contributions to
the Red Cross and the war-chest funds.


In December, 1918, Oliver S. Morris, editor of the National
Magazine of the Nonpartisan League, gave to an investigator of the
Americanization Study an analysis of approximate membership of the
League. (See Table LIV.)



    Minnesota           |  50,000
    North Dakota        |  45,000
    South Dakota        |  25,000
    Montana             |  25,000
    Idaho               |  20,000
                        | -------
                        | 165,000
    Washington }        |
    Wisconsin  }        |
    Nebraska   }        |
    Iowa       }        |
    Kansas     }        |  40,000
    Oklahoma   }        |
    Texas      }        |
    Colorado   }        |
                        | -------
                        | 205,000

The membership has shifted this way and that ever since, and the
experience of the Nonpartisan League government in North Dakota is a
matter of history; but the fact that stands out is that this large
membership did not either accomplish or attempt anything which the
radical Socialist would accept as revolutionary. The Nonpartisan
League movement is a true agrarian movement, on the whole a movement
of property owners _to benefit themselves as such_, to insure their
own hold upon the land they have acquired and the processes of
storage, exchange, and marketing upon which their prosperity depends.
John M. Gillette, professor of sociology in the University of North
Dakota, distinguishes clearly between its underlying spirit and
purpose and those of the revolutionary Socialists:[175]

  The Nonpartisan League ... aims at economic and social reforms
  through political action; the Bolshevists aim at social reforms
  through economic action. The League does not seek to disfranchise
  other classes than farmers; Bolshevism disfranchises all other
  classes than the proletariat.... The League is essentially
  an organization of farmers, the preponderant majority of the
  electorate in such states as North Dakota owning the bulk of the
  wealth of the commonwealth, for the improvement of economic and
  general welfare conditions by recourse to political action.... It
  is destroying no fundamental institution, but is reshaping and
  redirecting certain ones to make them more amenable to the public

Without any attempt to assess either the righteousness or the wisdom
of the League methods or program, intelligent understanding of its
relation to the spirit and purpose of political Socialism, and of
the reaction to each on the part of various racial groups among the
foreign born, requires that the distinction be carefully kept in
mind. The foreign born who participate in the Nonpartisan League
are not only _citizens of the United States_--voters--but they are
preponderantly of the races whose mental operations tend to be
conservative toward really revolutionary propaganda, and of the
property-owning and property-ambitious class, as contrasted with the
propertyless, job-holding, wage-earning class generally implied in
the term “proletariat.”

This distinction underlies the reason why the strength of the
League lies in the rural communities rather than in the cities. The
League certainly showed strength in the cities, and the Socialistic
character of many of its proposals undoubtedly attracted considerable
support from city radicals who were unsatisfied with the range of the
platform; nevertheless, the Nonpartisan League represents an agrarian
rather than a revolutionary movement. There is a world of difference
between a Socialist program calling for the establishment of a wholly
co-operative commonwealth, the common ownership of all the machinery
of production, distribution, and communication, and the League
program demanding:

  1. Exemption of farm improvements from taxation.

  2. Tonnage tax on ore production.

  3. Rural credit banks operated at cost.

  4. State terminal elevators, warehouses, flour mills, stockyards,
  packing houses, creameries, and cold-storage plants.

  5. State hail insurance.

  6. A more equitable system of state inspection and grading of grain.

  7. Equal taxation of property of railroads, mines, telegraph,
  telephone, electric light and power companies, and all public
  utility corporations, as compared with that of other property

Adding to these the “national demands”--“that the government
refuse to return to private hands ownership or operation of those
public utilities owned, operated, or controlled by the government
during the war,” and “that the conscription of wealth begun by the
government through income and excess-profit taxes shall be continued
and increased, that surplus wealth may be compelled to pay the
money cost of the war”--the program still falls far short of being
revolutionary. On the whole the underlying spirit and purpose are
more or less precisely those of the earlier agrarian Free Soil,
Greenback, Populist, Single Tax, and Free Silver movements.

The Progressive movement of 1912, given extra “steam” by the magnetic
personality of Mr. Roosevelt and the hero worship of his followers,
was a far more powerful influence in drawing common support from
farms and cities. And its support, like that of the Nonpartisan
League, was essentially American, as distinguished from foreign-born
Socialistic support. It is interesting to speculate upon the
attitude of the people generally toward the Progressive movement,
if one could imagine it coming into being during the war. To what
extent would its platform and the utterances of its leaders have been
regarded as “seditious”?


From the beginning of any really radical movement in this country,
its unity of spirit has been broken by profound differences of
opinion as to the effectiveness of the appeal to the ballot box.
For more than half a century the anarchists and other advocates of
“direct action” in the labor movement in America have been telling
the more conservative elements that it would be of no use to resort
to political measures, to the election of public officers pledged to
carry out radical programs.

“The moment you succeed in winning enough votes to elect any
considerable number of your candidates, the representatives of the
capitalists will throw them out and nullify your victory.”

The great service which the New York State Assembly in 1920 rendered
to the ultraradical wing of the Socialists when it ejected legally
elected Socialist members of that house of the state Legislature was
in the verifying this prediction. It strengthened the hands of the
“Reds” not only all over this country, but all over the world. It
made it just that much harder for moderates everywhere to convince
workingmen that their grievances could be remedied by parliamentary
action; that it was really worth while for them to pay any attention
to the ballot box.

The history of the Socialist parties in America is checkered with the
ups and downs of the controversy over this question. In every labor
organization since the beginnings of the Labor movement in America
there has been a continuing warfare between those who advocated
political action as the means to social reform, and those who scorned
anything except economic pressure and even terrorism. It is a curious
fact that in the line-up on this issue, Mr. Gompers and the American
Federation of Labor logically belong with the direct-actionists; he
and his supporters always have opposed the entrance of the Labor
movement as such into politics. It is only fair to add, however, that
one of his principal motives was that of keeping the solidarity of
labor from being broken by the ordinary appeals and influences of the

The National Labor Union of 1864, the Knights of Labor of 1869, the
International Working People’s Association of 1883, the Sovereigns of
Industry of 1874, the Workingmen’s party of 1876, the organizations
of brewery workers and miners, the American Railway Union, the
American Labor Union, the Socialist-Labor party--in fact, virtually
all the general labor organizations from the beginning of them until
to-day--have fought back and forth over this question. And the
abiding fact which remained after every battle seems to have been
that the tendency of the Americans and the foreign born longest in
the country on the whole has been to favor action through the ballot
box and parliamentary methods generally; the distinctively foreign
elements have inclined to favor economic and industrial measures,
with the “lunatic fringe” running on toward “direct action,”
sabotage, and the methods of the terrorist.

The World War brought this division sharply to a head. It split
the Socialist party and drove out of it most of the American-born
moderates; it led to the attempt by these moderates and many of
the former Progressives to organize the “National party” and the
“Farmer-Labor party,” which attracted a small following in the
presidential election of 1920. The excesses committed against
foreign-born citizens of nearly all racial groups in the zeal of the
war spirit undoubtedly drove into the extreme radical ranks a large
number of foreign-born citizens who in normal times would have been
content with political methods and would have diminished in their
radicalism as their economic status improved. Doubtless, also, the
period of unemployment and industrial depression following the war,
ensuing as it has upon a period of unprecedentedly high wages, has
tended to encourage radical thought.

But it must always be remembered that the extreme radical movements
have directly relatively little _political_ influence. This for two
very good reasons: In the first place, experience has not justified
the theory of the “Reds” that terrorism in this country will frighten
government into concessions. It has, in America, anyway, quite the
opposite effect. It alienates public sympathy and impels the average
man, normally sympathetic toward the “under dog,” to approve of
repressive measures. Furthermore, the members of these ultraradical
organizations, although they may be technically citizens, _are not
voters_ in any practical sense.


This latter consideration is more important than is commonly
realized. The rank and file of the Industrial Workers of the
World--better known as the “I. W. W.”--for example, is made up of
men without fixed abode; itinerant workingmen, largely, though
by no means wholly, of foreign birth. They have left their homes
and families, if they ever had either. The I. W. W. is the only
organization which at least pretends to look after the interests of
the homeless, jobless worker. The homeless, jobless worker cannot
become naturalized, because the naturalization process presupposes
a fixed residence, and witnesses who can testify to that residence
over long periods of time. And even if the man be native born or
long since naturalized, he cannot vote or otherwise function as a
political unit because he has no fixed home from which to register
and vote.

A fixed abiding place, a _home_, is psychologically a _sine qua
non_ of real and wholesome civic interest, as well as a legal
prerequisite for participation in public affairs. Theoretically,
a native-born or naturalized citizen has a membership in and duty
toward the United States. Actually, the degree of his participation
depends upon _the depths of his roots in some locality_, and the
relation of that locality to the civic unit toward whose welfare the
voter contributes, not only his taxes, but his personal interest. A
good part of the trouble with city government in New York, Chicago,
Philadelphia, Boston, and other great cities is due to the fact that
so many fine, public-spirited voters live in suburbs.

Thousands of the best men who participate in the daytime in the life
of New York City live in New Jersey and Connecticut, or, anyway,
in towns outside of Greater New York. Their real interests are in
New York, but they vote in another state. They contribute little to
the local welfare in the places Where they live because of their
real interest in New York. Consequently their civic vitality, so
to speak, is entirely lost to both communities--and to the United
States. The foreign-born voter in the crowded East Side of New York
is a far more effective citizen, for good or ill, than the presumably
more intelligent business man who cannot--or at any rate does
not--participate substantially in the political life either of the
city where his business and daily activities are carried on, or in
the village in another state where he has his legal residence.

Over against this anomalous condition put the case of the
well-meaning citizen, native or foreign born, who works for a certain
mining corporation in Illinois. The town where he lives belongs
absolutely to that corporation. It so happens that a part of the
mining property of that corporation lies in Illinois and a part in
Indiana. Under stress of business and mining conditions the company
suddenly moves the whole population, men, women, and children, over
the state line. What must happen then to any possible civic interest
or enthusiasm--supposing any to exist--on the part of American
citizens, voters, who had begun to think about the public interests
of the state of Illinois? What happens to the naturalization
proceedings begun by any alien to make himself a useful citizen of
his adopted country? How can any real civic interest live under such

It is common to sneer at the city workingman because he stays in
town unemployed when he might get a job in the wheat fields or at
mining or fruit picking where labor is scant. Laying aside the
question of any desire on his part to stay with his family, or any
doubt in his mind about his ability as a hodcarrier or a tailor
to make good as a farm hand, or any reluctance on the part of the
railroad to assist him with the gift or loan of transportation to
some distant and practically most uncertain job--what becomes in
such a hop-skip-and-jump sort of industrial--and social-existence,
of any interest in civic affairs? To a newly made citizen, who has
faithfully memorized, if you please, the Constitution of the United
States, who knows just how Senators are elected and what is the
relation between the functions of the President and those of the
local dog-catcher, and who can sing, duly standing uncovered, _all_
the stanzas of the “Star-Spangled Banner,” it must appear that his
intellectual equipment for citizenship is more or less extraneous to
the practical and immediate task of feeding his wife and babies!

It is this sort of experience, of shifting employment and residence
and the conditions that go with it, that has given momentum to the I.
W. W. and kindred movements. “Stag towns” in the Far West, matching
“women towns” in New England; permanently separated families; the
utter impossibility of getting and keeping wives or maintaining any
sort of decent, not to say normal, domestic life, are major factors
that have brought into such organizations not only foreign-born
wanderers, some of them naturalized, but a surprisingly large number
of native Americans--the latter particularly among the leadership.

On the other hand, the I. W. W. from its beginning[176] has paid
close attention to the immigrant. Fifteen years ago, at the second
convention of the I. W. W., it was urged that propaganda should start
in Europe before the immigrant left the homeland, so that he would be
prepared upon arrival in this country to join the organization. This
was not done, but even so early there was a large issue of printed
matter in foreign languages, and the whole machinery was conceived
on the presumption of a polyglot membership. Moreover, the I. W.
W. always has taken the most liberal position as regards any form
of race prejudice. At the opening of the first convention William
D. Haywood took a strong stand against discrimination against the
negro by craft unions, and the organization never has tolerated any
distinction of race, color, nationality--or sex. Even with regard to
the Japanese of California, at the third convention a delegate from
that state declared that “the whole fight against the Japanese is
the fight of the middle class of California, in which they employ the
labor faker to back it up.”

The Communist party, into which to a considerable extent went the
extremists from the older movements when the effects of the war
brought division to their ranks and made it impossible for moderate
and ultraradical to abide under the same roof, at first became a
nucleus for the spread of the extreme form of Communist doctrine. It
embodies the essentials of the platform of the Third Internationale.
The ruthless suppression of this organization by the public
authorities may well prevent its having any but a fugitive life.
The I. W. W., too, seems, for the time being, at least, to be under
effective handicap. But whether these, or either of them, survive or
perish, or whatever other organization may be the residuary legatee
of their existence, the fact remains, and it is a most important fact
from the point of view of this Study, that such movements have no
room under their _ægis_ for what Americans understand as political
action. They seek revolutionary change not only in the _form_, but in
the _nature_ of government--would, in fact, abolish all government
as we know it, and substitute the “dictatorship of the proletariat”
as it exists--or has been supposed to exist--in Russia. Their theory
has no use for our present parliamentary methods, for representative
government in our understanding of the word; they scoff at and
would utterly destroy what we mean by Democracy. They would not
leave a recognizable vestige of our Constitution, our courts, our
legislatures. They would provide no political function for the voting
citizen as we visualize him. And--what is most important--they would
bring about these basic changes by compulsion. The ballot box has no
substantial place in their program.

Such propaganda, such programs, appeal only to those who have and
who, however mistakenly, believe they can have, no stake in our
present civilization. To such as these, citizenship in the sense in
which we have here discussed it has no meaning; the “America” which
has been built up, by native and foreign born together, since the
landing of the Pilgrims, arouses no enthusiasm.

It is not surprising that such movements as the I. W. W. and the
Communist parties appeal to the wandering, homeless folk of any
race. And when their propaganda tells such folk (as it does) that
the actual fruit of their labor is a product of sixty dollars a day,
and that the difference between that figure and what they receive
is the measure of what the capitalist class is appropriating, it is
small wonder that the ignorant and reckless, without attachment to
any home or land, smarting under concrete conditions about whose
reality--whoever may be to blame for them--there can be no dispute,
follow such leadership and look to it to bring them into better

From the moment of his arrival in this country, every hardship that
the immigrant of any race suffers, every injustice practiced upon
him by his own countrymen or other foreign-born persons who preceded
him hither, by the police and other local officials (to him the
embodiment of government), by landlord or employer or others in more
prosperous circumstances, every hour of unemployment and privation,
every enforced separation from his family, every disillusioning
experience, contributes just so much to his readiness of mind
to accept the “Red” teachings and promises. Revolution finds no
hospitality in contented minds. Injustice, real or fancied, is, in
the last analysis, the only agitator we have to combat.

Every particle of information coming to the Americanization Study
on the subject of the mental attitude of the immigrant of any race
in America confirms the fact which ought to be obvious as a matter
of ordinary common sense: that the opportunity to work, at fair
wages, under anything like decent conditions of home and social
surroundings, and from that work to gain a place to live, the means
of maintaining and supporting a family and making a reasonably
comfortable and happy home, establishing a real stake in the
community, assures the making of a good citizen and a well-meaning
voter, a valuable active member in our body politic.



The one thing that emerges most clearly in the results of this or any
other candid study of the naturalization and political activity of
the foreign-born citizen of the United States is that admission to
active membership in our political society should be based upon _the
personal qualifications of the individual_.

No sound basis is disclosed for discrimination on the ground of race
or color, religious beliefs or political predilection. Even the
statutory bar against belief in anarchism or polygamy is obviously
ineffectual, because the anarchist theory _per se_ involves, if not
virtual atheism, at least repudiation of government and a disbelief
in the sanctity of an oath. And a declaration of disbelief in
polygamy, so far as it may be assumed to imply anything concerning
personal morality, conveys no assurance of chastity in any sense of
the word. Furthermore, what is the practical use of inquiring into
a person’s beliefs to-day, when there can be no guaranty as to what
they will be to-morrow?

The educational test assures no safety as to character. The ability
to speak, read, and write English or any other language, intelligence
and general or even exact information as to our form of government
and the “high spots” of American history, are little in the way of
assurance of loyalty or usefulness as a citizen. The most noxious
propagandist that we could import or admit to citizenship could
pass the most rigid intellectual test. During the debate on
the naturalization law in the House of Representatives in June,
1906,[177] Representative Steenerson of Minnesota said:

  ... The qualifications that we have required of people in the past
  who intend to become citizens is that they be men of good moral
  character and that they are attached to the principles of the
  Constitution of the United States.... They may be men of good moral
  character and attached to the principles of the Constitution, and
  yet be unable to comply with this requirement. Ability to _write_
  the English language.... If, for instance, an elderly man like
  President Fallières of France should decide to emigrate to the
  United States, he cannot be naturalized, because in all probability
  he would not be able to learn the English language within five
  years; whereas Count Boni de Castellane, who has undoubtedly
  had opportunities in the past ten years of learning the English
  language, could be naturalized, because he could speak and write

  It is not from the immigrants who come here to settle on our public
  domain, who come here to abide permanently and to build homes
  and raise families, that we may expect frauds upon our election
  laws or danger to our free institutions. Such immigrants should
  not be denied citizenship because of inability to speak and write
  English. They may, notwithstanding, be as loyal and as patriotic
  as any. Nothing has been shown that connects inability to speak
  English with any of the evils complained of. There is no relation
  of cause and effect between them. The frauds and perjury against
  naturalization laws were committed by persons proficient in English.

One of the naturalizing judges in Kansas, long familiar with the
workings of the law, said in his answer to the questionnaire of the
Americanization Study:

  My judgment is that this government has occasion for greater fear
  from many of the educated foreigners than from the uneducated
  foreigner. More stress should be placed upon the character of the
  man and his loyalty to this government, and his willingness to
  abide by its laws and uphold its Constitution than upon his mere
  educational qualifications. My observation has led me to conclude
  that one of the chief difficulties with the administration of
  our naturalization laws is that the Department seems inclined to
  apply to all foreigners the same test; whether the applicant has
  been a resident of the community for twenty-five years, leading
  an exemplary life, upholding all the institutions, interested in
  all the efforts to upbuild the state physically, mentally, and
  morally, or whether he be a unit in the slum hordes of the city.
  The Department seems to have conceived it to be its duty to force
  all of them into the same strait-jacket.... I have in mind cases
  where the Department has endeavored to withhold citizenship on
  the merest technicality from men who for years have been our best
  citizens, thoroughly loyal and devoted to the best interests of
  the state. We seem to have gone upon the theory that the educated
  foreigner, by reason of his education alone, will necessarily be
  a good citizen, and that the ignorant foreigner is necessarily an
  undesirable citizen.

An educational test, such as that to which petitioners for
naturalization are subjected by some judges and some naturalization
examiners, applied at the ballot box to all who would vote, would
wreak havoc upon the enrollment of both native and naturalized. It is
safe to say that not one out of a hundred of native-born citizens,
even college educated, could pass respectably the examination. A
very small proportion of American-born citizens of any age or of
either sex have read the Constitution of the United States or have
even a superficial knowledge of its contents. The present writer has
derived some amusement during his conduct of this investigation from
asking of more than ordinarily intelligent acquaintances some of the
questions to which applicants for naturalization have to respond in
various courts. The ignorance of even fundamental matters displayed
by these scions of the “old stock” has been almost invariably both
ludicrous and lamentable.

One of the questions which the Americanization Study asked of the
naturalization judges was whether they would favor a standard
intellectual test for both native and foreign born as a prerequisite
for admission to the ballot box. Of 326 judges who answered the
question a substantial majority (180) answered, “Yes,” and 44 were
not sure but that it would be a good thing. The best answer that the
102 who opposed the idea could make was valid enough--_i.e._, that
the native born have had 21 years of residence in the atmosphere
of American institutions, and may be assumed to have a general
intellectual fitness. The other objections were legalistic; but they
all came out to the same fact--that fitness for citizenship and the
ballot is a question of personal character and general attitude
toward the public welfare.

