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.”

TABLE XVIII

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF 26,284 PETITIONERS DENIED, 1913-14, AND THE PER CENT OF THE DENIALS FOR THE SIX PRINCIPAL CAUSES

(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| .... | .... | .... | .... | .... | .... ====================================================================

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.

AS REGARDS “IMMORAL CHARACTER”

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.”

TABLE XIX

PER CENT OF DENIALS DUE TO “IMMORAL CHARACTER,” BY RACE

================================= 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.

THE SHOWING AS TO “IGNORANCE”

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.

TABLE XX

PER CENT OF DENIALS DUE TO “IGNORANCE,” BY RACE

================================ 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 ================================

TIME-INTERVALS IN NATURALIZATION

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.

TABLE XXI

THE AVERAGE TIME ELAPSING BETWEEN ARRIVAL AND DECLARATION OF INTENTION; BETWEEN DECLARATION AND PETITION, AND BETWEEN PETITION AND NATURALIZATION AS SHOWN BY 26,284 CERTIFICATES, 1913-14

===================================================================== | 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.

HOW DO THE RACIAL GROUPS COMPARE?

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?

TABLE XXII

AVERAGE INTERVAL BEFORE FILING PETITION, AFTER ATTAINMENT OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, FOR THOSE ARRIVING AT AGES OF ONE TO FOURTEEN, BY RACES

========================================= | NUMBER IN | AVERAGE COUNTRY OF BIRTH | AGE GROUP | INTERVAL | 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 Appendix.

TABLE XXIII

AVERAGE INTERVAL BEFORE FILING PETITION, AFTER ARRIVAL, AT AGES OF FIFTEEN TO TWENTY, BY RACES

========================================= | NUMBER IN | AVERAGE COUNTRY OF BIRTH | AGE GROUP | INTERVAL | 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 =========================================

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.

TABLE XXIV

AVERAGE INTERVAL BEFORE FILING PETITION, AFTER ARRIVAL, AT AGES TWENTY-ONE OR OVER, BY RACES

========================================= | NUMBER IN | | AGE GROUP | AVERAGE COUNTRY OF BIRTH | 21 YEARS | INTERVAL | 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 =========================================

THEY ARE YOUNG PEOPLE

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 striking:

TABLE XXV

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF PETITIONERS FOR THREE AGE GROUPS{1}

======================================= AGE AT ARRIVAL | NUMBER | PER CENT -------------------+--------+---------- 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 =======================================

RELATIVE AGE AND “POLITICAL INTEREST”

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 +-------------------------------+

DIAGRAM 1

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.

THE REAL RACIAL DISTINCTION

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 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

DIAGRAM 2

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.]

RACE AND RELATIVE AGE AT ARRIVAL

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:

TABLE XXVI

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONERS, SHOWING PERCENTAGES FOR THE AGE PERIODS “OVER TWENTY-ONE,” “FIFTEEN TO TWENTY,” AND “ONE TO FOURTEEN,” IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST-MENTIONED AGE GROUP

======================================================================= | | 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.”

AT THE BEGINNING OF MARRIED LIFE

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 age.

AS FOR “STABILITY OF RESIDENCE”

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.

TABLE XXVII

PETITIONERS WHOSE DECLARATIONS WERE MADE IN A STATE OTHER THAN THE ONE IN WHICH THE COURT IS LOCATED

=========================================================== | 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.

INTELLECTUAL EQUIPMENT AND OCCUPATION

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, 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 percentages:

TABLE XXVIII

LIST OF PRINCIPAL OCCUPATIONS REPRESENTED IN PETITIONS FOR NATURALIZATION FILED IN SEVEN CITIES, 1913-14; SHOWING RATIO BETWEEN NUMBER OF PETITIONS AND TOTAL OF FOREIGN-BORN WHITE MALES IN THOSE OCCUPATIONS IN THOSE CITIES IN 1910

========================================================= | NUMBER OF | RATIO TO OCCUPATIONS | PETITIONERS | FOREIGN BORN | 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:

TABLE XXIX

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF PETITIONERS IN EACH OCCUPATION

=============================================================== | 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 ===============================================================

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

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.

