Part 13

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:

TABLE IV

NUMBER OF REPLIES FROM JUDGES IN EACH DISTRICT

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

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Maine | 9 | 3 New Hampshire | 6 | 1 Vermont | 7 | 4 Massachusetts | 29 | 3 Connecticut | 18 | 4 Rhode Island | 8 | 2 | -- | -- Total | 77 | 17 ========================================

_New York District._--Comprising Northern, Eastern, and Southern New York, and Hudson County, New Jersey.

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- New York | 74 | 19 New Jersey | 3 | 0 | -- | -- Total | 77 | 19 ========================================

_Philadelphia District._--Comprising the Eastern and Middle Districts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey (except Hudson County).

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Pennsylvania | 46 | 11 Delaware | 4 | 2 New Jersey | 24 | 10 | -- | -- Total | 74 | 23 ========================================

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

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Pennsylvania | 29 | 7 Kentucky | 1 | 0 Maryland | 4 | 0 New York | 22 | 6 Ohio | 81 | 22 West Virginia | 27 | 9 | -- | -- Total | 164 | 44 ========================================

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

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- District of | | Columbia | 1 | 0 Alabama | 7 | 2 Florida | 12 | 3 Georgia | 10 | 0 Kentucky | 12 | 2 Louisiana | 18 | 2 Maryland | 14 | 2 Mississippi | 13 | 1 North Carolina | 10 | 1 Porto Rico | 1 | 0 South Carolina | 6 | 0 Tennessee | 9 | 3 Texas | 25 | 8 Virginia | 9 | 1 City of | | Baltimore | 9 | 1 | -- | -- Total | 157 | 29 ========================================

_St. Louis District._--Comprising Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Shelby County, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois.

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Arkansas | 35 | 9 Illinois | 20 | 6 Iowa | 62 | 27 Kansas | 39 | 14 Nebraska | 34 | 11 Missouri | 43 | 11 Oklahoma | 34 | 11 | -- | -- Total | 267 | 89 ========================================

_Chicago District._--Comprising Northern Illinois, Indiana, Southern Wisconsin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, Southern Peninsula of Michigan, and Mackinac County, Michigan.

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Illinois | 87 | 20 Indiana | 70 | 20 Michigan | 51 | 18 Wisconsin | 15 | 5 | -- | -- Total | 223 | 63 ========================================

_St. Paul District._--Comprising Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Northern Wisconsin, Northern Peninsula of Michigan (except Mackinac County).

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Minnesota | 48 | 20 Michigan | 4 | 3 North Dakota | 13 | 6 South Dakota | 13 | 5 Wisconsin | 11 | 7 | -- | -- Total | 89 | 41 ========================================

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

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Colorado | 17 | 7 New Mexico | 9 | 5 Utah | 9 | 3 Wyoming | 8 | 2 Idaho | 5 | 3 | -- | -- Total | 48 | 20 ========================================

_San Francisco District._--Comprising California, Arizona, and Nevada.

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- California | 95 | 34 Arizona | 16 | 8 Nevada | 12 | 2 | --- | -- Total | 123 | 44 ========================================

_Seattle District._--Comprising Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho (except as assigned to Denver).

======================================== STATE | JUDGES | REPLIES FROM ---------------+----------+------------- Washington | 47 | 15 Oregon | 27 | 11 Montana | 26 | 7 Idaho | 11 | 1 | --- | -- Total | 111 | 34 ========================================

RECAPITULATION

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

PERCENTAGE OF REPLIES

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

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

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

BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes 179 No 155 --- 334

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

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

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

Yes 289 No 34 Noncommittal 11 --- 334

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

Yes 167 No 157 Noncommittal 25 --- 359

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

Yes 208 No 134 Noncommittal 33 --- 375

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes 204 No 104 Noncommittal 25 --- 333

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

Yes 220 No 127 Noncommittal 17 --- 364

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

Yes 100 No 225 Noncommittal 34 --- 359

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

Yes 111 No 113 Doubtful 28 No opinion 58 --- 310

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

Yes 180 No 102 Noncommittal 44 --- 326

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

Yes 112 No 208 --- 320

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

Yes 76 No 202 --- 278

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

Yes 48 No 222 --- 270

GENERAL TREND OF JUDGES’ OPINIONS

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

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

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

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