At first glance it might seem simple enough to devise an oral or
written examination by which to test the individual equipment of an
applicant for citizenship--or a native-born citizen seeking access
to the ballot box; actually it is impracticable. A set of questions
would permit memorizing and recital by rote; to leave it as at
present to the wit of the examiner or the judge means that no two
applicants will be subjected to the same test. The naturalization
judges say frankly that they cannot outline an examination, though
they think that somebody might!

The Merchants’ Association of New York appointed a committee on
immigration and naturalization which gave considerable study to this
subject, and came out where everybody else comes out:

  In recommending that unnecessary obstructions and technical
  difficulties be eliminated from naturalization procedure your
  committee does not believe qualifications for citizenship should
  be lowered. On the contrary, it believes they should be raised. In
  addition to present requirements concerning residence and moral
  character there should be an educational qualification requiring
  proficiency in English and reasonable familiarity with our history
  and government. Your committee _will not attempt to enumerate the
  details of such requirement_, but recommends that a suitable and
  well-defined educational standard for citizenship be fixed by

Every applicant for citizenship--including the wives who now are
swept in regardless of their own fitness by the naturalization of
their husbands, or kept out by their rejection or failure to apply,
should be considered in the light of his own personal character and
record of behavior during the preliminary-period residence here. And
character and behavior should be proved as any other material facts
are proved--by _preponderance of evidence_. The present practice
is quite otherwise. The whole procedure would be revolutionized if
the applicant were required, or permitted, to produce _a body of
reasonable and competent evidence sufficient to convince the court or
its representative assigned to take the testimony_. His neighbors,
his employer, his pastor, the school-teacher, his fellow workmen, by
word of mouth or affidavit--in short, all those who know what sort
of person he (or she) has been during the five years of required
residence--could readily satisfy the court as to the essential fact.
The judges themselves in most cases would welcome this change. As it
is now, the whole business is wound up with red tape, and thousands
of persons have been excluded on the flimsiest technical grounds,
simply because the evidence presented to the court must be, in the
typical case, that of two witnesses, _only_ two, and _the same_ two
throughout the whole proceeding. If anything can be found amiss with
these or either of them, the application must be rejected.

It may even be argued that the presumptions and the benefit of
doubts should be in favor of the applicant; that the burden of
proof should lie upon those who oppose admission. During the whole
period, 1908-18, in the whole United States only 14.3 per cent
of all denials of petitions for naturalization were for reasons
involving the personal fitness of the applicant--“ignorance” and
“immoral character.”[178] This means that _if every alien who applied
for citizenship during those eleven years had been granted his
certificate of naturalization without investigation or formality, the
proportion of “ignorant” and “immoral” admitted would have been only
1.7 per cent--less than two in a hundred_!

Whatever might have been the merits, real or imaginary, of the
hairsplitting, meticulous policy which has governed the operations
of our naturalization system since the Act of 1906 swept into
ancient history the scandals of the previous years, that policy was
effectively junked during the war. Since the beginning of the fiscal
year, 1918-19, under the operation of the military naturalization
plan, more aliens have been naturalized on the sole ground that
they were in the war service--practically without regard to race,
declaration of intention, previous residence, educational or moral
qualifications--than the ordinary naturalization of any year since
the beginning of the present system. These are direct admissions;
we have no means of knowing how many “derivative” citizens these
soldiers and sailors carried in with them, or have made by marriage
to alien women since their naturalization.

This wholesale letting down of all the bars, however necessary and
innocuous it may be deemed, at least has reduced to absurdity the
policy of hand picking and superscreening practiced in the ordinary
cases. It furnishes a sound and logical starting point for a new,
more reasonable, and more humane system, under which the alien may
know with greater certainty what he must do and prove in order to
establish his right to join us; a system which will give him a
different impression of our common sense and efficiency, as well
as of our attitude toward him not only as a petitioner for fellow
citizenship with us, but as a fellow member of the human race.


There is no argument here for lowering the standards of admission.
The applicant should be able to speak intelligibly the English
language. This is not very important practically, because in the
years which ordinarily elapse before the average alien files his
petition he will have learned to speak English anyway. There is
good ground for requiring also the ability to _read_ English. The
intelligent participation in the politics of this country requires
some knowledge of current events and political argument; the voter
should be able to read the English-language newspapers. We are unable
to follow those who would enforce also a requirement of ability to
_write_ in English. Such ability probably will exist in a majority
of cases, anyway. It is no _sine qua non_ of either intelligence or

Theoretically, one might argue for a distinction to be made between
the general rights and responsibilities of bare citizenship (such
as diplomatic protection, the right to own property, exemption
from taxes imposed upon aliens as such, etc.) and the specific
right to vote. This, however, is almost completely academic,
because, except for the limitations of age and residence for a
period prior to election which apply alike to all citizens,
our Constitution--especially with the Nineteenth Amendment in
force--assumes that citizenship includes the ballot. It is difficult
to see any reason for requiring of the naturalized citizen, as a
qualification for voting, educational attainments other than those
required of the native born. It is equally difficult to see how
even a native-born citizen can be an intelligent voter if he cannot
speak and read the language in which the issues of elections are
discussed. Our own statistics of illiteracy, in states where the
proportion of the foreign born in the population is negligible, call
for educational measures having no exclusive reference to the foreign

There is a growing custom in the courts, properly urged by the
Naturalization Bureau, of accepting, in lieu of any other educational
test, a certificate of graduation or proficiency from teachers in
public and other schools. The Naturalization Bureau now supplies the
forms for such certificates. A majority of the judges who answered
the questionnaire of the Americanization Study not only favored this
practice, but declared that it was their own. A good many, however--a
full third of those who expressed themselves on the subject--insisted
upon their own right and duty to examine the petitioner themselves,
or minimized the importance of the educational test altogether. It
seems obvious, however, that the certificate of properly accredited
American schools should be accepted for this purpose. Whatever may
be said in favor of having no educational test whatever, and of
admitting a petitioner who has no such certificate, there seems no
reason for not giving the petitioner the benefit of the extra credit
implied in his having attained such a graduation.

The declaration of intention (to become a citizen) should be
retained, notwithstanding the opinion of many persons, including some
attentive and discriminating students of the subject favoring its
abandonment. But the declaration in its present form and practice is
not satisfactory from any point of view. The procedure surrounding
it is now far too casual. It should be protected by substantial
safeguards and attended by a far greater degree of solemnity. Its
sufficiency in form, its technical correctness, should be certified
at the time of its issue by the officer of the court before whom it
is attested. There should be a preliminary period of residence in
this country before the declaration is made.

The identity of the declarant should be clearly established; he
should have and present a certificate of “lawful entry” into the
country; there should be no confusion or doubt about the name under
which he goes; his photograph, fingerprints, signature, or other
means of unmistakable identification should be attached; all of the
essential facts concerning his nativity, previous residence, marital,
status, occupation, and other things germane to an application for
so vital a change of relationship should be set forth clearly and
suitably attested. As at present, copies of the declaration should be
in the possession of the declarant, and on file in the court and in
the Naturalization Bureau.

It might well be required that the declarant should register with the
court or with the Naturalization Bureau every change of residence,
so that the record of his movements and behavior during the entire
period of his “probation” would be available.

The fact of the making of the declaration should be publicly posted,
so that not only the court and the government, but the general
public, should be put upon notice that a “new member” is applying for
admission. And when it comes into court at last as an indispensable
part of the record in the case, its sufficiency as a document should
be taken for granted. The responsibility for technical errors in it
should lie upon the officer who accepted and attested it; substantial
errors of fact should exist only under penalties as for other kinds
of perjury. The burden of proof against its validity should lie upon
the government or any other person attacking it.

Under the law as now enforced, the declaration of intention expires
at the end of seven years; but there is nothing to prevent its
renewal, and in those states in which formerly declarants had the
right to vote, all the politically important rights of citizenship
could be, and in many cases were, kept alive, as it were, perpetually
by such renewals without any other test or ceremony. Even now, the
other privileges of citizenship may be thus perpetuated by persons
who on no theory could “get by” in a naturalization court. It should
be made at least much more difficult to renew a declaration once
expired. The burden of proof should rest upon the alien to show why
he did not make final application for citizenship within the period
during which his declaration was valid. A judge in Oregon, expressing
the opinion of many judges on this point said:

  Declarant should not be permitted to renew his declaration of
  intention. Too many use the declaration as a means of escaping
  something or obtaining employment; after expiration, the old
  declaration is surrendered and a new one requested. The declaration
  should disclose the scope of the educational attainments of the
  declarant and a willingness to attain practical working knowledge
  of the English language, as well as an insight into our system
  of government and the names of public officials, their manner of
  election and most important duties.

Let it be borne in mind that this is a very different matter from the
question of restrictions upon immigration, literacy, and sanitary
tests for mere admission to the country. The declarant is making his
initial application for fellow membership with us; he desires to
become flesh of our flesh, to share our sovereignty. The essential
value of the declaration of intention is that it registers as of a
certain date a state of mind toward our country and its citizenship.
It has a moral value for the declarant in putting him on notice that
he has definitely determined to put off his old allegiance; it ought
to warn him also that he is passing under scrutiny by his neighbors
and by the government; that his behavior has become in a special way
important to him and to the community. It is conclusive evidence
of at least two of the necessary five years of residence. Rightly
safeguarded and estimated, it would be a most precious possession.

But the corollary of this is that the process of final naturalization
should be greatly simplified. The great number of denials for “want
of prosecution” is in itself an index of the degree to which the
procedure is surrounded by vexatious technicalities, delays, expense,
discouragements which drive the petitioners and their witnesses out
of the business, mostly during the ninety days’ interval between the
filing of the petition and the time for the final hearing. In the
normal case, the witnesses should appear once for all; the record
should come before the court complete, in writing, and once for all,
except in disputed or appealed cases when a deeper inquiry is called
for. Make the standards of admission as severe as you please--the
procedure of complying with them should be simple, direct, as
inexpensive as possible, and readily understood by anyone of ordinary


It may be debatable whether the whole function of naturalization
should be taken out of the hands of the courts and made a purely
administrative activity of the executive department of government.
A good many students of the subject favor such a course. The
present study has not led to this conclusion. The judges generally,
while they would be glad to be relieved of a peculiarly exacting
and vexatious duty, do not favor it. From the beginning of our
history the function has been judicial, and very sound reasons
should be advanced for making so radical a change. It would require
the establishment of an enormous machinery at a time when every
consideration cries out for the simplification of the government.
The present Naturalization Bureau, if adequately manned and properly
directed, and required to attend to its own business rather than to
expand itself into an educational institution, could save the time
of the courts to a great extent, and at the same time save to the
situation the dignity and solemnity purporting at least to abide in
the judicial atmosphere.

There has been a proposal to create a system of traveling
naturalization commissions, sitting from time to time at the various
county seats and passing upon petitions. But it is vitally important
to the petitioners, who are almost always folk of limited means and
time, that the place to which they must go shall be as near at hand
as possible, and the necessary traveling for themselves and their
witnesses as little as is absolutely necessary.

Another consideration, too often overlooked, especially by those
to whom the naturalization problem is seen chiefly from the point
of view of the great cities, lies in the fact that in the rural
districts the judges have a wide acquaintance, and are likely to
know, or to have direct means of knowing, all about the petitioner.
Once we rid our minds of the current impression that ignorant
immigrants rush from the landing port to the ballot box, and
remember that in the average case the petitioner has been in this
country more than ten years, and in a vast majority of cases
has lived for five years in the same state, if not in the same
community, the matter takes on a wholly different aspect. It is
quite conceivable that in the great cities a special court, or a
special term of court, might be set aside for the consideration of
naturalization cases.


What is most needed is a better arrangement for taking care of this
business--a physical as well as an administrative arrangement. The
physical surroundings leave much to be desired. Merton A. Sturges,
Chief Naturalization Examiner at New York, thus describes[179] the
conditions under which final hearings are conducted in some of the

  ... In many instances the court-room has a seating capacity for
  less than half the number of persons notified to appear, and often
  there is barely space enough to crowd the applicants and witnesses
  into the court-room in a standing position.... The applicants and
  witnesses are sometimes rushed through as fast as one hundred cases
  in half as many minutes. The natural query, especially on the part
  of witnesses, is, “Why have we been brought here and kept standing
  in a crowded court-room for hours for no apparent reason?”

  Of course, in connection with a small percentage of applications,
  some question arises which it is desirable to present for
  determination by the judges, but aside from these few instances
  there is no good reason for witnesses to appear in court, except
  that the law requires their appearance....

  The oath of allegiance is administered in anything but a
  dignified and impressive manner. In fact, the whole proceeding
  is lacking in that solemnity and impressiveness which should be
  the characteristic of so important a ceremony. Would it be a
  great innovation to inaugurate and maintain orderly and patriotic
  ceremonies for the conferring of final naturalization? Invite the
  applicants to appear in court, accompanied by members of their
  family; have the certificates prepared in advance; provide an
  appropriately decorated court-room with seating capacity for as
  many as are present; call the applicants and their families in
  groups by nationality before the judge’s bench; have the judge
  administer the oath of allegiance to each group in a fittingly
  dignified manner, and present the certificates of naturalization
  to each new citizen; have the judge, and perhaps one other
  prominent and esteemed citizen, deliver addresses dealing with the
  responsibilities and duties of good citizenship.

The tendency in the past few years has been in the direction
indicated by Mr. Sturges. Increasingly, all over the country, judges
have awakened to the need of a greater solemnity in the conferring
of citizenship; a few judges have, at their own expense, furnished a
printed address or book of instructions to the new citizens, and even
a small American flag which is enormously prized by the recipients.
In one court in North Dakota the judge serves upon each declarant, at
the time of his filing of his declaration of intention, the following
formal notice under seal of the court:

  State of North Dakota }          In District Court
    County of Cass      } ss         Judicial District

  Give this notice your most careful attention and respect.
  ....................., Take notice:

  That your Declaration of Intention to become a citizen of the
  United States, made this ........ day of ........, A. D., 19....
  in this County, Judicial District and State, gives notice to our
  Government that your intent is to fit yourself for citizenship
  before the time arrives to make your application for your final
  adoption. That you will, in good faith, inquire into and acquaint
  yourself with not only our form of Government, but the intent and
  purpose of its formation and the duties and responsibilities that
  will be yours when you are finally adopted. That you believe in,
  and will at all times faithfully and energetically uphold, the
  principles of our people and the various government agencies.
  That you will be prepared, at the time of the hearing of your
  application for final adoption, to prove to the Court before which
  the hearing is had, and to the representatives of the Government
  of the United States then present, that this application is made
  in good faith and all sincerity and with love and respect for the
  Government of which you are seeking to become a part.

    (Signed) .........................
        Clerk of the District Court,
        Cass County, North Dakota.

    By order of ......................
        Judge of said Court.

In this court there is a ceremony just such as Mr. Sturges
recommends--a talk by some one selected by the presiding judge, on
the history and meaning of the flag and government, and what it means
to take on the new citizenship. Then there is offered, and of course
taken by all the accepted petitioners, the following pledge, devised
by the judge:


  (Taken voluntarily)

  I .................., of ................, being this day about
  to be adopted into the full citizenship of the United States,
  and believing in a people’s form of government as exemplified by
  our now common Government, do solemnly pledge myself to devote a
  considerable portion of my spare time for not less than three years
  hereafter to inquire into and more fully understand our form of
  government, its purposes and practices, the method and manner of
  selecting all public officials in this country, the manner in which
  and the method by which we can change our laws as changes become
  necessary, in a peaceful and lawful manner, all of which is for the
  purpose of fitting myself to become a loyal and useful citizen of
  this, my adopted country.

  This pledge is solemnly taken by me, and is made one of the
  representations as to my good intent and purpose in asking
  to become a fellow citizen, with the rights, duties, and
  responsibilities coming to and depending upon me as a loyal citizen.

  Dated at Fargo, N. D., this ....... day of ......, 19...

    (Signed) ........................

In many parts of the country it has become a custom to hold public
ceremonies, at which the new citizens naturalized within the past
year or other definite period are assembled with their families to
hear addresses, join in patriotic singing, and otherwise celebrate
their adoption into the new fellowship.


The Naturalization Bureau should be, as it is now, the watchdog of
all this business, the investigating agency of the government. But
its work should not be confined, as it is now to so great an extent,
to picking flaws in papers, straining shrewd technical points of
law and procedure, or trying to find something wrong with the two
witnesses or the intellectual attainments of the petitioner. Being
informed at least two years in advance that George Kristopoulos,
whose address is registered with the court and in its own files, has
declared his intention to apply for citizenship, it can ascertain
affirmatively at all times what he is about, and present to the
court at the time of the final application a complete record of his
conduct, upon which the court can act intelligently. Its functions in
this direction should be materially expanded.

The naturalization examiner should represent the court, in the
relation of a master, taking the necessary testimony, examining
depositions, and presenting to the court at last a record complete
in writing, upon which, in the great majority of cases, the judicial
order would be entered without further ado. This would seem to be
indeed its logical function. The Bureau needs a real job; in fact,
has a real job instead of its present largely self-assumed adventures
in the field of public education, for which it is not properly
equipped, which has bedeviled its legitimate work and demoralized its
correspondence and its whole system of records, upon which the proper
administration of the law so greatly depends.

Except as the carrying out of the existing procedure has unjustly or
unreasonably affected the individual petitioner for citizenship, it
has not been conceived as the purpose of this study to investigate
the Naturalization Bureau as an exhibit of public administration.
Neither the available time nor the space in this volume has permitted
such a study as would have been adequate in scope or just to the
Bureau. Generally speaking, the thing which has been impressed upon
those who have carried on this branch of the Americanization Study
has been the zeal and honesty and vigilance for the public welfare
with which the Bureau has done its work ever since its establishment
in its present functions by the Act of 1906.

No serious charge or insinuation of corruption or willful misconduct
of any kind on the part of any member of that service has come
to the attention of the Study, and it may be predicted without
reservation that no such charge or insinuation would be sustained
by the facts. For fifteen years and more the Bureau has “carried
on,” under conditions of great difficulty, generally undermanned
and insufficiently appropriated for--although its business has
from the beginning not only been self-supporting, but brought into
the treasury of the United States money ample to have paid for
adequate _personnel_--except during the war, when the prevailing
hysteria about immigrants and the ill-informed rage for all manner of
things that might be called “Americanization” led to the hasty and
extravagant subsidizing of anything that could be tagged with that
word. The Bureau deserves great credit for what it has accomplished.
More than that, it is in no captious spirit that any demurrer has
been entered here to what it has gone out of its way to attempt.

The time is ripe now to review and construct to better purpose on
the basis of this long and informing experience, for an overhauling
of the whole process by which aliens are taken into our political
system. The Naturalization Law of 1906 and the amendments thereto
should be revised as a whole, and what has been learned should be
built into a new Act, retaining the substance which experience has
abundantly justified, and sloughing off the excrescences which have
grown up and accumulated. This should be done on the basis of a
thorough investigation under the authority of Congress, and in a
wholly constructive spirit.