CITIZENSHIP VIA MILITARY SERVICE

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:

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.

POSITION OF THE ALIEN SOLDIER

The Provost Marshal General 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:

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 restriction....

... 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.

REVOLUTIONARY LEGISLATIVE ACTION

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:

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 reduced.

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 declarants.

CITIZENS AT HEART BUT “ENEMY ALIENS”

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.

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, 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.

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. 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 disqualification.

ALL SAFEGUARDS ABANDONED

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.

ALL RACE RESTRICTIONS REMOVED

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.

ORDINARY NATURALIZATION DISRUPTED

“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 law.”

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 citizens.

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 doing.

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.”

STATISTICS OF ALIEN REGISTRATION

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, 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:

TABLE XXX

ALLEGIANCE OF ALIENS REGISTERED UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT{1}

=========================================================== | 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 | .... ===========================================================

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:

TABLE XXXI

FITNESS FOR SERVICE OF ALIEN REGISTRANTS{1}

=========================================================== | 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 ===========================================================

ALIENS AND MILITARY SERVICE

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:

(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,

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 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.

FOREIGN BORN EAGER TO SERVE

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 service.

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” nationality:

... 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 illuminating:

TABLE XXXII

NEUTRALS WITHDRAWING FROM THE SERVICE

============================================================== 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 privilege.

Of the significance and extent of the response to the opportunity for immediate naturalization, the Provost Marshal General says:

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.

AUSTRIANS WHO WERE NOT FOR AUSTRIA

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 exemption.”

“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:

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.

THERE WAS HUMAN WAR-TIME PSYCHOLOGY

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 citizens.

The Provost Marshal General is to some degree candid about this:

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.

DIPLOMATIC REQUESTS FOR EXEMPTION

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:

TABLE XXXIII

DIPLOMATIC REQUESTS FOR DISCHARGE OF ALIENS, AND TOTAL REGISTRATION OF ALIENS, BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH

======================================================================= | NUMBER | NUMBER{2} | | NUMBER | NUMBER{2} COBELLIG- | OF{1} | REGISTERED | NEUTRALS | OF{1} | REGISTERED 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} | .... ===========================================================

RECIPROCAL CONSCRIPTION AMONG COBELLIGERENTS

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:

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.

OF GERMAN DESCENT, BUT LOYAL AMERICANS

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:

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 country.

DESERTION, AMONG ALIENS AND CITIZENS

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.” 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 situation:

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.

TABLE XXXIV

COMPARISON OF REPORTED DESERTIONS OF ALIEN AND CITIZEN REGISTRANTS

================================================================ 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.

WAR’S TEST OF “THE MELTING-POT”

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:

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, 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.

AN OLD PRACTICE WITH A NEW SIGNIFICANCE

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?

WHAT SOME JUDGES THOUGHT OF IT

The questions addressed by the Americanization Study in the summer of 1919 to the naturalizing judges throughout the country included this question:

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.”

HERE WAS “ATTACHMENT TO OUR PRINCIPLES”!

The naturalization of an alien under our laws [says Commissioner Campbell] 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, “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:

AMERICANS, DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED: WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THESE TYRANTS FOR THREE HUNDRED YEARS!

Many of us looked upon these men as somehow sneaking into a privilege, overlooking the fact that they were bringing us a gift!

ASSIMILATING THE ENEMIES OF TYRANNY

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.

EPISODES OF MILITARY NATURALIZATION

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 men.”

“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 years!

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 mid-page.

THOSE WHO WENT WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP

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:

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 soldiers.

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.

A GREAT COMPOSITE RECORD OF LOYALTY

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, “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 things.

THE FOREIGN-BORN WOMAN, HER HOME AND HER CHILDREN, IN AMERICAN POLITICS

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, 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 husband.

REGARDLESS OF QUALIFICATIONS

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.

UNMARRIED WOMEN HAVE MALE RIGHTS

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 borne.

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.

DANGERS OF “DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP”

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 citizenship

... 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.

CHILDREN OF ALIENS HERE AMERICAN BORN

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.

“DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP” ALMOST EQUALS THE DIRECT

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.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE WAS WIDESPREAD

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:

TABLE XXXV

YEARS IN WHICH FULL AND PARTIAL SUFFRAGE WAS GRANTED TO WOMEN IN EACH STATE

==================================================================== 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. 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.

APPLICANTS CAME AS YOUNG MARRIED MEN

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.

THE MOTHER MUST BE “AMERICANIZED”

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.

MUST LEARN POLITICS BY POLITICAL ACTIVITY

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.

FEW WOMEN SEEK NATURALIZATION

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, 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 COURTS NOTICE THE WIVES

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 follows:

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 necessary.

OBSTACLES OF DISTANCE AND EXPENSE

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 elsewhere.

WOMAN SUFFRAGE OPENS A NEW ERA

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 own.

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?

OPINIONS OF NATURALIZING JUDGES

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 preference.”

“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.

650,000 “DERIVATIVE VOTERS” EXTANT

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 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:

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.

LARGELY AN IGNORANT VOTE

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?

POLITICAL INDIFFERENCE NOT PECULIAR TO FOREIGN BORN

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 says:

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?

MANY WERE CALLED, BUT FEW RESPONDED

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:

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 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:

TABLE XXXVI

MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT IN CITIZENSHIP AND ENGLISH CLASSES IN THE UNITED 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!

FOREIGN-BORN WOMEN WITHOUT POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

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.

THEY ARE GOOD MATERIAL

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, 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] “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:

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 husband.

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.

HOW THE WOMEN CAN BE REACHED

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.

A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE--IT WORKS

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 you.

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.

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 facilities.

WHAT THE CHILDREN DID

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 totals.

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.

THE FOREIGN-BORN VOTER IN ACTION

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 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.”

DIVIDED BY RACIAL TRADITIONS

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.

ALIENS NOT WITHOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE

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.”

THERE IS NO “FOREIGN VOTE”

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.

OLD EVILS ABOLISHED

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.

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:

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.

CORRUPTION WAS NOT AN IMPORTATION

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:

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.

HOME-GROWN IN ADAMS COUNTY, OHIO!

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.

WHO IS THE BUYER OF VOTES?

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:

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.

ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE “FOREIGN VOTE”

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, 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:

TABLE XXXVII

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY VOTERS OF NATIVE PARENTS

====================================================== | 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:

TABLE XXXVIII

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY RUSSIANS AND AUSTRIANS

============================================================ |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:

TABLE XXXIX

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY THE IRISH

=============================================== 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.)

TABLE XL

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY GERMANS

================================================== 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 ==================================================

TABLE XLI

PER CENT OF NEW YORK CITY VOTE CAST FOR MCCALL IN 1913 AND DIX IN 1910 BY THE ITALIANS

==================================================== 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 Irish.”

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.

TABLE XLII

PER CENT OF SOCIALISTIC VOTE IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1910 AND 1913 BY NATIONALITY

===================================================================== | SOCIALIST |NATIVE| | | | | ASSEMBLY | VOTE | OF | | | | | DISTRICT +------+------+NATIVE|AUSTR-|GERMAN|IRISH| ITAL-| RUSS- | 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.

RESPONSE TO PROGRESSIVE IDEAS

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 electorate.

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:

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 case.

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 nationally.

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.

SOME RESULTS FROM CLEVELAND

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:

TABLE XLIII

DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONALITY IN TWENTY-NINE PRECINCTS IN CLEVELAND

==================================================== 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:

TABLE XLIV

DISTRIBUTION OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN VOTES IN CLEVELAND IN 1913 AND 1915 AMONG CERTAIN RACIAL GROUPS

======================================================== | 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:

TABLE XLV

PER CENT OF CERTAIN RACES EXERCISING SECOND AND THIRD CHOICES

===================================================== |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 lowest.

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.