Such an investigation would disclose the utter insufficiency of the
force now available at headquarters and in the field; the lack of
precision in the scope and technic of the Bureau; the chaos existing
in its records; the need of intelligent and consistent direction
of the field force by a supervising chief examiner or similar
officer; the waste of effort and money in directions having nothing
substantial or logical to do with the main work of the Bureau; the
need of one or more competent law officers to unify the policy of the
service in its practice under the decisions of the courts; the crying
need of a simplification of the standards and procedure of admission
and of the practices of the clerks of courts in handling the papers
and records upon whose sufficiency and accuracy hang the welfare of
thousands of well-intending human beings who desire to join us and
are needed in our citizenry. The whole subject has gone too long
without due understanding by the public and its representatives in

Meanwhile our would-be citizens have been chased from pillar to
post and back again, losing in hundreds of thousands of cases their
affection and respect for the country to whose fellowship they asked
only the privilege of contributing what they might with all good




          |                                            |  NUMBER
    CODE  | NAME OF COURT                              |    OF
   NUMBER |                      LOCATION OF COURT     | PETITIONS
          |                                            | TABULATED
     01   | New York Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.             |
          |                      New York City         |   11,058
     02   | U. S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of N. Y.      |
          |                      New York City         |    2,401
     03   | U. S. Dist. Ct. for E. Dist. of N. Y.      |
          |                      Brooklyn, N. Y.       |    1,553
     04   | Bronx Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.                |
          |                      New York City         |    1,355
          |                                            |
     05   | Queens Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.               |
          |                      Jamaica, N. Y.        |      598
     06   | Westchester Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.          |
          |                      White Plains, N. Y.   |      647
     07   | Nassau Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.               |
          |                      Mineola, L. I., N. Y. |      135
     08   | Passaic Co. (N. J.) Ct. of Com. Pls.       |
          |                      Paterson, N. J.       |      742
          |                                            |
     09   | Fairfield Co. (Conn.) Supr. Ct.            |
          |                      Bridgeport, Conn.     |      410
     10   | Knox Co. (Ill.) Circ. Ct.                  |
          |                      Galesburg, Ill.       |       29
     12   | Johnson Co. (Iowa) Dist. Ct.               |
          |                      Iowa City, Iowa       |       13
     13   | Androscoggin Co. (Me.) Supm. Judicial Ct.  |
          |                      Auburn, Me.           |       52
          |                                            |
     14   | Tompkins Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.             |
          |                      Ithaca, N. Y.         |       23
     15   | Middlesex Co. (N. J.) Ct. of Com. Pls.     |
          |                      New Brunswick, N. J.  |      389
     16   | U. S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Ohio       |
          |                      Cleveland, Ohio       |    1,175
     17   | Cuyahoga Co. (Ohio) Ct. of Com. Pls.       |
          |                      Cleveland, Ohio       |    1,703
          |                                            |
     18   | Multnomah Co. (Ore.) Circ. Ct.             |
          |                      Portland, Ore.        |      714
     19   | Monroe Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.               |
          |                      Rochester, N. Y.      |      813
     20   | U. S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Washington |
          |                      Seattle, Wash.        |      703
     21   | King Co. (Wash.) Supm. Ct.                 |
          |                      Seattle, Wash.        |      143
          |                                            |
     22   | Chemung Co. (N. Y.) Supm. Ct.              |
          |                      Elmira, N. Y.         |       19
     23   | Summit Co. (Ohio) Ct. of Com. Pls.         |
          |                      Akron, Ohio           |      199
     24   | Northampton Co. (Pa.) Ct. of Com. Pls.     |
          |                      Easton, Pa.           |      115
     25   | Worcester Co. (Mass.) Supr. Ct.            |
          |                      Worcester, Mass.      |      635
          |                                            |
     26   | Middlesex Co. (Conn.) Supr. Ct.            |
          |                      Middletown, Conn.     |       74
     27   | Rensellaer Co. (N. Y.) Supr. Ct.           |
          |                      Troy, N. Y.           |      104
     28   | U. S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Ohio       |
          |                      Cincinnati, Ohio      |      363
     29   | New London Co. (Conn.) Supr. Ct.           |
          |                      Norwich, Conn.        |      119
          |     All courts                             |   26,284



           (Part One)
          |           |            SEX            |MARITAL CONDITION|
    CODE  |           |--------+--------+---------|-----------------+
   NUMBER |   TOTAL   |        |        |   No    |     Married     |
     OF   |PETITIONERS|  Male  | Female | Inform- |--------+--------+
    COURT |           |        |        |  ation  | Number |Per Cent|
   Total  |    26,284 | 26,117 |   154  |    13   | 18,017 |  68.5  |
          |           |        |        |         |        |        |
     01   |    11,058 | 10,989 |    69  |   ...   |  7,191 |  65.0  |
     02   |     2,401 |  2,377 |    24  |   ...   |  1,286 |  53.6  |
     03   |     1,553 |  1,542 |    10  |     1   |  1,097 |  70.6  |
     04   |     1,355 |  1,347 |     8  |   ...   |    975 |  72.0  |
     05   |       598 |    596 |   ...  |     2   |    499 |  83.5  |
     06   |       647 |    642 |     5  |   ...   |    488 |  75.4  |
     07   |       135 |    135 |   ...  |   ...   |     98 |  72.6  |
     08   |       742 |    741 |     1  |   ...   |    579 |  78.0  |
     09   |       410 |    406 |     3  |     1   |    297 |  72.4  |
     10   |        29 |     29 |   ...  |   ...   |     22 |  75.9  |
     12   |        13 |     13 |   ...  |   ...   |      7 |  53.1  |
     13   |        52 |     52 |   ...  |   ...   |     41 |  78.8  |
     14   |        23 |     23 |   ...  |   ...   |     13 |  56.5  |
     15   |       389 |    388 |   ...  |     1   |    310 |  79.7  |
     16   |     1,175 |  1,173 |     2  |   ...   |    933 |  79.4  |
     17   |     1,703 |  1,701 |     2  |   ...   |  1,386 |  81.4  |
     18   |       714 |    710 |     4  |   ...   |    496 |  69.5  |
     19   |       813 |    808 |     4  |     1   |    595 |  73.2  |
     20   |       703 |    688 |    10  |     5   |    384 |  54.6  |
     21   |       143 |    138 |     5  |   ...   |     96 |  67.1  |
     22   |        19 |     19 |   ...  |   ...   |     13 |  68.4  |
     23   |        19 |    199 |   ...  |   ...   |    156 |  78.4  |
     24   |       115 |    115 |   ...  |   ...   |     99 |  86.1  |
     25   |       635 |    634 |     1  |   ...   |    473 |  74.5  |
     26   |        74 |     74 |   ...  |   ...   |     53 |  71.6  |
     27   |       104 |    101 |     1  |     2   |     68 |  55.4  |
     28   |       363 |    358 |     5  |   ...   |    270 |  74.3  |
     29   |       119 |    119 |   ...  |   ...   |     92 |  77.3  |

           (Part Two)
          |                MARITAL CONDITION         |  PETITIONER’S
    CODE  |-----------------+----------------+-------+    WIFE BORN
   NUMBER |     Single      |     Widowed    |  No   | IN UNITED STATES
     OF   |--------+--------+-------+--------+Inform-|--------+--------
    COURT | Number |Per Cent| Number|Per Cent| ation | Number |Per Cent
   Total  |  8,084 |  30.8  |  164  |   0.6  |   19  |  1,632 |   9.1
          |        |        |       |        |       |        |
     01   |  3,824 |  34.6  |   43  |   0.4  |  ...  |    322 |   4.4
     02   |  1,093 |  45.5  |   22  |   0.9  |  ...  |    155 |  12.0
     03   |    441 |  28.4  |   12  |   0.8  |    3  |     43 |   3.9
     04   |    374 |  27.6  |    6  |   0.4  |  ...  |     94 |   9.6
     05   |     96 |  16.1  |    3  |   0.5  |  ...  |     67 |  13.4
     06   |    158 |  24.4  |    1  |   0.2  |  ...  |     60 |  12.3
     07   |     36 |  26.7  |    1  |   0.7  |  ...  |      9 |   9.1
     08   |    162 |  21.8  |    1  |   0.1  |  ...  |     42 |   7.3
     09   |    108 |  26.3  |    2  |   0.2  |    3  |     17 |   5.7
     10   |      7 |  24.1  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...  |      4 |  18.2
     12   |      6 |  46.9  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...  |      1 |  14.2
     13   |     10 |  19.2  |  ...  |   ...  |    1  |     14 |  34.1
     14   |      6 |  26.1  |    3  |  13.0  |    1  |      5 |  38.5
     15   |     76 |  19.5  |  ...  |   ...  |    3  |     33 |  10.6
     16   |    229 |  19.5  |   12  |   1.0  |    1  |     86 |   9.2
     17   |    312 |  18.3  |    5  |   0.4  |  ...  |    178 |  12.8
     18   |    204 |  28.6  |   14  |   2.0  |  ...  |    141 |  28.4
     19   |    216 |  26.6  |    1  |   0.1  |    1  |     88 |  14.8
     20   |    300 |  42.7  |   14  |   2.0  |    5  |     84 |  21.9
     21   |     38 |  26.6  |    9  |   6.3  |  ...  |     29 |  30.2
     22   |      6 |  31.6  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...  |    ... |   ...
     23   |     41 |  20.6  |    1  |   0.5  |    1  |     16 |   8.0
     24   |     16 |  13.9  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...  |     23 |  23.2
     25   |    160 |  25.2  |    2  |   0.3  |  ...  |     53 |  11.2
     26   |     21 |  28.4  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...  |      2 |   3.8
     27   |     34 |  32.7  |    2  |   1.9  |  ...  |      8 |  11.8
     28   |     85 |  23.4  |    8  |   2.2  |  ...  |     50 |  18.5
     29   |     27 |  22.7  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...  |      8 |   8.7



       |                  MARRIED PETITIONERS                     |
       |                                                          | TOTAL
  -----+------+------------+------------+------------+------------| NUMBER
       |      |            |            |            |   Having   |   OF
  CODE |      |            |   Having   |  Having    | Both Native|FOREIGN
  NUM- |      |   Having   | Native-born|Foreign-born|    and     |  BORN
   BER | TOTAL|  Children  |  Children  |  Children  |Foreign-born| CHILD-
   OF  |      |            |    Only    |    Only    |  Children  |  REN
  COURT|      |------+-----+------+-----+------+-----+------+-----| UNDER
       |      |Number| Per |Number| Per |Number| Per |Number| Per |   21
       |      |      | Cent|      | Cent|      | Cent|      | Cent|
  Total|18,017|14,371| 79.8|10,563| 73.5| 1,441| 10.0| 2,367| 16.5| 4,843
       |      |      |     |      |     |      |     |      |     |
    01 | 7,191| 5,760| 80.1| 3,960| 68.8|   683| 11.8| 1,117| 19.4| 2,380
    02 | 1,286|   943| 73.3|   754| 80.0|   100| 10.6|    89|  9.4|   158
    03 | 1,097|   866| 78.9|   647| 74.7|    97| 11.3|   122| 14.1|   245
    04 |   975|   776| 79.6|   673| 86.7|    36|  4.7|    67|  8.6|   114
    05 |   499|   409| 82.0|   338| 82.6|    20|  4.9|    51| 12.5|    76
    06 |   488|   387| 79.3|   299| 77.3|    22|  5.6|    66| 17.1|   124
    07 |    98|    73| 74.5|    61| 83.6|     3|  4.1|     9| 12.3|    21
    08 |   579|   506| 87.4|   354| 70.0|    65| 12.8|    87| 17.2|   197
    09 |   297|   250| 84.2|   205| 82.0|    10|  4.0|    35| 14.0|    69
    10 |    22|    16| 72.7|     9| 56.3|     3| 18.8|     4| 25.0|     6
    12 |     7|     4| 57.1|     2| 50.0|     1| 25.0|     1| 25.0|     2
    13 |    41|    28| 68.3|    23| 82.1|     1|  3.6|     4| 14.3|     6
    14 |    13|     6| 46.1|     4| 66.7|     1| 16.6|     1| 16.7|     2
    15 |   310|   262| 84.5|   201| 76.7|    21|  8.0|    40| 15.3|    97
    16 |   933|   754| 80.8|   568| 75.3|    75| 10.0|   111| 14.7|   254
    17 | 1,386| 1,191| 85.9|   878| 73.7|   101|  8.5|   212| 17.8|   412
    18 |   496|   363| 73.2|   301| 82.9|    19|  5.2|    43| 11.8|   104
    19 |   595|   469| 78.8|   311| 66.3|    59| 12.6|    99| 21.1|   203
    20 |   384|   291| 75.8|   230| 79.0|    20|  6.9|    41| 14.1|    68
    21 |    96|    60| 62.5|    45| 75.0|     7| 11.7|     8| 13.3|    21
    22 |    13|     7| 53.8|     2| 28.6|     3| 42.9|     2| 28.6|     3
    23 |   156|   120| 76.9|    70| 58.3|    18| 15.0|    32| 26.7|    46
    24 |    99|    81| 81.8|    58| 71.6|     7|  8.6|    16| 19.8|    28
    25 |   473|   385| 81.4|   312| 81.0|    26|  6.8|    47| 12.2|    85
    26 |    53|    39| 73.6|    33| 84.6|  ....| ....|     6| 15.4|    10
    27 |    68|    47| 69.1|    35| 74.5|     5| 10.6|     7| 14.9|    12
    28 |   270|   212| 78.5|   143| 67.5|    29| 13.7|    40| 18.8|    79
    29 |    92|    66| 71.7|    47| 71.2|     9|  3.6|    10| 15.2|    21



                  |    PETITIONERS    |  TIME BETWEEN
      AGE AT      +--------+----------+  21 YEARS (OR
      ARRIVAL     |        |          | LATER ARRIVAL)
                  | Number | Per Cent |  AND PETITION
   All Ages       | 26,284 |   ...    |       ...
                  |        |          |
            1     |    149 |   0.6    |       6.2
            2     |    114 |   0.4    |       7.4
            3     |    127 |   0.5    |       7.3
            4     |    118 |   0.5    |       7.7
            5     |    120 |   0.5    |       8.5
            6     |    118 |   0.5    |       7.5
            7     |    155 |   0.6    |       7.0
            8     |    168 |   0.6    |       7.9
            9     |    169 |   0.6    |       6.9
           10     |    213 |   0.8    |       7.4
           11     |    219 |   0.8    |       7.3
           12     |    285 |   1.1    |       7.5
           13     |    396 |   1.5    |       9.5
           14     |    556 |   2.5    |       7.2
           15     |    812 |   3.1    |       7.1
           16     |  1,244 |   4.7    |       7.0
           17     |  1,626 |   6.2    |       7.7
           18     |  1,999 |   7.6    |       8.7
           19     |  1,779 |   6.8    |       9.5
           20     |  2,036 |   7.7    |      10.8
           21     |  1,736 |   6.6    |      10.6
           22     |  1,470 |   5.6    |      10.7
           23     |  1,371 |   5.2    |      10.9
           24     |  1,290 |   4.9    |      10.8
           25     |  1,240 |   4.7    |      10.6
           26     |    987 |   3.8    |      10.6
           27     |    827 |   3.1    |      10.8
           28     |    723 |   2.8    |      10.4
           29     |    598 |   2.3    |      10.5
           30     |    530 |   2.0    |      10.9
           31     |    402 |   1.5    |      10.6
           32     |    387 |   1.5    |      10.6
           33     |    336 |   1.3    |      10.6
           34     |    296 |   1.1    |      10.3
           35     |    248 |   0.9    |      10.3
           36     |    204 |   0.8    |       9.8
           37     |    197 |   0.7    |      10.0
           38     |    137 |   0.5    |      10.0
           39     |    118 |   0.4    |       9.5
           40     |    118 |   0.4    |       9.7
           41     |    109 |   0.4    |       9.7
           42     |     87 |   0.3    |       9.9
           43     |     86 |   0.3    |       9.1
           44     |     64 |   0.2    |       9.0
           45     |     61 |   0.2    |       9.7
           46     |     41 |   0.2    |       8.7
           47     |     45 |   0.2    |       9.4
           48     |     36 |   0.1    |      10.3
           49     |     31 |   0.1    |      10.0
           50     |     22 |   0.1    |       8.6
      Over 50     |     68 |   0.3    |       ...
  No Information  |     16 |   ...    |       ...



             (Part One)
         |         |         |PER CENT|   WANT OF    | INCOMPETENT  |
   CODE  |  TOTAL  |         | PETIT- | PROSECUTION  |   WITNESS    |
  NUMBER |  PETIT- |  TOTAL  | IONERS |-------+------|-------+------|
    OF   |  IONERS | DENIALS | DENIED |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |
   COURT |         |         |        |       | Cent |       | Cent |
   All   | 26,284  |  3,033  |  11.5  |  689  | 22.7 |  422  | 13.9 |
  Courts |         |         |        |       |      |       |      |
     1   | 11,058  |  1,308  |  11.8  |  203  | 15.5 |  107  |  8.2 |
     2   |  2,401  |    278  |  11.6  |   73  | 26.3 |   39  | 14.0 |
     3   |  1,553  |    200  |  12.9  |   35  | 17.5 |    6  |  3.0 |
     4   |  1,355  |    155  |  11.4  |   22  | 14.2 |   54  | 34.8 |
     5   |    598  |    119  |  20.0  |   19  | 16.0 |   11  |  9.2 |
     6   |    647  |    103  |  15.9  |   30  | 29.1 |   11  | 10.7 |
     7   |    135  |     30  |  22.2  |    9  |  3.0 |    6  | 20.0 |
     8   |    742  |     48  |   6.5  |   13  | 27.1 |   15  | 31.3 |
     9   |    410  |     47  |  11.5  |   14  | 29.8 |  ...  | .... |
    10   |     29  |      4  |  13.8  |  ...  | .... |    2  | 50.0 |
    12   |     13  |      2  |  15.4  |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    13   |     52  |      8  |  15.4  |    1  | 12.5 |    1  | 12.5 |
    14   |     23  |      4  |  17.4  |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    15   |    389  |     37  |   9.5  |   17  | 45.9 |   15  | 40.5 |
    16   |  1,175  |     84  |   7.1  |   48  | 57.1 |   10  | 11.9 |
    17   |  1,703  |     82  |   4.8  |   43  | 52.4 |   13  | 15.9 |
    18   |    714  |    129  |  18.1  |   15  | 11.6 |   55  | 42.6 |
    19   |    813  |     65  |   8.0  |   35  | 53.8 |   12  | 18.5 |
    20   |    703  |     93  |  13.2  |   26  | 28.0 |   27  | 29.0 |
    21   |    143  |     25  |  17.5  |    6  | 24.0 |    7  | 28.0 |
    22   |     19  |      2  |  10.5  |    1  | 50.0 |    1  | 50.0 |
    23   |    199  |     27  |  13.6  |   15  | 55.6 |    7  | 25.9 |
    24   |    115  |     27  |  23.5  |    1  |  3.7 |    8  | 29.6 |
    25   |    635  |     70  |  11.0  |   31  | 44.3 |   10  | 14.3 |
    26   |     74  |      7  |   9.5  |    5  | 71.4 |  ...  | .... |
    27   |    104  |     13  |  12.5  |    2  | 15.4 |    1  |  7.7 |
    28   |    363  |     40  |  11.0  |   22  | 55.0 |    4  | 10.0 |
    29   |    119  |     26  |  21.8  |    3  | 11.5 |  ...  | .... |

              (Part Two)
         | DECLARATION  |              |    IMMORAL   | INSUFFICIENT |
  NUMBER |-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------|
    OF   |Number |  Per |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |
   COURT |       | Cent |       | Cent |       | Cent |       | Cent |
   All   | 1,296 | 42.7 |  220  |  7.2 |   59  |  1.9 |   68  |  2.2 |
  Courts |       |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
     1   |   879 | 67.2 |   20  |  1.5 |   13  |  1.0 |    8  |  0.6 |
     2   |    59 | 21.3 |   77  | 27.7 |    2  |  0.7 |    2  |  0.7 |
     3   |    87 | 43.5 |   51  | 25.5 |    3  |  1.5 |    3  |  1.5 |
     4   |    52 | 33.5 |    2  |  1.3 |    4  |  2.6 |    3  |  1.9 |
     5   |    57 | 47.9 |   23  | 19.3 |    1  |  0.8 |  ...  | .... |
     6   |    49 | 47.5 |    6  |  5.8 |    2  |  1.9 |    1  | .... |
     7   |     9 | 30.0 |    2  |  6.7 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  3.0 |
     8   |     7 | 14.6 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  2.1 |    7  | 14.6 |
     9   |    21 | 44.2 |    1  |  2.1 |    1  |  2.1 |    3  |  6.4 |
    10   |   ... | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    12   |   ... | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  | 50.0 |
    13   |   ... | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  | 12.5 |    1  | 12.5 |
    14   |     1 | 25.0 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  | 25.0 |
    15   |     2 |  5.4 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  2.7 |    1  |  2.7 |
    16   |     4 |  4.8 |    2  |  2.4 |    4  |  4.8 |    4  |  4.8 |
    17   |     5 |  6.1 |    2  |  2.4 |    3  |  3.7 |    5  |  6.1 |
    18   |    11 |  8.5 |    2  |  1.6 |   16  | 12.4 |    2  |  1.6 |
    19   |   ... | .... |    3  |  4.6 |    2  |  3.1 |    5  |  7.7 |
    20   |    15 | 16.1 |    6  |  6.5 |  ...  | .... |    6  |  6.5 |
    21   |     1 |  4.0 |    2  |  8.0 |    1  |  4.0 |    4  |  4.0 |
    22   |   ... | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    23   |   ... | .... |  ...  | .... |    2  |  7.4 |    1  |  3.7 |
    24   |     1 |  3.7 |   11  | 40.7 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  3.7 |
    25   |    20 | 28.6 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  1.4 |    3  |  4.3 |
    26   |     1 | 14.3 |    1  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    27   |     5 | 38.5 |    4  | 30.8 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    28   |     1 |  2.5 |    5  | 12.5 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  2.5 |
    29   |     9 | 26.9 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  3.8 |    4  | 15.4 |

           (Part Three)
         |              |              |              |  UNABLE TO   |
   CODE  | PETITIONERS  |      NO      |              |   PRODUCE    |
    OF   |              |              |              |  DEPOSITION  |
   COURT |-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+
         |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |
         |       | Cent |       | Cent |       | Cent |       | Cent |
   All   |   51  |  1.7 |   12  |  0.4 |   11  |  0.4 |   12  |  0.4 |
  Courts |       |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
     1   |    8  |  0.6 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  0.8 |  ...  | .... |
     2   |    7  |  2.5 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
     3   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
     4   |  ...  | .... |    1  |  0.6 |    1  |  0.6 |  ...  | .... |
     5   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  0.8 |  ...  | .... |
     6   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
     7   |  ...  | .... |    1  |  2.1 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
     8   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
     9   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    10   |  ...  | .... |    1  | 50.0 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    12   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  | 12.5 |  ...  | .... |
    13   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    14   |    1  | 25.0 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  | 25.0 |
    15   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    16   |    5  |  6.0 |    3  |  3.6 |    1  |  1.2 |    2  |  2.4 |
    17   |    6  |  7.3 |    1  |  1.2 |    1  |  1.2 |  ...  | .... |
    18   |    9  |  7.0 |    3  |  2.3 |    1  |  O.8 |    7  |  5.4 |
    19   |    6  |  9.2 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    20   |    3  |  3.2 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  1.1 |  ...  | .... |
    21   |    2  |  8.0 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    22   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    23   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  3.7 |
    24   |    1  |  3.7 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  3.7 |  ...  | .... |
    25   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  1.4 |    1  |  1.4 |
    26   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    27   |    1  |  7.7 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    28   |    2  |  5.0 |    2  |  5.0 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    29   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  3.8 |  ...  | .... |

           (Part Four)
         |              |              |              |              |
  NUMBER |   CITIZEN    | CERTIFICATE  |  PETITION    |              |
    OF   |              |  OF ARRIVAL  |              |              |
   COURT |-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+
         |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |Number | Per  |
         |       | Cent |       | Cent |       | Cent |       | Cent |
   All   |    9  |  0.3 |   14  |  0.5 |    7  |  0.2 |  147  |  4.8 |
  Courts |       |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
     1   |    3  |  0.2 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  0.08|   62  |  4.7 |
     2   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |   19  |  6.8 |
     3   |    1  |  1.5 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |   10  |  5.0 |
     4   |    1  |  0.6 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  0.6 |   14  |  9.0 |
     5   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    7  |  5.9 |
     6   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    4  |  3.9 |
     7   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    3  | 10.0 |
     8   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  2.1 |
     9   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    6  | 12.8 |
    10   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    2  | 50.0 |
    12   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    13   |  ...  | .... |    1  | 12.5 |  ...  | .... |    1  | 12.5 |
    14   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    15   |  ...  | .... |    1  |  2.7 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    16   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  1.2 |
    17   |  ...  | .... |    3  |  3.7 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    18   |    2  |  1.6 |    2  |  1.6 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  0.8 |
    19   |  ...  | .... |    1  |  1.5 |  ...  | .... |    1  |  1.5 |
    20   |    1  |  1.1 |    2  |  2.2 |    1  |  1.1 |    5  |  5.4 |
    21   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  4.0 |
    22   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    23   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    1  |  3.7 |  ...  | .... |
    24   |  ...  | .... |    3  | 11.1 |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    25   |    1  |  1.4 |  ...  | .... |    2  |  2.9 |  ...  | .... |
    26   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    27   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |
    28   |  ...  | .... |    1  |  2.5 |    1  |  2.5 |    1  |  2.5 |
    29   |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |  ...  | .... |    8  | 30.8 |

       (Part Five)
   CODE  |       NO
    OF   |
   COURT |--------+------
         | Number | Per
         |        | Cent
   All   |    16  |  0.5
  Courts |        |
     1   |     3  |  0.2
     2   |   ...  | ....
     3   |     4  |  2.0
     4   |   ...  | ....
     5   |   ...  | ....
     6   |   ...  | ....
     7   |   ...  | ....
     8   |     3  |  6.2
     9   |     1  |  2.1
    10   |   ...  | ....
    12   |   ...  | ....
    13   |     1  | 12.5
    14   |   ...  | ....
    15   |   ...  | ....
    16   |   ...  | ....
    17   |   ...  | ....
    18   |     3  |  2.3
    19   |   ...  | ....
    20   |   ...  | ....
    21   |     1  |  4.0
    22   |   ...  | ....
    23   |   ...  | ....
    24   |   ...  | ....
    25   |   ...  | ....
    26   |   ...  | ....
    27   |   ...  | ....
    28   |   ...  | ....
    29   |   ...  | ....



             (Part One)
                    |  TOTAL  |       |        |       |INCOMP-| DECLAR-|
                    | IONERS  |       |        | UTION | NESSES|        |
   All countries    | 26,284  | 3,033 |   11.5 |  689  |  422  |  1,296 |
                    |         |       |        |       |       |        |
   Australia        |     31  |     4 |   12.9 |    1  |    1  |      1 |
   Austria          |  3,875  |   345 |    9.0 |   75  |   36  |    172 |
   Belgium          |     41  |     5 |   12.2 |    2  |    1  |    ... |
   Bulgaria         |     10  |     1 |   10.0 |    1  |  ...  |    ... |
   Canada           |    385  |    43 |   11.2 |   13  |    6  |     13 |
   Central America  |     10  |     1 |   10.0 |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   China            |    ...  |   ... |   .... |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   Cuba             |     15  |     1 |    6.7 |  ...  |  ...  |      1 |
   Denmark          |    200  |    29 |   14.5 |    5  |    8  |     10 |
   England          |    831  |   120 |   14.4 |   36  |   23  |     38 |
   Finland          |    144  |    14 |    9.7 |    6  |    2  |      2 |
   France           |     86  |    19 |   22.1 |    3  |    5  |      8 |
   Germany          |  2,305  |   296 |   12.8 |   51  |   43  |    149 |
   Greece           |     90  |    27 |   30.0 |   13  |    3  |      2 |
   Holland          |    139  |    21 |   15.1 |    6  |    7  |      4 |
   Hungary          |  2,443  |   249 |   10.2 |   80  |   31  |     72 |
   Indiana          |     10  |     2 |   20.0 |  ...  |  ...  |      1 |
   Ireland          |  1,773  |   166 |    9.4 |   45  |   19  |     82 |
   Italy            |  3,591  |   646 |   18.0 |  182  |   72  |    236 |
   Japan            |      4  |   ... |   .... |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   Luxemburg        |      6  |   ... |   .... |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   Mexico           |      4  |     3 |   75.0 |    1  |    1  |    ... |
   Montenegro       |      4  |     1 |   25.0 |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   Newfoundland     |     12  |   ... |   .... |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   Norway           |    389  |    48 |   12.3 |   12  |   13  |      9 |
   Portugal         |      8  |     1 |   12.5 |    1  |  ...  |    ... |
   Rumania          |    569  |    54 |    9.5 |    4  |    6  |     37 |
   Russia           |  7,864  |   744 |    9.5 |  113  |  117  |    381 |
   South America    |     19  |     3 |   15.8 |  ...  |    2  |      1 |
   Scotland         |    288  |    42 |   14.6 |    9  |    5  |     17 |
   Serbia           |      6  |     4 |   66.6 |    1  |    1  |      1 |
   Spain            |     23  |     4 |   17.4 |  ...  |    1  |      2 |
   Sweden           |    616  |    80 |   13.0 |   11  |   11  |     33 |
   Switzerland      |    197  |    25 |   12.7 |    6  |    5  |     10 |
   Turkey in Asia   |    142  |    18 |   12.7 |    8  |    2  |      6 |
   Turkey in Europe |     92  |    15 |   16.3 |    4  |    1  |      7 |
   Wales            |     32  |     1 |    3.1 |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   Persia           |      6  |     1 |   16.6 |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   Iceland          |      1  |   ... |   .... |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |
   No information   |     23  |   ... |   .... |  ...  |  ...  |    ... |

             (Part Two)
                    |       |       |INSUFF-|       |       |        |
       COUNTRY      |IGNOR- |IMMORAL| ICIENT| PETIT |   NO  |        |
                    |       | ACTER |  ENCE |MOTION |DICTION|        |
   All countries    |   220 |   59  |   68  |    51 |   12  |    11  |
                    |       |       |       |       |       |        |
   Australia        |   ... |  ...  |    1  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Austria          |    25 |    5  |    4  |     2 |    1  |     1  |
   Belgium          |     1 |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Bulgaria         |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Canada           |   ... |    2  |    1  |     2 |    2  |     1  |
   Central America  |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |     1  |
   China            |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Cuba             |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Denmark          |   ... |    2  |  ...  |     2 |  ...  |   ...  |
   England          |     2 |    3  |    1  |     5 |    1  |     1  |
   Finland          |   ... |  ...  |    1  |   ... |  ...  |     2  |
   France           |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Germany          |    14 |    7  |    4  |     5 |    1  |   ...  |
   Greece           |   ... |  ...  |    1  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Holland          |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Hungary          |    19 |    8  |   14  |     8 |    1  |     2  |
   Indiana          |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Ireland          |     3 |    1  |    1  |     4 |    1  |   ...  |
   Italy            |    92 |   11  |   13  |     3 |    2  |   ...  |
   Japan            |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Luxemburg        |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Mexico           |     1 |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Montenegro       |     1 |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Newfoundland     |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Norway           |     4 |  ...  |    3  |     2 |  ...  |   ...  |
   Portugal         |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Rumania          |     4 |    2  |  ...  |   ... |    1  |   ...  |
   Russia           |    46 |   13  |   13  |    13 |    1  |     2  |
   South America    |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Scotland         |     1 |  ...  |    1  |     2 |    1  |   ...  |
   Serbia           |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Spain            |     1 |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Sweden           |     3 |    4  |    7  |     3 |  ...  |     1  |
   Switzerland      |     2 |  ...  |    1  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Turkey in Asia   |     1 |  ...  |    1  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Turkey in Europe |   ... |    1  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Wales            |   ... |  ...  |    1  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Persia           |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   Iceland          |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |
   No information   |   ... |  ...  |  ...  |   ... |  ...  |   ...  |

             (Part Three)
                    | UNABLE TO|       |   NO  |        |        |
       OF BIRTH     |  WITNESS |   A   | ICATE |  TURE  | ANEOUS |INFORM-
                    |    FOR   |CITIZEN|   OF  |PETITION|        | ATION
                    |DEPOSITION|       | DENIAL|        |        |
   All countries    |     12   |    9  |   14  |     7  |  147   |  16
                    |          |       |       |        |        |
   Australia        |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Austria          |      1   |    1  |    2  |   ...  |   19   |   1
   Belgium          |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |    1   | ...
   Bulgaria         |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Canada           |    ...   |    1  |    1  |   ...  |    1   | ...
   Central America  |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   China            |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Cuba             |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Denmark          |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |    2   | ...
   England          |      1   |    1  |    2  |   ...  |    6   | ...
   Finland          |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   |   1
   France           |    ...   |    1  |    1  |   ...  |    1   | ...
   Germany          |      2   |  ...  |    2  |   ...  |   18   | ...
   Greece           |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |     2  |    4   |   2
   Holland          |      1   |    1  |  ...  |   ...  |    2   | ...
   Hungary          |      3   |  ...  |  ...  |     2  |    9   | ...
   Indiana          |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |    1   | ...
   Ireland          |    ...   |    1  |  ...  |     1  |    8   | ...
   Italy            |    ...   |    1  |    3  |   ...  |   28   |   3
   Japan            |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Luxemburg        |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Mexico           |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Montenegro       |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Newfoundland     |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Norway           |      1   |    1  |  ...  |   ...  |    2   |   1
   Portugal         |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Rumania          |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Russia           |      1   |    1  |    1  |     2  |   37   |   3
   South America    |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Scotland         |      1   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |    4   |   1
   Serbia           |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   |   1
   Spain            |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Sweden           |      1   |  ...  |    2  |   ...  |    2   |   2
   Switzerland      |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   |   1
   Turkey in Asia   |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Turkey in Europe |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |    2   | ...
   Wales            |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Persia           |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   Iceland          |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...
   No information   |    ...   |  ...  |  ...  |   ...  |  ...   | ...



               (Part One)
       COUNTRY      |   ALL  |          CODE NUMBER OF COURTS            |
       OF BIRTH     | COURTS +-------+-------+-------+-------+-----+-----+
                    |        |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |  5  |  6  |
   All countries    | 26,284 |11,058 | 2,401 | 1,553 | 1,355 | 598 | 647 |
                    |        |       |       |       |       |     |     |
   Australia        |     31 |    11 |     1 |   ... |     2 |   1 | ... |
   Austria          |  3,875 | 1,966 |   293 |   126 |   175 |  68 |  45 |
   Belgium          |     41 |     5 |     4 |   ... |     1 |   1 | ... |
   Bulgaria         |     10 |     3 |     1 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |
   Canada           |    385 |    23 |    14 |    12 |     3 |   2 |   5 |
   Central America  |     10 |     5 |     2 |   ... |   ... |   1 | ... |
   China            |    ... |   ... |   ... |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |
   Cuba             |     15 |    10 |     4 |     1 |   ... | ... | ... |
   Denmark          |    200 |    36 |     9 |     7 |    12 |  11 |   6 |
   England          |    831 |   167 |    93 |    59 |    29 |  33 |  36 |
   Finland          |    144 |     5 |     6 |     3 |     1 |   1 |   2 |
   France           |     86 |    45 |    11 |     2 |     2 | ... |   2 |
   Germany          |  2,305 |   673 |   280 |   204 |   122 | 182 |  41 |
   Greece           |     90 |    32 |    17 |     4 |   ... | ... | ... |
   Holland          |    139 |    17 |    14 |     2 |     4 |   2 |   2 |
   Hungary          |  2,443 |   719 |   148 |    38 |    93 |  44 |  31 |
   India            |     10 |     1 |   ... |     2 |   ... | ... | ... |
   Ireland          |  1,773 |   801 |   304 |    86 |    84 |  30 |  82 |
   Italy            |  3,591 | 1,391 |   303 |   430 |   206 | 128 | 236 |
   Japan            |      4 |     2 |   ... |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |
   Luxemburg        |      6 |     1 |     2 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |
   Mexico           |      4 |     2 |   ... |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |
   Montenegro       |      4 |   ... |     1 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |
   Newfoundland     |     12 |     1 |     1 |     1 |     1 |   1 |   1 |
   Norway           |    389 |    24 |    15 |    54 |     6 |   2 |   2 |
   Portugal         |      8 |     3 |     2 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |
   Rumania          |    569 |   390 |    69 |    23 |    41 |   1 |   4 |
   Russia           |  7,864 | 4,434 |   665 |   416 |   538 |  74 |  86 |
   South America    |     19 |     7 |    10 |     1 |   ... | ... |   1 |
   Scotland         |    288 |    38 |    26 |    21 |    13 |   4 |  33 |
   Serbia           |      6 |     1 |   ... |     1 |   ... | ... | ... |
   Spain            |     23 |    10 |     4 |     6 |   ... | ... | ... |
   Sweden           |    616 |    95 |    31 |    31 |    16 |   4 |  21 |
   Switzerland      |    197 |    49 |    20 |     9 |     4 |   7 |   3 |
   Turkey in Asia   |    142 |    34 |    23 |    13 |   ... |   1 |   4 |
   Turkey in Europe |     92 |    43 |    27 |   ... |     1 | ... |   1 |
   Wales            |     32 |    11 |   ... |   ... |   ... | ... |   2 |
   Persia           |      6 |     3 |   ... |     1 |   ... | ... | ... |
   Iceland          |      1 |   ... |   ... |   ... |     1 | ... | ... |
   No information   |     23 |   ... |     1 |   ... |   ... | ... |   1 |

               (Part Two)
       COUNTRY      |   ALL  |         CODE NUMBER OF COURTS             |
       OF BIRTH     | COURTS +-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+-----+
                    |        |  7  |  8  |  9  | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 |  15 |
   All countries    | 26,284 | 135 | 742 | 410 | 29 | 13 | 52 | 23 | 389 |
                    |        |     |     |     |    |    |    |    |     |
   Australia        |     31 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. |   1 |
   Austria          |  3,875 |   7 |  74 |  27 | .. |  4 | .. | .. |  36 |
   Belgium          |     41 | ... |  10 |   4 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Bulgaria         |     10 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Canada           |    385 | ... |   3 |   5 | .. | .. | 32 | .. |   2 |
   Central America  |     10 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   China            |    ... | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Cuba             |     15 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Denmark          |    200 |   7 |   1 |   7 |  3 | .. | .. | .. |  20 |
   England          |    831 |  12 |  19 |  21 |  2 | .. |  1 |  2 |  20 |
   Finland          |    144 | ... | ... |   1 | .. | .. | .. | .. |   1 |
   France           |     86 |   4 |   3 |   2 | .. | .. |  1 |  1 | ... |
   Germany          |  2,305 |  18 |  94 |  27 |  1 |  2 |  1 |  1 |  26 |
   Greece           |     90 |   1 |   4 | ... |  1 | .. |  2 |  2 |   2 |
   Holland          |    139 |   1 |  36 | ... | .. | .. | .. |  2 | ... |
   Hungary          |  2,443 |   8 |  81 |  77 | .. | .. |  2 |  3 | 116 |
   India            |     10 | ... |   1 | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Ireland          |  1,773 |  13 |  17 |  29 |  1 |  2 |  3 | .. |   9 |
   Italy            |  3,591 |  27 | 104 |  63 |  1 | .. |  5 |  4 |  36 |
   Japan            |      4 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Luxemburg        |      6 | ... | ... |   1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Mexico           |      4 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Montenegro       |      4 | ... | ... |   1 | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Newfoundland     |     12 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Norway           |    389 |   1 |   1 | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. |   5 |
   Portugal         |      8 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Rumania          |    569 |   2 | ... |   3 | .. | .. | .. | .. |   1 |
   Russia           |  7,864 |  22 | 247 |  95 |  2 |  3 |  4 |  2 |  98 |
   South America    |     19 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Scotland         |    288 |   2 |  15 |   4 |  1 | .. | .. |  2 |   6 |
   Serbia           |      6 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Spain            |     23 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. |   1 |
   Sweden           |    616 |   6 |   8 |  32 | 17 | .. | .. | .. |   2 |
   Switzerland      |    197 |   2 |  14 |   1 | .. |  1 | .. | .. |   1 |
   Turkey in Asia   |    142 |   2 |   7 |   8 | .. | .. | .. |  2 |   3 |
   Turkey in Europe |     92 | ... | ... | ... | .. |  1 |  1 |  2 | ... |
   Wales            |     32 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. |   1 |
   Persia           |      6 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   Iceland          |      1 | ... | ... | ... | .. | .. | .. | .. | ... |
   No information   |     23 | ... |   3 |   2 | .. | .. | .. | .. |   2 |