“CIVIC INTEREST” IN GRAND RAPIDS

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 elections:

TABLE XLVI

VOTE CAST IN PRECINCTS OF VARYING RACIAL MAKE-UP IN THREE WARDS OF GRAND RAPIDS, 1918, 1919

First Ward ================================================================== PRECINCT| RACIAL |MARCH |AUGUST|NOVEMBER|MARCH | APRIL | 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 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:

TABLE XLVII

PER CENT OF WOMEN REGISTERED IN THIRTEEN MICHIGAN CITIES

============================================================ 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.

MUNICIPAL VOTERS’ LEAGUE OF CHICAGO

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 margin.

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.

SOME OTHER INSTANCES

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, 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.

XII

THE FOREIGN BORN IN RADICAL MOVEMENTS

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 birth.

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 Bolsheviki.

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.

THE SOCIALIST PRESS

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.

DUES-PAYING SOCIALIST MEMBERS

According to the Appeal Almanac for 1916, the dues-paying members of the Socialist party from 1903 to 1915 totaled:

TABLE XLVIII

NUMBER OF SOCIALISTS PAYING DUES EACH YEAR, FROM 1903 TO 1915

========================================================== 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.

RACIAL GROUPS OF SOCIALISTS

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. 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.)

TABLE XLIX

RANKS OF RACE GROUPS IN RELATIVE SOCIALIST STRENGTH

================================================= 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.

THE SOCIALIST VOTE

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:

TABLE L

SOCIALIST VOTE FOR PRESIDENT FROM 1888 TO 1898

======================================================== 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.)

TABLE LI

THE SOCIALIST VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BY STATES FROM 1900 TO 1920{1}

======================================================================== | 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 | ... | ... ========================================================================

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.

GERMAN INFLUENCE IN SOCIALISM

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:

TABLE LII

PER CENT CIRCULATION OF THE GERMAN PRESS IN NINE STATES

======================================================= | 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 =======================================================

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.

TABLE LIII

SOCIALIST VOTE FOR PRESIDENTS IN NINE STATES, FROM 1900 TO 1916

=============================================================== | | 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.

JEWS IN SOCIALISM

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.

EFFECT OF THE WAR ON SOCIALISM

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.

THE SINGLE-TAX AND AGRARIAN MOVEMENTS

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,” 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 Socialist.

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.

THE NONPARTISAN LEAGUE

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.)

TABLE LIV

MEMBERSHIP OF THE NONPARTISAN LEAGUE BY STATES IN DECEMBER, 1918

================================= 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:

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 will.

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 owners.

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”?

ULTRARADICAL MOVEMENTS NONPOLITICAL

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 politicians.

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.

THE “I. W. W.” AND THE HOMELESS WORKER

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 conditions?

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 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 conditions.

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.

XIII

SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

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, 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 English....

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 statute.

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.” 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.

NO LOWERING OF STANDARDS

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 character.

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 born.

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 intelligence.

A FUNCTION ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL?

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.

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND DIGNITY

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 the conditions under which final hearings are conducted in some of the courts.

... 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:

OBLIGATION OF FIDELITY

(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.

FUNCTION OF THE NATURALIZATION BUREAU

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 Congress.

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 will.

APPENDIX

TABLE LV

DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONS STUDIED, BY COURTS

================================================================ | | 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 ================================================================

TABLE LVI

SEX AND MARITAL CONDITION OF PETITIONERS

(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 =====================================================================

TABLE LVII

NUMBER AND NATIVITY OF PETITIONERS’ CHILDREN UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE

======================================================================== | 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 ========================================================================

TABLE LVIII

AGE OF PETITIONERS AT ARRIVAL, AND TIME ELAPSING BETWEEN TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE (OR LATER ARRIVAL) AND PETITION, 1913-14.