                (Part Three)
       COUNTRY      |   ALL  |            CODE NUMBER OF COURTS           |
       OF BIRTH     | COURTS +-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+
                    |        |   16  |   17  |  18 |  19 |  20 |  21 | 22 |
   All countries    | 26,284 | 1,175 | 1,703 | 714 | 813 | 703 | 143 | 19 |
                    |        |       |       |     |     |     |     |    |
   Australia        |     31 |   ... |     4 |   1 |   1 |   8 |   1 | .. |
   Austria          |  3,875 |   294 |   541 |  35 |  33 |  37 |   8 |  4 |
   Belgium          |     41 |   ... |   ... |   6 |   3 |   5 | ... | .. |
   Bulgaria         |     10 |   ... |   ... |   3 |   1 |   2 | ... | .. |
   Canada           |    385 |    20 |    28 |  41 |  39 |  40 |  12 | .. |
   Central America  |     10 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   China            |    ... |   ... |   ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   Cuba             |     15 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   Denmark          |    200 |     8 |     7 |  21 |   2 |  23 |   8 | .. |
   England          |    831 |    38 |    46 |  51 |  54 |  55 |  22 | .. |
   Finland          |    144 |    18 |   ... |  14 | ... |  18 |   6 | .. |
   France           |     86 |     1 |     3 |   5 |   1 | ... |   1 | .. |
   Germany          |  2,305 |    84 |   123 |  90 |  91 |  72 |   8 |  2 |
   Greece           |     90 |     2 |   ... |   6 |   4 |   5 |   2 |  1 |
   Holland          |    139 |     4 |     8 |  10 |  27 |   3 |   1 | .. |
   Hungary          |  2,443 |   441 |   374 |  12 |  17 |  10 |   1 | .. |
   India            |     10 |   ... |     1 | ... |   1 | ... | ... | .. |
   Ireland          |  1,773 |    16 |    64 |  37 |  26 |  39 |   3 |  2 |
   Italy            |  3,591 |    42 |    89 |  33 | 283 |  23 |   7 |  1 |
   Japan            |      4 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |   2 | ... | .. |
   Luxemburg        |      6 |   ... |     1 | ... |   1 | ... | ... | .. |
   Mexico           |      4 |   ... |   ... |   1 | ... |   1 | ... | .. |
   Montenegro       |      4 |   ... |     1 |   1 | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   Newfoundland     |     12 |     1 |   ... | ... | ... |   4 | ... | .. |
   Norway           |    389 |    10 |     8 |  66 |   4 | 163 |  18 | .. |
   Portugal         |      8 |   ... |     2 | ... |   1 | ... | ... | .. |
   Rumania          |    569 |     7 |     4 |   3 |  10 | ... | ... | .. |
   Russia           |  7,864 |   146 |   330 | 110 | 185 |  45 |   8 |  7 |
   South America    |     19 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   Scotland         |    288 |    16 |    19 |  26 |  10 |  24 |   4 | .. |
   Serbia           |      6 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   Spain            |     23 |   ... |   ... | ... |   1 |   1 | ... | .. |
   Sweden           |    616 |    12 |    26 |  91 |   9 | 110 |  27 | .. |
   Switzerland      |    197 |    10 |    13 |  40 |   4 |   8 |   2 | .. |
   Turkey in Asia   |    142 |     1 |     5 |   2 |   2 |   2 | ... |  1 |
   Turkey in Europe |     92 |     3 |     1 |   3 | ... |   1 | ... |  1 |
   Wales            |     32 |   ... |     5 |   6 |   3 | ... | ... | .. |
   Persia           |      6 |     1 |   ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   Iceland          |      1 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | .. |
   No information   |     23 |   ... |   ... | ... | ... |   2 |   4 | .. |

                (Part Four)
       COUNTRY      |   ALL  |         CODE NUMBER OF COURTS
       OF BIRTH     | COURTS +----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----
                    |        | 22 |  23 |  24 |  25 | 26 |  27 |  28 |  29
   All countries    | 26,284 | 19 | 199 | 115 | 635 | 74 | 104 | 363 | 119
                    |        |    |     |     |     |    |     |     |
   Australia        |     31 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Austria          |  3,875 |  4 |  22 |  16 |  23 | 11 |   7 |  18 |   5
   Belgium          |     41 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... |   2
   Bulgaria         |     10 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Canada           |    385 | .. |   1 | ... |  85 |  5 |   4 |   4 |   5
   Central America  |     10 | .. | ... |   1 |   1 | .. | ... | ... | ...
   China            |    ... | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Cuba             |     15 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Denmark          |    200 | .. |   4 |   1 |   2 | .. |   3 |   1 |   1
   England          |    831 | .. |   8 |   7 |  36 |  2 |   3 |   7 |   8
   Finland          |    144 | .. | ... | ... |  68 | .. | ... | ... | ...
   France           |     86 | .. | ... |   1 |   1 | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Germany          |  2,305 |  2 |  11 |  10 |  13 |  4 |  18 | 100 |   7
   Greece           |     90 |  1 |   1 | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... |   4
   Holland          |    139 | .. |   1 |   1 |   2 | .. |   1 | ... |   1
   Hungary          |  2,443 | .. |  98 |  34 | ... | .. |   4 |  85 |   7
   India            |     10 | .. | ... | ... |   3 | .. | ... | ... |   1
   Ireland          |  1,773 |  2 |   8 | ... |  80 |  3 |  12 |  12 |  10
   Italy            |  3,591 |  1 |  10 |  30 |  54 | 22 |  24 |  27 |  12
   Japan            |      4 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Luxemburg        |      6 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Mexico           |      4 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Montenegro       |      4 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Newfoundland     |     12 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. |   1 | ... | ...
   Norway           |    389 | .. |   2 | ... |   6 |  1 | ... | ... |   1
   Portugal         |      8 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Rumania          |    569 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... |  11 | ...
   Russia           |  7,864 |  7 |  17 |  13 | 162 | 13 |  19 |  83 |  40
   South America    |     19 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Scotland         |    288 | .. |   4 | ... |  10 |  1 |   1 |   3 |   5
   Serbia           |      6 | .. |   3 | ... | ... | .. | ... |   1 | ...
   Spain            |     23 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Sweden           |    616 | .. |   5 | ... |  65 |  6 |   1 | ... |   1
   Switzerland      |    197 | .. |   2 |   1 | ... |  2 | ... |   4 | ...
   Turkey in Asia   |    142 |  1 |   1 | ... |  23 |  1 |   2 |   2 |   3
   Turkey in Europe |     92 |  1 | ... | ... | ... | .. |   2 |   1 |   4
   Wales            |     32 | .. |   1 | ... | ... | .. | ... |   3 | ...
   Persia           |      6 | .. | ... | ... |   1 | .. | ... | ... | ...
   Iceland          |      1 | .. | ... | ... | ... | .. | ... | ... | ...
   No information   |     23 | .. | ... | ... | ... |  3 |   2 |   1 |   2



           (Part One)
                |           |                                            |
                |   TOTAL   |                                            |
                | NUMBER OF |         PETITIONERS ARRIVING AT            |
                |PETITIONERS|                                            |
                |  FOR WHOM |                                            |
    COUNTRY OF  |INFORMATION|--------------+--------------+--------------+
       BIRTH    |   AS TO   |    1 to 14   |   15 to 20   |  21 Years of |
                |  COUNTRY  | Years of age | Years of age | Age and Over |
                | OF BIRTH  +-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+
                |    WAS    |       | Per  |       | Per  |       | Per  |
                |  OBTAINED |Number | Cent |Number | Cent |Number | Cent |
                 \          |       |      |       |      |       |      |
                   |        |       |      |       |      |       |      |
   All countries   | 26,284 | 2,900 | 11.0 | 9,512 | 36.2 |13,849 | 52.7 |
                   |        |       |      |       |      |       |      |
   Australia       |     31 |  .... | .... |    14 | 45.2 |    17 | 54.8 |
   Austria         |  3,875 |   389 | 10.0 | 1,658 | 42.8 | 1,828 | 47.2 |
   Belgium         |     41 |     1 |  2.5 |     9 | 22.0 |    31 | 75.6 |
   Bulgaria        |     10 |     1 | 10.0 |     2 | 20.0 |     7 | 70.0 |
   Canada          |    385 |    88 | 22.9 |    99 | 25.7 |   198 | 51.4 |
   Central America |     10 |     7 | 70.0 |     2 | 20.0 |     1 | 10.0 |
   Cuba            |     15 |    10 | 66.6 |     2 | 13.3 |     3 | 20.0 |
   Denmark         |    200 |    13 |  6.5 |    65 | 32.5 |   122 | 61.0 |
   England         |    831 |    77 |  9.3 |   216 | 26.0 |   538 | 64.7 |
   Finland         |    144 |     6 |  4.1 |    54 | 37.5 |    84 | 58.3 |
   France          |     86 |    19 | 22.1 |    10 | 11.6 |    57 | 66.3 |
   Germany         |  2,305 |   280 | 12.1 |   600 | 26.0 | 1,425 | 61.8 |
   Greece          |     90 |    12 | 13.3 |    47 | 52.2 |    31 | 34.4 |
   Holland         |    139 |    17 | 12.2 |    32 | 23.0 |    90 | 64.7 |
   Hungary         |  2,443 |   192 |  7.9 |   960 | 39.3 | 1,291 | 52.8 |
   India           |     10 |     2 | 20.0 |     2 | 20.0 |     6 | 60.0 |
   Ireland         |  1,773 |    77 |  4.3 |   609 | 34.3 | 1,087 | 61.3 |
   Italy           |  3,591 |   651 | 18.1 | 1,198 | 33.4 | 1,742 | 48.5 |
   Japan           |      4 |  .... | .... |     1 | 25.0 |     3 | 75.0 |
   Luxemburg       |      6 |     1 | 16.6 |     1 | 16.6 |     4 | 66.6 |
   Mexico          |      4 |     1 | 25.0 |     2 | 50.0 |     1 | 25.0 |
   Montenegro      |      4 |  .... | .... |     1 | 25.0 |     3 | 75.0 |
   Newfoundland    |     12 |  .... | .... |     4 | 33.3 |     8 | 66.6 |
   Norway          |    389 |    13 |  3.3 |   148 | 38.0 |   228 | 58.6 |
   Portugal        |      8 |     2 | 25.0 |     3 | 37.5 |     3 | 37.5 |
   Rumania         |    569 |    89 | 15.6 |   202 | 35.5 |   278 | 48.9 |
   Russia          |  7,864 |   873 | 11.1 | 3,055 | 38.8 | 3,936 | 50.1 |
   Scotland        |    288 |    13 |  4.5 |    57 | 19.8 |   218 | 75.7 |
   Servia          |      6 |  .... | .... |  .... | .... |     6 |100.0 |
   South America   |     19 |     5 | 26.3 |     5 | 26.3 |     9 | 47.4 |
   Spain           |     23 |     3 | 13.0 |     7 | 30.2 |    13 | 36.5 |
   Sweden          |    616 |    31 |  5.0 |   269 | 43.7 |   316 | 51.3 |
   Switzerland     |    197 |     7 |  3.5 |    50 | 25.4 |   140 | 71.1 |
   Turkey in Asia  |    142 |    10 |  7.0 |    69 | 48.6 |    63 | 44.4 |
   Turkey in Europe|     92 |     8 |  8.7 |    42 | 45.7 |    42 | 45.7 |
   Wales           |     32 |     2 |  6.3 |    15 | 46.8 |    15 | 46.8 |
   Persia          |      6 |  .... | .... |     2 | 33.3 |     4 | 66.6 |
   Iceland         |      1 |  .... | .... |  .... | .... |     1 |100.0 |
   No Information  |     23 |  .... | .... |  .... | .... |  .... | .... |

            (Part Two)
                |           |   AVERAGE TIME   |
                | NUMBER OF | ATTAINING AGE OF |    OF TIME FROM
                |PETITIONERS|   21 AND FILING  |     ARRIVAL TO
                |  FOR WHOM |  NATURALIZATION  |      PETITION.
       BIRTH    |   AS TO   |   PETITIONERS    |     ARRIVING AT
                |  COUNTRY  |   ARRIVING AT    |
                | OF BIRTH  +------------------+----------+----------
                |    WAS    |      1 to 14     | 15 to 20 | 21 Years
                |  OBTAINED |   Years of Age   | Years of |  of Age
                 \          |                  |    Age   | and Over
                   |        |       Years      |   Years  |  Years
   All countries   | 26,284 |         6.2      |    11.0  |   10.6
                   |        |                  |          |
   Australia       |     31 |        ....      |    17.3  |    9.4
   Austria         |  3,875 |         4.5      |    10.6  |   10.5
   Belgium         |     41 |        11.0      |    17.4  |   11.0
   Bulgaria        |     10 |         7.0      |    13.5  |   17.0
   Canada          |    385 |         9.8      |    17.3  |    7.3
   Central America |     10 |        12.3      |     4.5  |   16.4
   Cuba            |     15 |         7.5      |    15.5  |    9.0
   Denmark         |    200 |         9.5      |    12.2  |   10.2
   England         |    831 |        11.6      |    13.6  |   11.7
   Finland         |    144 |         5.3      |    11.7  |   10.5
   France          |     86 |        12.9      |    17.7  |   11.9
   Germany         |  2,305 |        10.3      |    14.1  |   11.9
   Greece          |     90 |         5.5      |     9.7  |    8.6
   Holland         |    139 |         9.5      |    12.2  |   10.1
   Hungary         |  2,443 |         5.3      |    10.8  |    9.9
   India           |     10 |         5.5      |     7.5  |    8.2
   Ireland         |  1,773 |        10.8      |    11.5  |    9.6
   Italy           |  3,591 |         4.9      |    10.8  |   11.4
   Japan           |      4 |        ....      |    25.0  |    9.0
   Luxemburg       |      6 |         7.0      |     6.0  |   12.3
   Mexico          |      4 |        10.0      |    12.0  |   10.0
   Montenegro      |      4 |        ....      |    12.0  |    8.3
   Newfoundland    |     12 |        ....      |    15.0  |   14.5
   Norway          |    389 |        12.5      |    11.3  |   10.8
   Portugal        |      8 |         5.5      |     6.6  |    8.3
   Rumania         |    569 |         3.8      |    10.2  |    9.8
   Russia          |  7,864 |         5.0      |     9.9  |    9.6
   Scotland        |    288 |        11.8      |    12.7  |   10.6
   Servia          |      6 |        ....      |    ....  |    8.3
   South America   |     19 |         7.8      |    10.2  |    7.9
   Spain           |     23 |        11.6      |    10.3  |   10.7
   Sweden          |    616 |        12.4      |    15.6  |   13.1
   Switzerland     |    197 |        12.4      |    15.6  |   12.2
   Turkey in Asia  |    142 |         4.0      |     9.0  |    8.5
   Turkey in Europe|     92 |         3.6      |     7.9  |    8.1
   Wales           |     32 |        37.5      |    14.1  |   10.1
   Persia          |      6 |        ....      |     7.5  |    9.8
   Iceland         |      1 |        ....      |    ....  |    9.0
   No Information  |     23 |        ....      |    ....  |   ....



          (Part One)
             |        | AGRICUL- |        |   MANU-  |         |        |
     CODE    |        |  TURE,   | EXTRAC-|FACTURING |         |        |
      OF     |        |AND ANIMAL|   OF   |MECHANICAL| TATION  |        |
    COURTS   |        |HUSBANDRY |MINERALS|INDUSTRIES|         |        |
  All Courts | 26,284 |     444  |    40  |  15,384  |  1,054  | 4,403  |
        1    | 11,058 |      15  |     3  |   6,064  |    406  | 2,244  |
        2    |  2,401 |      11  |   ...  |   1,065  |    147  |   437  |
        3    |  1,553 |       7  |     2  |     854  |     87  |   279  |
        4    |  1,355 |       1  |   ...  |     779  |     45  |   263  |
        5    |    598 |       8  |   ...  |     396  |     18  |    75  |
        6    |    647 |      29  |     1  |     392  |     46  |    97  |
        7    |    135 |      15  |   ...  |      69  |      8  |    22  |
        8    |    742 |       7  |   ...  |     552  |      8  |    94  |
        9    |    410 |      24  |   ...  |     225  |      9  |    70  |
       10    |     29 |       3  |   ...  |      18  |      5  |     1  |
       12    |     13 |       3  |   ...  |       6  |    ...  |     1  |
       13    |     52 |       2  |   ...  |      29  |    ...  |     8  |
       14    |     23 |     ...  |   ...  |       8  |      1  |     3  |
       15    |    389 |       8  |   ...  |     274  |     10  |    73  |
       16    |  1,175 |      16  |   ...  |     897  |     36  |   102  |
       17    |  1,703 |      27  |     1  |   1,242  |     57  |   190  |
       18    |    714 |      76  |     2  |     347  |     42  |   125  |
       19    |    813 |      20  |   ...  |     610  |     19  |    77  |
       20    |    703 |     101  |    23  |     329  |     60  |    64  |
       21    |    143 |      17  |     6  |      72  |      6  |    11  |
       22    |     19 |     ...  |   ...  |       9  |      4  |     5  |
       23    |    199 |      10  |   ...  |     135  |      4  |    25  |
       24    |    115 |       3  |     2  |      81  |      1  |    12  |
       25    |    635 |      14  |   ...  |     510  |     19  |    36  |
       26    |     74 |       6  |   ...  |      50  |      3  |     6  |
       27    |    104 |       4  |   ...  |      59  |      3  |    15  |
       28    |    363 |       5  |   ...  |     239  |      8  |    57  |
       29    |    119 |      12  |   ...  |      73  |      2  |    11  |

          (Part Two)
             |        |         |          |          |          |
     CODE    |        |         | PROFESS- | DOMESTIC |          |   NO
      OF     |        | SERVICE | SERVICE  | PERSONAL |          | ATION
    COURTS   |        |         |          | SERVICE  |          |
  All Courts | 26,284 |    180  |   1,007  |   2,377  |   1,352  |   43
        1    | 11,058 |     54  |     456  |   1,211  |     605  |  ...
        2    |  2,401 |     46  |     149  |     314  |     232  |  ...
        3    |  1,553 |     16  |      63  |     149  |      91  |    5
        4    |  1,355 |     16  |      64  |     111  |      75  |    1
        5    |    598 |      5  |      25  |      47  |      24  |  ...
        6    |    647 |      6  |      11  |      49  |      16  |  ...
        7    |    135 |    ...  |       4  |      11  |       6  |  ...
        8    |    742 |      1  |      15  |      36  |      27  |    2
        9    |    410 |      2  |      14  |      46  |      19  |    1
       10    |     29 |    ...  |       1  |       1  |     ...  |  ...
       12    |     13 |    ...  |       2  |     ...  |     ...  |    1
       13    |     52 |    ...  |       2  |       3  |       8  |  ...
       14    |     23 |    ...  |       5  |       5  |     ...  |    1
       15    |    389 |    ...  |       3  |      13  |       5  |    3
       16    |  1,175 |      1  |      22  |      55  |      33  |   13
       17    |  1,703 |      7  |      38  |      82  |      59  |  ...
       18    |    714 |     10  |      23  |      52  |      36  |    1
       19    |    813 |      6  |      25  |      45  |      11  |  ...
       20    |    703 |      4  |      32  |      54  |      36  |  ...
       21    |    143 |    ...  |       5  |      13  |      13  |  ...
       22    |     19 |    ...  |       1  |     ...  |     ...  |  ...
       23    |    199 |    ...  |       2  |      17  |       6  |  ...
       24    |    115 |    ...  |       5  |       7  |       3  |    1
       25    |    635 |    ...  |      13  |       7  |      23  |   13
       26    |     74 |    ...  |       3  |       5  |       1  |  ...
       27    |    104 |      2  |       4  |       9  |       7  |    1
       28    |    363 |      1  |      17  |      27  |       9  |  ...
       29    |    119 |      3  |       3  |       8  |       7  |  ...



                              |                     |  AVERAGE LENGTH OF
                              |NUMBER OF PETITIONERS|  TIME FROM ARRIVAL
                              |     ARRIVING AT     |TO PETITION (YEARS).
                              |                     |    ARRIVING AT
         OCCUPATION           +----------+----------+----------+---------
                              | 15 to 20 | 21 Years | 15 to 20 | 21 Years
                              | Years of |  of Age  | Years of |  of Age
                              |   Age    | and Over |   Age    | and Over
  All occupations             |   9,494  |  13,851  |    10.7  |   10.5
                              |          |          |          |
  Agriculture, Forestry, etc. |     139  |     314  |    14.3  |   14.2
                              |          |          |          |
  Manufacturing               |   5,735  |   8,352  |    10.3  |   10.5
    Bakers                    |     170  |     255  |    12.0  |   10.7
    Cabinetmakers and         |          |          |          |
        carpenters            |     372  |     921  |    10.3  |   10 4
    Laborers                  |     751  |   1,193  |    11.0  |   11.3
    Managers, supts., mfgrs., |          |          |          |
        and officers          |     344  |     444  |    17.6  |   10.8
    Plumbers                  |     112  |      94  |     9.8  |   10.4
    Tailors                   |   1,072  |   1,205  |    10.1  |   10.5
    All others                |   2,914  |   4,240  |    10.3  |   10.2
                              |          |          |          |
  Transportation              |     387  |     552  |    10.3  |    9.7
                              |          |          |          |
  Trade                       |   1,511  |   2,266  |    11.6  |   10.7
    Retail dealers            |     911  |   1,646  |    12.2  |   10.7
    Salesmen                  |     346  |     254  |    10.4  |    9.6
    All others                |     254  |     366  |    12.1  |   10.9
                              |          |          |          |
  Public service              |      21  |     112  |    13.4  |   10.3
                              |          |          |          |
  Professional service        |     342  |     508  |    11.0  |    9.9
    Clergymen                 |      10  |      83  |    11.4  |   10.3
    Musicians                 |      37  |      91  |    11.5  |   10.3
    All others                |     295  |     334  |    11.0  |    9.8
                              |          |          |          |
  Domestic and personal       |          |          |          |
        service               |     917  |   1,246  |    10.8  |   10.3
    Barbers                   |     224  |     225  |    10.4  |   10.2
    Bartenders                |     136  |     164  |    10.4  |    9.3
    All others                |     557  |     857  |    11.4  |   10.9
                              |          |          |          |
  Clerical                    |     442  |     501  |     9.6  |    9.3



         (Part One)
                 |         |       |            MANUFACTURING
   COUNTRY OF    |  TOTAL  |AGRIC- +--------+------+---------+--------+
      BIRTH      |REPORTING|ULTURAL|        |      | Carpen- |        |
                 | OCCUP-  |OCCUP- | Total  |Bakers|ters and |Laborers|
                 |  ATION  | ATION |        |      | Cabinet |        |
                 |         |       |        |      |  Makers |        |
  All countries  |  26,284 |   454 | 15,335 |  446 |  1,314  |  1,121 |
                 |         |       |        |      |         |        |
  Austria        |   3,885 |    35 |  2,538 |  102 |    169  |    299 |
  Canada         |     403 |    19 |    189 |    2 |     27  |     16 |
  Denmark        |     198 |    14 |    115 |    1 |     31  |     15 |
  England        |     827 |    24 |    438 |    4 |     50  |     90 |
  Finland        |     146 |     6 |    121 |    2 |     34  |     19 |
  Germany        |   2,297 |    60 |  1,147 |  139 |     87  |     78 |
  Holland        |     125 |     3 |     70 |    4 |      5  |      8 |
  Hungary        |   2,458 |    27 |  1,681 |   57 |    184  |    317 |
  Ireland        |   1,778 |    45 |    745 |    5 |     56  |    217 |
  Italy          |   3,595 |    46 |  2,107 |   32 |     97  |    782 |
  Norway         |     388 |    61 |    203 |    3 |     66  |     46 |
  Rumania        |     561 |     2 |    323 |    2 |     14  |      6 |
  Russia         |   7,883 |    30 |  4,795 |   81 |    342  |    169 |
  Scotland       |     289 |    11 |    201 |    2 |     42  |      8 |
  Sweden         |     617 |    51 |    392 |    3 |    101  |     38 |
  Switzerland    |     133 |   ... |     49 |  ... |    ...  |    ... |
  Turkey in Asia |     117 |     2 |     39 |  ... |    ...  |    ... |
  All others     |     561 |    18 |    182 |    7 |      9  |     13 |
                 |         |       |        |      |         |        |
  No Information |      23 |   ... |    ... |  ... |    ...  |    ... |

          (Part Two)
                 |             MANUFACTURING              |           |
   COUNTRY OF    |----------+----------+---------+--------+   TRANS-  |
      BIRTH      |          |          |         |        | PORTATION |
                 | Managers |          | Tailors |  All   |           |
                 |          | Plumbers |         | Others |           |
  All countries  |     866  |     281  |  2,447  |  7,860 |    1,010  |
                 |          |          |         |        |           |
  Austria        |     135  |      31  |    595  |  1,207 |       65  |
  Canada         |      10  |      10  |      2  |    122 |       28  |
  Denmark        |       7  |       3  |      1  |     57 |       15  |
  England        |      28  |      24  |     11  |    231 |       49  |
  Finland        |       3  |     ...  |     13  |     50 |        5  |
  Germany        |      99  |      22  |     37  |    685 |       87  |
  Holland        |       4  |     ...  |      2  |     47 |        9  |
  Hungary        |      54  |      15  |    158  |    896 |       48  |
  Ireland        |      26  |      29  |      6  |    406 |      357  |
  Italy          |      51  |      23  |    219  |    903 |       84  |
  Norway         |       4  |       1  |    ...  |     83 |       48  |
  Rumania        |      32  |       9  |     75  |    185 |        7  |
  Russia         |     370  |      97  |  1,296  |  2,440 |      104  |
  Scotland       |       9  |       5  |    ...  |    135 |       17  |
  Sweden         |      10  |       9  |     11  |    220 |       55  |
  Switzerland    |     ...  |     ...  |      1  |     48 |        8  |
  Turkey in Asia |     ...  |     ...  |      6  |     33 |        3  |
  All others     |      24  |       3  |     14  |    112 |       21  |
                 |          |          |         |        |           |
  No Information |     ...  |     ...  |    ...  |    ... |      ...  |

            (Part Three)
                 |              TRADE           |       |  PROFESSIONAL
   COUNTRY OF    |-------+-------+-------+------+PUBLIC |    SERVICE
      BIRTH      |       |       |       |      |SERVICE+-------+-------+
                 | Total |Retail |Sales- |  All |       | Total |Clergy-|
                 |       |Dealers| men   |Others|       |       |  men  |
  All countries  | 4,427 | 2,872 |   836 |  719 |   170 | 1,026 |    99 |
                 |       |       |       |      |       |       |       |
  Austria        |   608 |   402 |   117 |   89 |    16 |   126 |     6 |
  Canada         |    56 |    26 |    15 |   15 |     1 |    45 |     5 |
  Denmark        |    12 |     5 |     4 |    3 |   ... |     9 |   ... |
  England        |    73 |    32 |    24 |   17 |     8 |    41 |     6 |
  Finland        |     5 |     4 |   ... |    1 |   ... |   ... |   ... |
  Germany        |   436 |   262 |    70 |  104 |    16 |   100 |     5 |
  Holland        |    15 |    10 |     2 |    3 |     5 |     4 |   ... |
  Hungary        |   306 |   190 |    61 |   55 |   ... |    72 |    10 |
  Ireland        |   130 |    38 |    29 |   63 |    77 |    23 |     6 |
  Italy          |   528 |   371 |    33 |  124 |    17 |   107 |    13 |
  Norway         |    17 |     5 |     7 |    5 |     3 |     6 |   ... |
  Rumania        |   132 |    73 |    49 |   10 |     2 |    31 |     2 |
  Russia         | 1,909 | 1,340 |   364 |  205 |    19 |   377 |    34 |
  Scotland       |    19 |     4 |    10 |    5 |     3 |     5 |   ... |
  Sweden         |    25 |    10 |     9 |    6 |     2 |    22 |     5 |
  Switzerland    |    17 |     9 |     6 |    2 |   ... |    12 |     1 |
  Turkey in Asia |    39 |    27 |     6 |    6 |   ... |     9 |     2 |
  All others     |   100 |    64 |    30 |    6 |     1 |    37 |     4 |
                 |       |       |       |      |       |       |       |
  No Information |   ... |   ... |   ... |  ... |   ... |   ... |   ... |

            (Part Four)
   COUNTRY OF    |  SERVICE    |                           |  ICAL | NO
      BIRTH      |------+------+-------+-----+-----+-------+OCCUP- |INFO-
                 |Music-| All  | Total |Barb-| Bar-|  All  | ATIONS|RMAT-
                 | ians |Others|       | ers |tend-| Others|       | ION
                 |      |      |       |     | ers |       |       |
  All countries  |  143 |  784 | 2,382 | 510 | 335 | 1,537 | 1,388 |  92
                 |      |      |       |     |     |       |       |
  Austria        |   21 |   99 |   336 |  47 |  40 |   249 |  161  | ...
  Canada         |    2 |   38 |    21 |   1 |   1 |    19 |   44  | ...
  Denmark        |  ... |    9 |    18 | ... |   2 |    16 |   15  | ...
  England        |    9 |   26 |    98 |   2 |   6 |    90 |   96  | ...
  Finland        |  ... |  ... |     3 |   3 | ... |   ... |    6  | ...
  Germany        |   18 |   77 |   295 |  28 |  66 |   201 |  156  | ...
  Holland        |    1 |    3 |    13 | ... |   1 |    12 |    6  | ...
  Hungary        |    7 |   55 |   218 |  47 |  43 |   128 |  106  | ...
  Ireland        |    1 |   16 |   269 |   4 |  77 |   188 |  132  | ...
  Italy          |   28 |   66 |   589 | 313 |  66 |   210 |  117  | ...
  Norway         |  ... |    6 |    13 |   1 |   2 |    10 |   37  | ...
  Rumania        |  ... |   29 |    24 |   5 |   2 |    17 |   40  | ...
  Russia         |   48 |  295 |   265 |  55 |  19 |   191 |  384  | ...
  Scotland       |  ... |    5 |    14 | ... | ... |    14 |   19  | ...
  Sweden         |    1 |   16 |    55 |   2 |   4 |    49 |   15  | ...
  Switzerland    |    1 |   10 |    37 |   1 |   2 |    34 |   10  | ...
  Turkey in Asia |    1 |    6 |    16 |   1 | ... |    15 |    9  | ...
  All others     |    5 |   28 |    98 | ... |   4 |    94 |   35  | ...
                 |      |      |       |     |     |       |       |
  No Information |  ... |  ... |   ... | ... | ... |   ... |  ...  | ...



  1--Number foreign born in 1910.
  2--Number of petitioners in 1913-14.
  3--Ratio of 2 to 1.

         (Part One)
              |        |        |  BAR- | BLACK-| BRICK &|  CARP- |CHAUFF-|
              |        |        |       |       | MASONS |        |       |
  Total for 7 |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
     cities-- |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      | 10,458 | 11,608 | 6,826 | 5,982 | 10,170 | 25,924 | 3,007 |
       2      |    328 |    372 |   248 |   161 |    219 |    779 |   176 |
       3      |    3.1 |    3.2 |   3.6 |   2.7 |    2.2 |    3.0 |   5.9 |
  Bridgeport--|        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |    151 |    181 |   129 |   179 |    350 |    637 |   ... |
       2      |      5 |     12 |     6 |     4 |      3 |     25 |     5 |
       3      |    3.3 |    6.6 |   4.7 |   2.2 |    0.9 |    3.9 |   ... |
  Cincinnati--|        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |    605 |    303 |   226 |   292 |    270 |    730 |    35 |
       2      |     20 |      6 |     4 |     3 |      5 |     13 |     3 |
       3      |    3.3 |    2.0 |   1.8 |   1.0 |    1.9 |    1.8 |   8.6 |
  Cleveland-- |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |    675 |    631 |   401 | 1,222 |  1,356 |  3,879 |   156 |
       2      |     39 |     40 |    39 |    58 |     53 |    219 |    10 |
       3      |    5.8 |    6.3 |   9.7 |   4.7 |    3.9 |    5.6 |   6.4 |
  New York--  |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
    Bor. of   |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
    Man. and  |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
    Bronx:    |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |  7,715 |  9,271 | 5,310 | 3,198 |  6,540 | 15,318 | 2,663 |
       2      |    218 |    273 |   155 |    57 |     77 |    323 |   147 |
       3      |    2.8 |    2.9 |   2.9 |   1.8 |    1.2 |    2.1 |   5.5 |
    Bor. of   |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
    Queens:   |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |    673 |    540 |   307 |   388 |    730 |  1,986 |    61 |
       2      |     22 |     13 |    13 |    13 |     13 |     31 |     3 |
       3      |    3.2 |    2.4 |   4.2 |   3.4 |    1.8 |    1.6 |   4.9 |
  Paterson--  |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |    188 |    268 |    99 |   132 |    225 |    617 |   ... |
       2      |      7 |     11 |    15 |     6 |     18 |     38 |     2 |
       3      |    3.7 |    4.1 |  15.2 |   4.5 |    8.0 |    6.2 |   ... |
  Portland--  |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |    205 |    161 |   225 |   265 |    199 |  1,549 |    35 |
       2      |      8 |      8 |     7 |    12 |      7 |     87 |     4 |
       3      |    3.9 |    5.0 |   3.1 |   4.5 |    3.5 |    5.6 |  11.4 |
  Rochester-- |        |        |       |       |        |        |       |
       1      |    246 |    244 |   129 |   306 |    500 |  1,208 |    57 |
       2      |      9 |      9 |     9 |     8 |     43 |     43 |     2 |
       3      |    3.7 |    3.7 |   7.0 |   2.6 |    8.6 |    3.6 |   3.5 |

         (Part Two)
              |CLERGY-|        |MANAGERS|  MNFG.  | MOTOR- | PAINTERS|
      CITY    |  MEN  |LABORERS|  AND   |   AND   |  MEN   |   AND   |
              |       |        | SUPTS. |OFFICIALS|        | GLAZIERS|
  Total for 7 |       |        |        |         |        |         |
     cities-- |       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      | 1,425 | 8,426  | 2,175  | 16,779  | 3,855  | 16,772  |
       2      |    67 | 1,362  |   154  |    511  |    92  |    514  |
       3      |   4.7 |   1.5  |   7.1  |    2.7  |   2.4  |    3.1  |
  Bridgeport--|       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      |   ... | 2,735  |    43  |    103  |   ...  |    221  |
       2      |     3 |    35  |   ...  |      1  |   ...  |      9  |
       3      |   ... |   1.3  |   ...  |    1.0  |   ...  |    4.1  |
  Cincinnati--|       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      |   ... | 2,488  |   101  |    568  |    53  |    437  |
       2      |     3 |    20  |     5  |      9  |     1  |     11  |
       3      |   ... |   0.8  |   5.0  |    1.6  |   1.9  |    2.5  |
  Cleveland-- |       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      |   ... |   839  |   274  |  1,148  |   247  |  1,336  |
       2      |     5 |   488  |     8  |     39  |     4  |     42  |
       3      |   ... |   2.9  |   2.9  |    3.4  |   1.6  |    3.1  |
  New York--  |       |        |        |         |        |         |
    Bor. of   |       |        |        |         |        |         |
    Man. and  |       |        |        |         |        |         |
    Bronx:    |       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      | 1,247 | 4,211  | 1,339  | 14,944  | 3,178  | 12,866  |
       2      |    40 |   397  |   120  |    421  |    75  |    385  |
       3      |   3.2 |   0.9  |   9.0  |    2.8  |   2.4  |    3.0  |
    Bor. of   |       |        |        |         |        |         |
    Queens:   |       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      |   ... | 4,861  |   155  |    810  |   168  |    790  |
       2      |     1 |    63  |     3  |      6  |     3  |     31  |
       3      |   ... |   1.3  |   1.9  |    0.7  |   1.8  |    2.7  |
  Paterson--  |       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      |   ... |   713  |    84  |    483  |   ...  |    272  |
       2      |     1 |    72  |     9  |     24  |     1  |     19  |
       3      |   ... |   4.2  |  10.7  |    5.0  |   ...  |    7.0  |
  Portland--  |       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      |   106 | 5,831  |    85  |    254  |    84  |    376  |
       2      |    11 |    96  |     4  |    ...  |     4  |     17  |
       3      |  10.4 |   1.4  |   4.7  |    ...  |   4.8  |    4.5  |
  Rochester-- |       |        |        |         |        |         |
       1      |    72 | 3,626  |    94  |    469  |   125  |    474  |
       2      |     3 |   137  |     5  |     11  |     4  |     10  |
       3      |   4.2 |   3.8  |   5.3  |    2.3  |   3.2  |    2.1  |

          (Part Three)
              |          | RETAIL  |          |         |
              |          |         |          |         |
  Total for 7 |          |         |          |         |
     cities-- |          |         |          |         |
       1      |   5,404  |  67,204 |  21,404  |  39,918 | 335,176
       2      |     193  |   2,103 |     591  |   2,120 |   9,930
       3      |     3.6  |     3.1 |     2.8  |     5.3 |     3.0
  Bridgeport--|          |         |          |         |
       1      |     133  |     886 |     177  |     266 |   6,191
       2      |       5  |      54 |      10  |      16 |     193
       3      |     3.8  |     6.1 |     5.7  |     6.0 |     3.1
  Cincinnati--|          |         |          |         |
       1      |     101  |   1,977 |     526  |   1,120 |   9,802
       2      |       2  |      45 |       9  |      24 |     183
       3      |     2.0  |     2.2 |     1.7  |     2.1 |     1.9
  Cleveland-- |          |         |          |         |
       1      |     544  |   5,125 |   1,131  |   2,824 |  37,779
       2      |      27  |     213 |      17  |     182 |   1,477
       3      |     5.0  |     4.2 |     1.5  |     6.4 |     3.9
  New York--  |          |         |          |         |
    Bor. of   |          |         |          |         |
    Man. and  |          |         |          |         |
    Bronx:    |          |         |          |         |
       1      |   3,948  |  52,323 |  17,573  |  33,101 | 235,745
       2      |     139  |   1,569 |     508  |   1,754 |   6,658
       3      |     3.5  |     3.0 |     2.9  |     5.3 |     2.8
    Bor. of   |          |         |          |         |
    Queens:   |          |         |          |         |
       1      |     273  |   2,853 |     630  |     602 |  15,836
       2      |       6  |      50 |       8  |      17 |     286
       3      |     2.2  |     1.8 |     1.3  |     2.8 |     1.8
  Paterson--  |          |         |          |         |
       1      |     106  |   1,197 |     259  |     288 |   5,931
       2      |       8  |      77 |       9  |      20 |     337
       3      |     7.5  |     6.4 |     3.5  |     6.9 |     5.7
  Portland--  |          |         |          |         |
       1      |     149  |   1,391 |     672  |     437 |  13,024
       2      |       5  |      42 |      22  |      29 |     354
       3      |     3.4  |     3.0 |     3.3  |     4.6 |     2.7
  Rochester-- |          |         |          |         |
       1      |     150  |   1,452 |     436  |   1,280 |  10,868
       2      |       1  |      53 |       8  |      87 |     442
       3      |     0.7  |     3.6 |     1.8  |     6.8 |     4.1



  Abbott, Grace, 208

  Addams, Jane, 324

    At arrival, 236-247
    Limitations for naturalization, 95-96

  Akron, Ohio:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

    Immigrants Political privileges, 5, 217

    (See Immigrants)
    Cobelligerents, 257
      Enemy, 260-263
    Desertion, 279-281
    Legal position, 5-7
    Naturalization bureau support, 189-193
    Reciprocal conscription, 278
    Rights in United States, 6
    War registration, 267-277