==================================================== | 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 | ... | ... ====================================================

TABLE LIX

NUMBER AND PER CENT OF PETITIONERS DENIED FOR EACH CAUSE BY COURTS

(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 | CODE | INVALID | IGNORANCE | CHARACTER | RESIDENCE | 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 | NUMBER | MOTION | JURISDICTION | DECEASED | WITNESS FOR | 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) ==================================================================== | | | | | CODE | ALREADY A | NO | PREMATURE |MISCELLANEOUS | 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 NUMBER | INFORMATION 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 | ... | .... =======================

TABLE LX

NUMBER OF PETITIONERS DENIED FOR EACH CAUSE BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH

(Part One) ======================================================================= | TOTAL | | | |INCOMP-| DECLAR-| COUNTRY | NUMBER | TOTAL |PER CENT|WANT OF| ETENT | ATION | OF BIRTH |OF PETIT-|DENIALS| DENIALS|PROSEC-| WIT- | INVALID| | 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 | | OF BIRTH | ANCE | CHAR- | RESID-|IONERS’| JURIS-|DECEASED| | | 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 | | | COUNTRY | PRODUCE |ALREADY|CERTIF-| PREMA- |MISCELL-| 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 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... =======================================================================

TABLE LXI

DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONERS BY COURTS AND COUNTRY OF BIRTH

(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 =========================================================================

TABLE LXII

DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONERS, LENGTH OF TIME FROM ARRIVAL TO PETITION, BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH

(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 | | TOTAL | ELAPSING BETWEEN | AVERAGE LENGTH | NUMBER OF | ATTAINING AGE OF | OF TIME FROM |PETITIONERS| 21 AND FILING | ARRIVAL TO | FOR WHOM | NATURALIZATION | PETITION. COUNTRY OF |INFORMATION| PETITION FOR | PETITIONERS 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 | .... | .... | .... ===================================================================

TABLE LXIII

DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONERS BY OCCUPATION AND COURTS

(Part One) ======================================================================= | | AGRICUL- | | MANU- | | | CODE | | TURE, | EXTRAC-|FACTURING | | | NUMBERS | TOTAL | FORESTRY | TION | AND |TRANSPOR-| TRADE | 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 NUMBERS | TOTAL | PUBLIC | IONAL | AND | CLERICAL |INFORM- 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 | ... =======================================================================

TABLE LXIV

AVERAGE NUMBER OF YEARS FROM DATE OF ARRIVAL TO DATE OF PETITION, BY OCCUPATION

======================================================================= | | 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 =======================================================================

TABLE LXV

NUMBER OF PETITIONERS, BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH AND OCCUPATION

(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) ======================================================================= | PROFESSIONAL| DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL | CLER- | 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 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... =======================================================================

TABLE LXVI

RATIO BETWEEN NUMBER OF NATURALIZATION PETITIONS FILED IN 1913-14 AND TOTAL FOREIGN-BORN WHITE MALES TEN YEARS OF AGE AND OVER IN 1910, BY OCCUPATIONS, FOR SEVEN CITIES

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-| CITY | BAKERS | BARBERS|TENDERS| SMITHS| STONE | ENTERS | EURS | | | | | | 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 | | | CITY | PLUMBERS | DEALERS | SALESMEN | TAILORS | TOTAL | | | | | ------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+--------- 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 ================================================================

INDEX

Abbott, Grace, 208

Addams, Jane, 324

Age: At arrival, 236-247 Limitations for naturalization, 95-96

Akron, Ohio: Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254

Alabama: Immigrants Political privileges, 5, 217

Aliens: (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

Allegiance: National Indelibility, 56 Oath, 137-142 Registered aliens, 267-269

America, 14-16 Immigrants’ vision of, 17

American: Attitude on naturalization, 195-196 Born abroad, 51-52 Definition, 7-16 Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45 Types, 1

Americanism: Essentials, 14-16

Americanization: Agencies, 177-180, 305-307, 330-333 Factors, 37-39, 173 Program, 139-140