      Indelibility, 56
    Oath, 137-142
    Registered aliens, 267-269

  America, 14-16
    Immigrants’ vision of, 17

    Attitude on naturalization, 195-196
    Born abroad, 51-52
    Definition, 7-16
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Types, 1

    Essentials, 14-16

    Agencies, 177-180, 305-307, 330-333
    Factors, 37-39, 173
    Program, 139-140

  American Labor Union, 402

  American Railway Union, 402

    Jus Solis, 45

      Political privilege, 5

      Political privileges, 5, 217
    Naturalization denials, 126

  Arthur, Chester A., 79

  Assimilation, 38-39, 287-288

  Auburn, Maine:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

    Allegiance, 274-275
    Classification, 287-288
    Immigration, 19-20, 197, 205
    Jus Sanguinis, 44
    Naturalization treaties, 56
    Vote in New York City, 350, 353

  Ayer’s American Newspaper Annual and Directory, 388


  Bay City, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

    Immigrants, 205
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Naturalization Treaties, 56

  Bennett, William S., 345-347, 355

  Benton Harbor, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

  Bingham, George G., 311

  Blair, A. Z., 345

    In Cleveland, 287, 360
    Naturalized, 206

  Borchard, Edwin M., 4, 52, 56, 59, 60, 64

    Naturalization Division, 89

    Naturalization treaties, 56

  Breckinridge, S. P., 305

  Bridgeport, Connecticut:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

  Briggs-Wall, Henrietta, 141

  Brissenden, Paul Frederic, 406

  Brooks, John Graham, viii, 8

  Brownson, O. A., 378

  Buchanan, Pres., 78

    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45

  Bureau of Citizenship and Americanization, 180-184

  Bureau of Education, 180

  Bureau of Naturalization, 19, 81, 89-92, 104, 171-173, 177-193,
        200-204, 225, 255, 425-428

    Naturalization, 93

  Byllesby, L., 379


  Cadillac, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

    Gold discovery, 25

  Campbell, Richard K., xxiii, 81, 82, 89-92, 101-105, 187, 285

    Naturalization, 145

  Carpenter, A. H., 72

    Butchers’ Benevolent Association versus Crescent City Live Stock
          Company, 65
    Cruikshank vs. United States, 67
    Fernandez vs. United States, 94
    Friedl vs. United States, 99
    Lopez vs. United States, 94
    Minor vs. Happersett, 64
    Phillips, William, 115
    Pollock, John, 99
    United States vs. Boovris, 115
    United States vs. Brefo, 97
    United States vs. Gerstein, 136
    United States vs. Hill, 162
    United States vs. Langtry, 97
    United States vs. McMillan, 162
    United States vs. Mackey, 98
    United States vs. Mulcrevy, 162
    United States vs. Olson, 119
    United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 49, 51

  Certificate of Arrival, 109-112

  Certificates of naturalization:
    Interval between 1st paper, 238
    Interval between petition, 237
    Issued 1907-1920, 201

    Moral, 135-137

    Municipal Voters’ League, 333-334
    Naturalization division, 89
    Politics, 32-33, 36

    Born at sea, 52-53
    Factor in election, 333-334
    Foreign birth, 51-52
    Parentage, 84-85, 247, 301-303

    Jus Sanguinis, 44
    Naturalization, 93

  Cincinnati, Ohio:
    Good Government League, 373-374
    Naturalization courts, 227
      Study, 227-254

      Children, 51
      Desertion, military, 279-281
      Jurisdiction, 64-68
    By birth, 1
    By choice, 1, 3, 7
    Definition, 46-51

    (See Naturalization)
    American, 1, 49-50
      Application, 231, 253
        Cause, 254
        Fitness of candidates, 193-195, 250
      Attitude, 17, 25
      Essentials, 46-49
      Foreign born women, 296-334
        By races, 207-211,
        For military service, 95
      Interval between arrival, 17, 31, 236-254
      Legal Recognition, 65-67
      Need for, 32
      Sex, 62-63
      Tests, 68

  Claghorn, Kate Holladay, 7

  Clark, John B., 212

  Clarke, Frederic, 342

    Naturalization Court, 2, 161-167

  Cleveland, Grover, 79

  Cleveland, Ohio:
    Bohemians, 287
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254
    Study of elections, 357-365

      Immigrants in, 69-70
      Naturalization in, 70-73
    Foreign born
      Menace of, 2-3

    Naturalization denials, 126

  Communists, 377

  Commons, John R., 213

    Naturalization denials, 126

  Constitution of United States, 50, 65, 69-70, 73, 123-126, 135,
        144, 176, 296, 304

  Cooper, Thomas, 378

  Costa Rica:
    Naturalization treaties, 56

    Person without, 38, 63-64

    Clerks, 161-167
    Naturalization, 26-29, 87-88, 93-95, 108, 119-120, 145-147, 227
    Studied, 227-254, 429-434

  Crist, Raymond F., xxiii, 177, 183, 294, 299, 311

    Naturalization, 205

    Socialists, 384


  Dana, Charles A., 379

  Daniels, John, 36

    Immigrants, 19, 25
    Naturalized, 206
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Naturalization treaties, 55-56

  Davenport, John I., 26, 27, 29

  Declaration of Intention:
    Abolishment, 102-105, 417-420
    Attitude of judges, 105-107, 419
      In other states, 247-250
      Number, 201
    Form, 96-98, 107, 418-419
    Interval from
      Arrival to, 96, 236-250
      To petition, 218-224
    Invalid, 98-102
    Suffrage through, 217-218
    Time limit, 107-109, 228

    Naturalization laws, 73

  Democratic, 21-23, 31

    Cause, 88-100, 231, 263, 415, 432-433
      Comparison, 232
        By race, 233
      Special, 234
        By race, 234-236

  Denver, Colo.:
    Naturalization division, 89

  Department of labor, 168

    By citizenship, 279-281

  Detroit, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

  Devoe, Emma Smith, 325

  Dillingham, William P., 204

    Immigrants, 205


      By races, 215-217

  Easton, Pennsylvania:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

    Naturalization treaties, 56

    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45

  Eliot, Charles W., 373

  Ellerbe, Paul Lee, xxiv

  Elmira, New York:
    Naturalization Court, 227
      Study, 227-254

  Emmett, Thomas Addis, 23

    Politicians’ usage of, 32

    Naturalization in, 145
    Politics, 24

    Ability to speak, 120-123
        Naturalization, 253
        Entry, 416
      Naturalization, 205-206
    Publications, 345, 348, 422

    Right, 54-55


  Fall River, Massachusetts:
    Naturalization receptions, 138-139

    Naturalization, 94

    Jus Sanguinis, 44
    Socialist, 384

  Flint, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

    Declaration of intention cases, 97
    Naturalization denial, 126

  Flournoy, R., 59

  Foreign Legion, 273

  Fosdick, Raymond B., viii

    Citizenship, 55
    Jus Sanguinis, 44
    Naturalization, 145

    Immigrants, 205

  Fuller, Margaret, 379


  Galesburg, Illinois:
    Naturalization courts, 227

  Gay, Edwin F., viii

    Jus Solis, 45

    Citizenship laws, 57-62
      Naturalization of, 205-206
      Number, 22
      Politics, 24-25
    Immigration, 18-20, 25, 197, 205
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Press, 388
    Socialist, 387-390
    Vote in New York City, 352-353

  Giddings, Franklin H., 9

  Gillette, John M., 398

  Glenn, John M., viii

  Godwin, Parke, 379

  Gompers, Samuel, 336

    Land possession, 40
    Relation between Federal and State, 6

    In naturalization courts, 165-167

  Grand Rapids, Michigan:
    Americanization society, 330-334
    Civic interest in, 365-369
    Naturalization program, 139-140
    Women registered, 368

  Grant U. S., 79

  Great Britain:
    Immigrants, 18, 19
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Naturalization treaties, 56-57

    Expatriation rights, 54
    Immigration, 197
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45

  Greeley, Horace, 379


    Naturalization treaties, 56

  Hamilton, Alexander, 70

  Harrison, Benjamin, 79

  Harrison, J. B., 343

  Hart, Hornell, xxiii

    Naturalization, 93

  Hawkins, L. H., xxiii

  Hawthorne, Nathan, 379

  Hearst, William R., 355

  Higgins, A. Pearce, 59

  Holmes, Edith Knight, 326

    Naturalization, 56

  Hung, Gaillard, 81

    Jus Sanguinis, 44
    Socialists, 384


    Declaration of intention cases, 97
    Naturalization denials, 126

  Immigrants (see Aliens):
      Aid, 32
      Attitude, 3-5
      Cause of immigration, 18-21
      Interval between arrival and citizenship, 17
      New, 197-224, 233-254
      Number, 19-20
      Old, 197-224, 233-254
      Proportion of all foreign born, 2
      Vision of America, 17
      Vote, 335-376
      Refusal to submit to injustice, 7

    Rights, 44-45
    To America, 43-44
      Cause, 18, 25-30
        By years, 22
        Variation, 17-20

    Comparison--declarations to petitions, 222
      Political privileges, 5, 217
    Naturalization denials, 126

  Industrial Workers of the World, 403-409

  International Working Peoples Association, 402

    Naturalization denials, 126

  Iowa City, Iowa:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

    Immigrants, 18, 21, 25, 197
      Naturalized, 206
      Number, 22
      Politics, 21-24
    Vote in New York City, 352-353

    Citizenship rights, 55
    Immigrants, 19-20, 197, 231
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Naturalization petitioners, 124
    Socialist, 384
      Cleveland, 357-365
      New York City, 352-353

  Ithaca, New York:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254


  Jackson, Michigan:
    Women registrants, 368

    Jus Sanguinis, 44
    Naturalization, 93

  Jefferson, Thomas, 75, 78

  Jenks, J. W., 343

  Jennings, R. L., 379

    Socialist, 384, 390-391
    Vote in Cleveland, 358

  Johnson, Andrew, 78

  Johnstone, Lucy B., 325

      Denials, 129-133
      Derivative voters, 315-317
      Examiners, 170-171
      Naturalization, 29, 105-107, 113, 120-123, 158-161, 174-177,
            283-285, 411-412, 419
    Naturalization Ceremonies, 137-138, 423-425
    Personal equation, 147-158

    Vote in Cleveland, 358

    Of citizens, 64-68

  Jus Sanguinis, 42, 44-45

  Jus Solis, 42, 44-45


  Kalamazoo, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

      Political privileges, 5, 217
    Naturalization denial, 126

    Declaration of intention cases, 97
    Naturalization denials, 126

  Kohs, S. C., xxiii


    Vote, 335-339

    Naturalization Factor, 214-215

  Lansing, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

    Aliens, 5-7
    Blood, 42, 44-45
    Naturalization, 30, 70-88
      Amendment to, 132
    Soil, 42, 44-45

    Rights of aliens, 5-7

    Immigrant suffrage, 5
    Naturalization law, 50, 69-88, 132, 144-145, 181-186, 259-261

    Socialists, 384

  Lincoln, Abraham, 78

  Lipsky, Abram, 348, 357

    Socialist, 384

  Lowell, James Russell, 379

    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45


  Madison, James, 73, 78

    Vote in Cleveland, 360

    Naturalization of, 77

    Naturalization laws, 73

    Naturalization denials, 126
    Naturalization law, 73

  Meeker, Jacob, 262

  Melting Pot:
    Test of, 281-282

      Naturalization denials, 126
      Political privileges, 5, 217

  Middletown, Connecticut:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

  Military Service:
    Naturalization through, 93, 255-295

  Mineola, New York:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254.

      Naturalization denials, 126
      Suffrage, 5, 217

  Moley, Raymond, xxiii-xxiv

    Jus Sanguinis, 44

    Naturalization denials, 126

    Naturalized, 206

  Morris, Oliver S., 397

  Munro, William Bennett, 33, 375

  Muskegon, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

  Myers, Gustavus, 23-24


  McCook, J. J., 343

  McKinley, President, 77


  Nationality, 40
    Denial, 53-54

  National Labor Union, 402

    Aid, 32
      United States Presidents, 78
      All foreign born, 2
      First to second papers, 218-224
      New and old immigrants, 204-217
    Court clerks, 161-167
    Declaration of intention, 98-105
    Denials, 120-137, 415
    Derivation, 302-303
    Factors, 214-224
      Educational test, 173-177
      Military service, 255-295
    Fees, 190
    Frauds, 25-30, 265-267
    Intervals, 236-243
    Law, 30, 69-88
      Operation, 89-142
    Personal equation in, 143-196
    Petitioners, 225-254
      Women, 309-311
    Process, 1, 21, 31, 199-202, 420-422
    Requirements, 83-88, 120-123, 410-412, 416
    Restriction, 92-96
    Service, 167-173, 185-189, 200, 202

  Nearing, Scott, 289

      Political privilege, 5, 217
    Naturalization denials, 126

    Right to renounce citizenship, 55

  New Brunswick, New Jersey:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

  New Hampshire:
    Naturalization denials, 93

  New Jersey:
    Naturalization cases, 92-100
    Naturalization denials, 126

  New Mexico:
    Naturalization denials, 126

  New York:
    Assembly, 29, 401
    Immigration commissioner, 164
    Naturalization laws, 71, 73

  New York City:
    Delays in naturalization courts, 163
    Foreign-born vote, 347-354
    Merchants Association, 413
    Naturalization in, 20
      Courts, 227
        Study, 227-254,
      Division offices, 89

    Naturalization treaties, 56

  Nonpartisan League, 397-401

  North Carolina:
    Declaration of intention cases, 97
    Naturalization denials, 126

  North Dakota:
      Political privilege, 5

    Immigrants, 19, 25
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Naturalization treaties, 56
    Naturalized, 206

  Norwich, Connecticut:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254


    Petitioners, 250-252, 434

    Alien suffrage, 5, 217
    Naturalization denials, 126

  Organization of Brewery Workers and Miners, 402

  Owen, Robert, 378


  Paterson, New Jersey:
    Naturalization courts, 227
      Study, 227-254

    Naturalization laws, 70
      Declaration of intention cases, 97

    Jus Sanguinis, 44

  “Personal equation”
    In naturalization, 143-196

    Naturalization treaties, 56

      Married, 247, 304
      Statistics on, 225-254, 429-434
      Types, 289-291

      Compared with declaration of intention, 218-224
      Examination of, 225-254
      Filed, 201

    Naturalization division, 89

  Piggott, F. I., 47

  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
    Naturalization division, 89

  Pleydell, A. C., 374

    Vote in Cleveland, 358

    Admission, 1
    Americanization, 37-39
    Clubs, 33-37
    Corruption, 2, 24-25, 341-345
    Frauds, 29
    Immigrant influence, 339-340
    Indifference, 320
      In England, 24
    Issue, 23
      Immigrants, 2-3, 21-25, 296-334, 335-376
    Parties, 21-25, 31, 354, 377, 380-391, 393
    Rights, 5

  Political society:
    Roots of, 42-43

    Interest in humanity, 33-35
    Interest in immigrants, 31-33
    Labor vote, 335

    Foreign born, 2
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, 367
    Increase, 5

  Port Huron, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

  Portland, Oregon:
    Naturalization courts, 227
      Study, 227-254

  Porto Ricans:
    Naturalization, 94

    Immigrants, 198
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Naturalization treaties, 56

  Presidents of United States:
    Naturalization discussion, 77-80

  Progressive, 354

      _Better Times_, 422
      _Outlook_, 345
      _Popular Science_, 348
    German, 388
      Appeal to Reason, 381
      Foreign language, 381
      Milwaukee _Leader_, 380
      _National Rip-Saw_, 381
      New York _Call_, 380

  Purdy, Milton D., 81


      Old and new, 204-217
      By age at arrival, 244-247
      By citizenship, 228-232
      By denials, 223-236
    Interval comparisons, 236-241, 243
    Naturalization restrictions, 92-96, 264-265

      Foreign born, 377-409

  Registration (War), 267-273

    German, 24-25

      Earning power, 215-217
      Naturalization, 124-126, 126-135, 208-214
    Stability, 247-250

  Rhode Island:
    Naturalization denials, 126

  Ripley, George, 379

  Robinson, Helen Ring, 326

  Rochester, New York:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

    Classification of alien, 4

  Romen, A., 59

  Roosevelt, Theodore, viii, 80

  Ross, Edward A., 212

    Immigrants, 197
    Jus Sanguinis, 44

    Expatriation rights, 54
    Immigrants, 19-20, 197, 231
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Vote in New York City, 352-353


  St. Louis, Missouri:
    Naturalization division offices, 89, 107

  St. Paul, Minnesota:
    Naturalization division, offices, 89

  Saginaw, Michigan:
    Women registrants, 368

    Naturalization, 77, 228

    Naturalization treaties, 56

  San Francisco, California:
    Naturalization division offices, 89

    Immigrants, 197, 205
    Socialist, 384

  Schools, Public:
    Citizenship enrollment, 321-323
    Factor in reaching women, 328-329
    Relation with Bureau of Naturalization, 204

    Naturalized, 206

  Seattle, Washington:
    Naturalization, 227
      Court Study, 227-254
      Division, 89

    Jus Sanguinis, 44
    Right to renounce citizenship, 55

  Seward, William H., 25

    Citizenship relation, 62-63

  Single Tax, 377, 393

  Skidmore, Thomas, 379

    Socialist, 384

    Socialist, 384

    Definition, 379-380
    History, 401-402
    Influence, German, 387-390
    Influence, Jewish, 390-391
    Members, 381-382
    Press, 380-381
    Racial composites, 383-385
    Vote, 385-387
    War effects, 391-393
    Work with labor, 402

  Social workers, 195

    Alien, 257
    Naturalization of, 5, 217

  South Carolina:
    Naturalization denials, 126
    Naturalization laws, 70

  South Dakota:
    Immigrants (Unnaturalized)
      Political privilege, 5, 217

  Sovereigns of industry, 402

    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45

  Speek, Peter A., 395

  Stokes, Elizabeth King, xxiv

  Sturges, Merton A., 422-425

    Alien, 5, 217-218
      In American colonies, 73
    Women, 303-304, 314-315

    Immigrants, 19, 25
      Naturalization, 205-206
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Naturalization treaties, 56

    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45
    Right to renounce citizenship, 55

    Naturalization of, 205


  Taylor, Graham, 371

      Political privileges, 5, 217

  Thiesing, I. H., 59

  Thompson, F. B., 193

  Traverse City, Michigan:
    Women registered, 368

  Troy, New York:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

    Expatriation rights
      Denial, 54
    Jus Sanguinis, 45
    Jus Solis, 45


  United States Census, 288

  United States Department of War:
    Report of, 256, 267-269, 271-276, 278-280, 282, 285

  United States Immigration Commission, 207-209, 211, 215-216, 220

    Naturalization treaties, 55

    Naturalization denials, 126


  Van Buren, Martin, 70

  Van Deusen, A. C., 81

    Naturalization denials, 126

    Naturalization laws, 71-73

  Voll, John A., viii

    Foreign born, 33
      Action of, 335-376
      Derivative, 302, 317-318
      Influence on politics, 2
      Socialist, 385-387


  Warne, Frank J., 18, 19, 20

    Civil, 15, 20, 76
    Mexican, 16
    Revolutionary, 15
    Spanish, 16, 92
    World, 6, 13, 14, 16, 32, 40, 61, 68, 177, 195, 227, 255, 299,
          354, 384, 391-393
    1812, 15, 57, 76

  Washington, D. C.:
    Naturalization division, 89

  Washington, George, 73

  Waterman, T. T., xxiii

  Weatherly, Ulysses G., 11, 13, 286

  Weiss, Andrew, 47

    Naturalized, 206

  Whitehouse, Visa Boardman, 325

  White Plains, New York:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

  Williams, Talcott, viii

  Wilson, William B., 183

    Comparison of declaration to petitions, 223
    Naturalization denial, 126

  Wise, I. M., 375

    Deposition, 133-135
    Incompetent, 126-133

    Citizenship, 62-63
    Foreign born
      In politics, 296-334
    Registered in Michigan, 368
    Without country, 38, 63, 64

  Worcester, Massachusetts:
    Naturalization court, 227
      Study, 227-254

  Working Men’s Party, 402



[1] Edwin M. Borchard, _The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens
Abroad_, p. 33 _et seq._

[2] Letters from Attorneys-General of Arkansas and Missouri, as
late as October, 1921, state that no change has been made. The
Attorney-General of Alabama points out that a careful reading of the
state constitution “discloses that only foreigners who had declared
their intention of becoming citizens prior to the adoption of the
constitution of 1901 were entitled to register and vote, and that
such person lost this right if he did not become a citizen at the
time that he was entitled to become such under the laws of the United

[3] This is subject, of course, to the universal exceptions regarding
alien enemies in time of war; also to such other exceptions as
special statutes in certain states regarding the holding of real
property and other matters.