American Labor Union, 402

American Railway Union, 402

Argentine: Jus Solis, 45

Arizona: Immigrants Political privilege, 5

Arkansas: Immigrants Political privileges, 5, 217 Naturalization denials, 126

Arthur, Chester A., 79

Assimilation, 38-39, 287-288

Auburn, Maine: Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254

Austrian: 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

Belgium: 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

Bohemians: In Cleveland, 287, 360 Naturalized, 206

Borchard, Edwin M., 4, 52, 56, 59, 60, 64

Boston: Naturalization Division, 89

Brazil: 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

Bulgaria: 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

Burmese: Naturalization, 93

Byllesby, L., 379

Cadillac, Michigan: Women registered, 368

California: Gold discovery, 25

Campbell, Richard K., xxiii, 81, 82, 89-92, 101-105, 187, 285

Canada: Naturalization, 145

Carpenter, A. H., 72

Cases 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

Character: Moral, 135-137

Chicago: Municipal Voters’ League, 333-334 Naturalization division, 89 Politics, 32-33, 36

Children: Born at sea, 52-53 Factor in election, 333-334 Foreign birth, 51-52 Parentage, 84-85, 247, 301-303

Chinese: Jus Sanguinis, 44 Naturalization, 93

Cincinnati, Ohio: Good Government League, 373-374 Naturalization courts, 227 Study, 227-254

Citizens: American Children, 51 Desertion, military, 279-281 Jurisdiction, 64-68 By birth, 1 By choice, 1, 3, 7 Definition, 46-51

Citizenship: (See Naturalization) American, 1, 49-50 Immigrants Application, 231, 253 Cause, 254 Fitness of candidates, 193-195, 250 Attitude, 17, 25 Essentials, 46-49 Foreign born women, 296-334 Granted 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

Clerks: Naturalization Court, 2, 161-167

Cleveland, Grover, 79

Cleveland, Ohio: Bohemians, 287 Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254 Study of elections, 357-365

Colonies: American Immigrants in, 69-70 Naturalization in, 70-73 Foreign born Menace of, 2-3

Colorado: Naturalization denials, 126

Communists, 377

Commons, John R., 213

Connecticut: 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

Country: Person without, 38, 63-64

Courts: 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

Croatians: Naturalization, 205

Czechs: Socialists, 384

Dana, Charles A., 379

Daniels, John, 36

Danish: 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 Filed 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

Delaware: Naturalization laws, 73

Democratic, 21-23, 31

Denials: 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

Desertion: By citizenship, 279-281

Detroit, Michigan: Women registered, 368

Devoe, Emma Smith, 325

Dillingham, William P., 204

Dutch: Immigrants, 205

Earnings: Comparison By races, 215-217

Easton, Pennsylvania: Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254

Ecuador: Naturalization treaties, 56

Egypt: 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

Employment: Politicians’ usage of, 32

England: Naturalization in, 145 Politics, 24

English: Ability to speak, 120-123 Factor Naturalization, 253 Entry, 416 Immigrants Naturalization, 205-206 Publications, 345, 348, 422

Expatriation: Right, 54-55

Fall River, Massachusetts: Naturalization receptions, 138-139

Filipinos: Naturalization, 94

Finnish: Jus Sanguinis, 44 Socialist, 384

Flint, Michigan: Women registered, 368

Florida: Declaration of intention cases, 97 Naturalization denial, 126

Flournoy, R., 59

Foreign Legion, 273

Fosdick, Raymond B., viii

France: Citizenship, 55 Jus Sanguinis, 44 Naturalization, 145

French: Immigrants, 205

Fuller, Margaret, 379

Galesburg, Illinois: Naturalization courts, 227

Gay, Edwin F., viii

Geneva: Jus Solis, 45

German: Citizenship laws, 57-62 Immigrants 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

Government: Land possession, 40 Relation between Federal and State, 6

Graft: 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

Greeks: Expatriation rights, 54 Immigration, 197 Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45

Greeley, Horace, 379

Haiti: Naturalization treaties, 56

Hamilton, Alexander, 70

Harrison, Benjamin, 79

Harrison, J. B., 343

Hart, Hornell, xxiii

Hawaiians: Naturalization, 93

Hawkins, L. H., xxiii

Hawthorne, Nathan, 379

Hearst, William R., 355

Higgins, A. Pearce, 59

Holmes, Edith Knight, 326

Honduras: Naturalization, 56

Hung, Gaillard, 81

Hungarians: Jus Sanguinis, 44 Socialists, 384

Illinois: Declaration of intention cases, 97 Naturalization denials, 126

Immigrants (see Aliens): Naturalized 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 Unnaturalized Refusal to submit to injustice, 7

Immigration: Rights, 44-45 To America, 43-44 Cause, 18, 25-30 Distribution By years, 22 Variation, 17-20

Indiana: Comparison--declarations to petitions, 222 Immigrants Political privileges, 5, 217 Naturalization denials, 126

Industrial Workers of the World, 403-409

International Working Peoples Association, 402

Iowa: Naturalization denials, 126

Iowa City, Iowa: Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254

Irish: Immigrants, 18, 21, 25, 197 Naturalized, 206 Number, 22 Politics, 21-24 Vote in New York City, 352-353

Italian: Citizenship rights, 55 Immigrants, 19-20, 197, 231 Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45 Naturalization petitioners, 124 Socialist, 384 Vote Cleveland, 357-365 New York City, 352-353

Ithaca, New York: Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254

Jackson, Michigan: Women registrants, 368

Japanese: Jus Sanguinis, 44 Naturalization, 93

Jefferson, Thomas, 75, 78

Jenks, J. W., 343

Jennings, R. L., 379

Jews: Socialist, 384, 390-391 Vote in Cleveland, 358

Johnson, Andrew, 78

Johnstone, Lucy B., 325

Judges: Attitudes 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

Jugoslavs: Vote in Cleveland, 358

Jurisdiction: Of citizens, 64-68

Jus Sanguinis, 42, 44-45

Jus Solis, 42, 44-45

Kalamazoo, Michigan: Women registered, 368

Kansas: Immigrants Political privileges, 5, 217 Naturalization denial, 126

Kentucky: Declaration of intention cases, 97 Naturalization denials, 126

Kohs, S. C., xxiii

Labor: Vote, 335-339

Language: Naturalization Factor, 214-215

Lansing, Michigan: Women registered, 368

Laws: Aliens, 5-7 Blood, 42, 44-45 Naturalization, 30, 70-88 Amendment to, 132 Soil, 42, 44-45

Legal: Rights of aliens, 5-7

Legislation: Immigrant suffrage, 5 Naturalization law, 50, 69-88, 132, 144-145, 181-186, 259-261

Letts: Socialists, 384

Lincoln, Abraham, 78

Lipsky, Abram, 348, 357

Lithuanian: Socialist, 384

Lowell, James Russell, 379

Luxemburg: Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45

Madison, James, 73, 78

Magyar: Vote in Cleveland, 360

Mariners: Naturalization of, 77

Maryland: Naturalization laws, 73

Massachusetts: Naturalization denials, 126 Naturalization law, 73

Meeker, Jacob, 262

Melting Pot: Test of, 281-282

Michigan: Immigrants 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.

Missouri: Immigrants Naturalization denials, 126 Suffrage, 5, 217

Moley, Raymond, xxiii-xxiv

Monaco: Jus Sanguinis, 44

Montana: Naturalization denials, 126

Moravian: 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

Naturalization: Aid, 32 Attitude United States Presidents, 78 Comparison 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

Nebraska: Immigrants Political privilege, 5, 217 Naturalization denials, 126

Netherlands: 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

Nicaragua: Naturalization treaties, 56

Nonpartisan League, 397-401

North Carolina: Declaration of intention cases, 97 Naturalization denials, 126

North Dakota: Immigrants Political privilege, 5

Norwegians: Immigrants, 19, 25 Jus Sanguinis, 45 Naturalization treaties, 56 Naturalized, 206

Norwich, Connecticut: Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254

Occupation: Petitioners, 250-252, 434

Oregon: 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

Pennsylvania: Naturalization laws, 70 Declaration of intention cases, 97

Persia: Jus Sanguinis, 44

“Personal equation” In naturalization, 143-196

Peru: Naturalization treaties, 56

Petitioners: Naturalization Married, 247, 304 Statistics on, 225-254, 429-434 Types, 289-291