[4] See Kate Holladay Claghorn, _The Immigrant’s Day in Court_ (_in

[5] John Graham Brooks, _As Others See Us_, 1909.

[6] _Proceedings of the American Sociological Society_, vol. v, p.
57, etc., paper on “The Racial Element in Social Assimilation.”

[7] See report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1920.

[8] Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 128 _et seq._

[9] Gustavus Myers, _History of Tammany Hall_, p. 118.

[10] John I. Davenport, _The Wig and the Jimmy_, pp. 12-13.

[11] John I. Davenport, _The Wig and the Jimmy_, pp. 17-18.

[12] William Bennet Munro, _Government of American Cities_,
Macmillan, 1912, p. 167 _et seq._

[13] These activities are well summarized by John Daniels in his
Americanization Study volume entitled _America via the Neighborhood_,
New York, Harper & Brothers, 1920, p. 383 _et seq._

[14] Joshua vi, vii.

[15] Joshua vii: 24, 25.

[16] F. T. Piggott, _Nationality_, London, 1906, and E. M. Borchard,
_Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad_, New York, 1916.

[17] United States _vs._ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649.

[18] Fourteenth Amendment--1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

[19] Cockburn, _Nationality_, p. 7.

[20] See Murray _vs._ The Charming Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64; Inglis _vs._
Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet, 99; M‘Creery _vs._ Somerville, 9 Wheat,
354; see also Instruction of Marcy, Secretary of State, to Mason
(1854), quoted in _Moor’s Digest of International Law_, iii, p. 276.

[21] Revised Statutes, sec. 1993. See House Document 326, Fifty-ninth
Congress, Second Session.

[22] See discussion of this question by Borchard--_The Diplomatic
Protection of Citizens Abroad_, p. 583 _et seq._, and footnotes.

[23] See Department of State, Circular notice, January 9, 1914.

[24] In former times, even the American-born child of parents of
Turkish birth has gone to that country at his peril. This was under
the old conditions; what the postwar reconstruction will effect in
this regard remains to be seen.

[25] See Hall, _International Law_, 7th ed., p. 247.

[26] See Hall, _International Law_, p. 246.

[27] These treaties may be found in Malloy’s _Treaties_, 1910-13;
also see Edwin M. Borchard, _The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens
Abroad_, p. 548 _et seq._

[28] Edwin M. Borchard, _The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens
Abroad_, p. 549.

[29] Hall, _International Law_, 7th ed., p. 241.

[30] See _Dr. jur. A Romen, Reichs und Staatsangehorigkeitsgesetz,
Güttentag Sammlung_, No. 111.

[31] A notable discussion of the Delbrück Law is to be found in
an article by T. H. Thiesing, “Dual Allegiance in the German
Law of Nationality and American Citizenship.” _Yale Review_,
27:4 (February, 1919). See also R. Flournoy in _American Journal
of International Law_, 8:480 (July, 1914), and the _Meyer
Reichs-und-Staatsangehorigkeitsgesetz vom 22 Juli, 1913_. Berlin,
1913, p. 168-E.; also Edwin M. Borchard, _The Diplomatic Protection
of Citizens Abroad_, p. 576; also Hall, _International Law_, revision
by A. Pearce Higgins, pp. 245-246.

[32] The status of declarants in this and other relationships is
fully discussed by Edwin M. Borchard, in _The Diplomatic Protection
of Citizens Abroad_, pp. 501 _et seq._ and 568 _et seq._, with
elaborate footnotes citing authorities and precedents.

[33] See Edwin M. Borchard, _The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens
Abroad_, pp. 19, 591.

[34] See chap. vi, p. 148 _et seq._

[35] 21 Wallace, 162.

[36] Butchers’ Benevolent Association _vs._ Crescent City Live Stock
Company, 16 Wallace, 36.

[37] McClain, _Constitutional Law in the United States_, p. 276.

[38] See Willoughby on the Constitution, i, p. 272.

[39] See _in re_ Wehlitz, 16 Wisconsin, 443.

[40] United States _vs._ Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542.

[41] This exception is said to have been included principally to
allow eligibility to Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West
Indies, under the British flag.

[42] 13 George II, chap. 7--Ruffhead’s _Statutes-at-Large_, vi, p.

[43] See Channing’s _History of the United States_, vol. ii, pp.
413-416; also A. H. Carpenter, “Naturalization in England and the
Colonies,” _American Historical Review_, vol. ix, p. 288.

[44] _Constitution of the United States_, art. i, sec. 8, 4.

[45] _United States Statutes-at-Large_, vol. i, pp. 103-104.

[46] _United States Statutes-at-Large_, vol. i, pp. 414-441.

[47] _United States Statutes-at-Large_, vol. ii, pp. 153-155.

[48] _United States Statutes-at-Large_, vol. ii, pp. 292-293.

[49] _Ibid._, p. 811.

[50] _Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 53.

[51] _Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 259.

[52] _Ibid._, vol. iv, p. 69.

[53] _Ibid._, vol. iv, p. 310.

[54] _Ibid._, vol. ix, p. 240.

[55] _United States Statutes-at-Large_, vol. xii, p. 597.

[56] _Ibid._, vol. xix, p. 2.

[57] _Ibid._, vol. xvii, p. 268, and vol. xxviii, p. 124.

[58] _Ibid._, vol. xxxii, pt. 1, p. 1222.

[59] Extracts from this report may be found in the _Report of the
President’s Commission on Naturalization_, Fifty-ninth Congress,
First Session, House Document 46.

[60] The report of this commission is available as House Document 46,
Fifty-ninth Congress, First Session.

[61] With the creation of the Department of Labor, in 1913, out
of the former Department of Commerce and Labor--Commerce becoming
a separate department--the Naturalization Service became a Bureau
of that department, headed by a Commissioner responsible to the
Secretary of Labor.

[62] Act of June 29, 1906 (34 _United States Statutes-at-Large_, pt.
i, p. 596), as amended by Act of March 4, 1909 (35 _Stat._, pt. i, p.
1102), as further amended by Act of June 25, 1910 (36 _Stat._, pt. i,
p. 830), as further amended by Act of March 4, 1913 (37 _Stat._, pt.
i, p. 736), as further amended by Act of May 9, 1918 (Public No. 144,
Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session).

[63] The Oath of Allegiance usually imposed in these proceedings
reads as follows:

  _I hereby declare on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce
  and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
  potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to [name of
  sovereign of country] of whom I have heretofore been a subject;
  that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the
  United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic,
  and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same._

[64] The division offices are located in Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St. Louis, St. Paul, Denver, San
Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D. C., the last named being a
division field headquarters, with a chief examiner in charge, as well
as the site of the general headquarters of the Naturalization Bureau

[65] That is to say, has been extant for at least two years, and,
presumably, whether it has not expired by reason of having been
extant for more than seven years--in which event it would be invalid
by expiration.

[66] See Van Dyne, _Naturalization_, pp. 42-50; Moore, _Digest of
International Law_, vol. iii, p. 329.

[67] _In re_ Lopez, unreported; Supreme Court, District of Columbia,
December 13, 1915. _In re_ Fernandez, unreported; same court,
September 24, 1913.

[68] See chapter ix, on Military Naturalization.

[69] See p. 237, this volume.

[70] Compiled from the reports of the Commissioner of Immigration.

[71] District Court for Washington County, Colorado: _In re_ William
Wallace Mackey (1914). Unreported.

[72] _In re_ Friedl, 202 Fed., 300.

[73] By July 1, 1919, this total number of declarations unexamined
had grown to 1,011,676. (See _Commissioner’s Annual Report_ for
fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, p. 25.)

[74] See bill (H. R. 9949) of Representative Johnson of Washington,
Sixty-sixth Congress, First Session. October 15, 1919.

[75] _Report of Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1917, p. 75.

[76] Mexico appears to be the only other country in which any such
preliminary declaration and extended period of probation is required.

[77] _In re_ Boovris, 205 Fed., 401.

[78] _In re_ William Phillips (1913), Court of Common Pleas for
Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Unreported.

[79] See _ex parte_ Sauer, in note to 81 Fed., 355 (District Court,
Uvalde County, Texas, 1891). See also United States _vs._ Olsen 196
Fed., 562.

[80] These efforts of the Bureau to augment its scope and authority
are discussed in this volume, p. 180 _et seq._

[81] See H. R. 9949, introduced by Mr. Johnson of Washington,
Sixty-sixth Congress, First Session.

[82] United States _vs._ Gerstein.

[83] Art. I, sec. 8, par. 4.

[84] See _Report of the President’s Commission on Naturalization_,
1905, Fifty-first Congress, First Session, House Document 46.

[85] The words “approximately” and “entitled” are appropriate here,
because by no means all of the judges empowered to naturalize
exercise the function, and the list is constantly changing by reason
of death, retirement, readjustment of work in large courts, etc.

[86] See United States _vs._ Hill, 120 U. S., 169; Hill _vs._ United
States, 40 Fed., 441; United States _vs._ McMillan, 165 U. S., 504;
_in re_ Halladjian, 174 Fed., 834.

[87] The text here quoted is from the law as it now stands; it
differs very slightly in verbiage, but not in meaning, from the law
as it read when quoted in the New York Immigration Commission’s

[88] _Report of the Commissioner_ for fiscal year ending June 30,

[89] _Report of the Commissioner_ for fiscal year ending June 30,
1915, p. 33.

[90] Compare S. 4792, July 2, 1918, and S. 5001, October 21, 1918,
Senate bills, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session.

[91] The Secretary’s letter is given in full in the _Annual Report of
the Commissioner of Naturalization_ for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1918--though it bears a date more than two months later than that
of the report itself.

[92] Sixty-sixth Congress, First Session, H. R. 6176; Calendar No. 43
(Senate), Report No. 52, June 23, 1919.--Calendar Day, June 26, p.

[93] H. R. 9949 (Committee print); Sixty-sixth Congress, First
Session, October 15, 1919.

[94] _Report of Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1917, p. 27.

[95] _Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1918-19, pp.

[96] That was the year (1918-19) of the emergency appropriation
of $400,000, referred to heretofore in this chapter, p. 181, for
dealing with persons technically alien enemies, but nevertheless
individually loyal, which was used for the establishment of a new and
hoped-to-be-permanent division in the Bureau, under a “Director of

[97] See F. V. Thompson, _Schooling of the Immigrant_.

[98] Chap. viii, p. 225 _et seq._

[99] _Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration_, 1919, p. 24.

[100] _Ibid._, p. 25.

[101] Grace Abbott, _The Immigrant and the Community_, 1917, pp.

[102] Chap. viii, p. 236 _et seq._

[103] _Abstracts_, vol. i, p. 485.

[104] See Table VIII in this volume, p. 207.

[105] Edward A. Ross, _The Old World and the New_, 1914.

[106] John B. Clark, _A Documentary History of American Industrial
Society_, 1910, vol. i, p. 52.

[107] John R. Commons, _Races and Immigrants in America_, 1907, pp.

[108] Edward A. Ross, _The Old World and the New_, 1914, p. 266.

[109] See Table X, p. 211.

[110] _Report of Immigration Commission_, vol. i, p. 488.

[111] Compiled from _Report of the Immigration Commission_, vol. i,
pp. 379, 385, 397.

[112] Since that time, however, all, except Arkansas and Missouri,
either have entirely withdrawn the privilege by constitutional
amendment or statute, or are in process of withdrawing it.

[113] Compiled from _Reports of the Commissioner of Naturalization_,

[114] See p. 109.

[115] See p. 231.

[116] See chap. v, p. 108.

[117] See chap. ix, p. 255, _et seq._

[118] The full tables regarding marital condition and number
and nativity of children will be found (Tables LVI and LVII,
respectively) in the Appendix.

[119] New York (boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx and Queens), Cleveland,
Cincinnati, Bridgeport, Paterson, Portland (Oregon), and Rochester
(New York).

[120] _Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1917, p. 21.

[121] _Ibid._, p. 53, Table 26.

[122] _Annual Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, June 30,
1918, pp. 3, 31.

[123] _Annual Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, June 30,
1918, pp. 30-31.

[124] _Annual Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, June 30,
1918, p. 33.

[125] Section 2, Act of August 1, 1894 (_United States
Statutes-at-Large_, 216).

[126] Section 12, Act of March 2, 1899 (30 _United States
Statutes-at-Large_, 979).

[127] Speech of Jacob E. Meeker, M.C., of Missouri, July 12, 1918.
Reprint from _Congressional Record_; Government Printing Office, 1918.

[128] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General to the Secretary
of War_, 1918, p. 89.

[129] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General to the Secretary
of War_, on the Operations of the Selective Service System to
December 20, 1918, p. 88.

[130] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 95

[131] A complete and current index of declarants in the
Naturalization Bureau at Washington would have made this a simple
matter--but such an index never was up-to-date, and even the attempt
to keep it at all was abandoned altogether in 1915-16, as the
Commissioner acknowledged in his report for that year.

[132] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 96.

[133] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 102,
Table 30.

[134] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918. p. 102.

[135] _Ibid._, pp. 104, 105.

[136] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, pp. 101,

[137] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General to the Secretary
of War_, on the Operations of the Selective Service System to
December 20, 1918. pp. 96-97.

[138] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 107.

[139] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 102.

[140] Scott Nearing in New York _Call_, April 24, 1919.

[141] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 206;
Appendix table 77-A, p. 462.

[142] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 206,
Table 77.

[143] _Second Report of the Provost Marshal General_, 1918, p. 86.

[144] _Ibid._

[145] _Report of the Commissioner of Immigration_, 1917, p. 1.

[146] _Proceedings of the American Sociological Society_, 1910, vol.
v., p. 57 _et seq._

[147] _Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1919, pp. 21,

[148] _Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1919, p. 37.

[149] See chap. iii on Citizenship, p. 40 _et seq._

[150] This was accomplished by the Nineteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. The Fifteenth Amendment,
proclaimed in 1870, already prohibited exclusion on the ground of
“race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

[151] This aspect of the matter is admirably discussed by Miss S.
P. Breckenridge in _New Homes for Old_, Chapter VI, on “Care of the
Children,” especially pp. 153 _et seq._, Americanization Studies, New
York, Harper & Brothers, 1921.

[152] See chap. ix, p. 255 _et seq._

[153] _Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1919, p. 16.

[154] _Ibid._, 1918, p. 28.

[155] _Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1918, p. 28.

[156] _Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1916, p. 46.

[157] _Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization_, 1919, p. 73.

[158] Quoted in “The Immigrant Woman and the Vote,” by Vira Boardman
Whitehouse, in _The Immigrants in America Review_, September, 1915.

[159] _Ibid._

[160] Quoted in “The Immigrant Woman and the Vote,” by Vira Boardman
Whitehouse, in _The Immigrants in America Review_, September, 1915.

[161] See Table XLV, and accompanying comment, in this volume, p. 362
_et seq._

[162] See Appendix Tables of Occupations, Tables LXIII and LXIV.

[163] See chap. ix, on “The Foreign-born Woman in Politics,” p. 296
_et seq._

[164] McMaster, _History of the People of the United States_,
7:370--cited in Warne’s _The Tide of Immigration_, p. 242.

[165] Moisei Ikovlevitch Ostrogorski, _La Démocratie et
l’organisation des partis politiques_, Paris, 1903, vol. ii, pp.
94-95. Translated into English by Frederick Clarke, with preface by
James Bryce.

[166] Moisei Ikovlevitch Ostrogorski, _La Démocratie et
l’organisation des partis politiques_, vol. ii, p. 345. See also “The
Alarming Proportion of Venal Voters,” by J. J. McCook, _The Forum_,
vol. xv; “The Sale of Votes,” by J. B. Harrison, _The Century_, vol.
xlvii; and “Money in Practical Politics,” by J. W. Jenks, _ibid._,
October, 1892.

[167] The _Outlook_, New York, January 14, 1911, vol. xcvii, p. 42.

[168] William S. Bennet, address, “The Effect of Immigration upon
Municipal Politics,” before Conference for Good City Government, and
Fifteenth Annual Meeting of National Municipal League, in conjunction
with American Civic Association, at Cincinnati, November 15-18, 1909.
See _Proceedings of National Municipal League_, 1909, p. 142 _et seq._

[169] _Popular Science Monthly_, New York, October, 1914, vol. lxxxv,
pp. 397-403.

[170] William S. Bennet, address, “The Effect of Immigration upon
Municipal Politics,” before Conference for Good City Government, and
Fifteenth Annual Meeting of National Municipal League, in conjunction
with American Civic Association, at Cincinnati, November 15-18, 1909.
See _Proceedings of National Municipal League_, 1909, p. 142 _et seq._

[171] The spirit and methods of the Grand Rapids Americanization
Society are described in chap. x, p. 330 _et seq._, in this volume.

[172] William Bennett Munro, _The Government of American Cities_,
Macmillan, 1912, pp. 36-37.

[173] _American Labor Year Book_, 1916, p. 133.

[174] Peter A. Speek, _Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin_, No.
878, 1917, p. 129.

[175] John M. Gillette, _The Survey_, March 1, 1919.

[176] Paul Frederick Brissenden, Ph.D., _The I. W. W., a Study of
American Syndicalism_, Columbia University, 1919.

[177] _Congressional Record_, June 2, 1906.

[178] See Appendix, Tables LIX and LX, Analysis of Denials, pp.

[179] In an article in _Better Times_, organ of the United
Neighborhood Houses of New York City.


  Some Tables were in the middle of a paragraph; these have been
  moved to the end of that paragraph or a nearby paragraph.

  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
  the text and consultation of external sources.

  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained: for example,
  vanishment; assimilable; vicinage; disfranchise; arrearage; eachness;
  ancestorial; demarkation; undotted; upspringing; protestors.

  Pg 25: ‘including pol tics’ replaced by ‘including politics’.
  Pg 64: ‘Happerstett’ replaced by ‘Happersett’.
  Pg 93: ‘of any Asiastic’ replaced by ‘of any Asiatic’.
  Pg 187: the blank line (thought break) before ‘Commissioner
          Campbell ... ’ has been removed.
  Pg 229: Table XVI: the Note numbering order has been changed from
          {3},{1},{2} to {1},{2},{3}.
  Pg 245: Diagram 2 caption: notation ‘((filled with / character))’
  Pg 414: ‘convinec the court’ replaced by ‘convince the court’.
  Pg 435: Table LX, row ‘All countries’: ‘033’ replaced by ‘3,033’.
  Pg 446: Table LXVI, heading: ‘BRICK AND’ replaced by ‘BRICK &’.

  Index. Cases: ‘Friedd’ replaced by ‘Friedl’.
  Index. Cases: ‘Lapiz’ replaced by ‘Lopez’.
  Index. Cases: ‘Happerstadt’ replaced by ‘Happersett’.
  Index. Cases: ‘Lagtry’ replaced by ‘Langtry’.
  Index. Cases: ‘Mackay’ replaced by ‘Mackey’.
  Index. Cases: ‘Mulcreay’ replaced by ‘Mulcrevy’.
  Index. Claghorn: ‘Holliday’ replaced by ‘Holladay’.
  Index: ‘Filipines’ replaced by ‘Filipinos’.
  Index: ‘Flourroy’ replaced by ‘Flournoy’.
  Index: ‘Robenson, Helen Ring, 306’ replaced by
         ‘Robinson, Helen Ring, 326’.
  Index: ‘Roumanian’ replaced by ‘Rumanian’.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Americans by Choice" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.