Petitions: Naturalization Compared with declaration of intention, 218-224 Examination of, 225-254 Filed, 201

Philadelphia: Naturalization division, 89

Piggott, F. I., 47

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Naturalization division, 89

Pleydell, A. C., 374

Polish: Vote in Cleveland, 358

Political: Admission, 1 Americanization, 37-39 Clubs, 33-37 Corruption, 2, 24-25, 341-345 Frauds, 29 Immigrant influence, 339-340 Indifference, 320 Interest In England, 24 Issue, 23 Participation 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

Politicians: Interest in humanity, 33-35 Interest in immigrants, 31-33 Labor vote, 335

Population: 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

Portuguese: Immigrants, 198 Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45 Naturalization treaties, 56

Presidents of United States: Naturalization discussion, 77-80

Progressive, 354

Publications: English Better Times, 422 Outlook, 345 Popular Science, 348 German, 388 Socialist Appeal to Reason, 381 Foreign language, 381 Milwaukee Leader, 380 National Rip-Saw, 381 New York Call, 380

Purdy, Milton D., 81

Race: Comparison Old and new, 204-217 Distribution 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

Radicalism: Movement Foreign born, 377-409

Registration (War), 267-273

Republican: German, 24-25

Residence: Factor 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

Rome: Classification of alien, 4

Romen, A., 59

Roosevelt, Theodore, viii, 80

Ross, Edward A., 212

Rumanian: Immigrants, 197 Jus Sanguinis, 44

Russians: 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

Sailors: Naturalization, 77, 228

Salvador: Naturalization treaties, 56

San Francisco, California: Naturalization division offices, 89

Scandinavian: Immigrants, 197, 205 Socialist, 384

Schools, Public: Citizenship enrollment, 321-323 Factor in reaching women, 328-329 Relation with Bureau of Naturalization, 204

Scotch: Naturalized, 206

Seattle, Washington: Naturalization, 227 Court Study, 227-254 Division, 89

Serbian: Jus Sanguinis, 44 Right to renounce citizenship, 55

Seward, William H., 25

Sex: Citizenship relation, 62-63

Single Tax, 377, 393

Skidmore, Thomas, 379

Slavs: Socialist, 384

Slovaks: Socialist, 384

Socialism: 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

Soldiers: 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

Spanish: Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45

Speek, Peter A., 395

Stokes, Elizabeth King, xxiv

Sturges, Merton A., 422-425

Suffrage: Alien, 5, 217-218 Rights In American colonies, 73 Women, 303-304, 314-315

Swedish: Immigrants, 19, 25 Naturalization, 205-206 Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45 Naturalization treaties, 56

Switzerland: Jus Sanguinis, 45 Jus Solis, 45 Right to renounce citizenship, 55

Syria: Naturalization of, 205

Taylor, Graham, 371

Texas: Immigrants 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

Turkey: 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

Uruguay: Naturalization treaties, 55

Utah: Naturalization denials, 126

Van Buren, Martin, 70

Van Deusen, A. C., 81

Vermont: Naturalization denials, 126

Virginia: Naturalization laws, 71-73

Voll, John A., viii

Votes: Foreign born, 33 Action of, 335-376 Derivative, 302, 317-318 Influence on politics, 2 Socialist, 385-387

Warne, Frank J., 18, 19, 20

Wars: 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

Welsh: Naturalized, 206

Whitehouse, Visa Boardman, 325

White Plains, New York: Naturalization court, 227 Study, 227-254

Williams, Talcott, viii

Wilson, William B., 183

Wisconsin: Comparison of declaration to petitions, 223 Naturalization denial, 126

Wise, I. M., 375

Witness: Deposition, 133-135 Incompetent, 126-133

Women: 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

THE END

FOOTNOTES:

Edwin M. Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 33 et seq.

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 States.”

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.

See Kate Holladay Claghorn, The Immigrant’s Day in Court (in preparation).

John Graham Brooks, As Others See Us, 1909.

Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, vol. v, p. 57, etc., paper on “The Racial Element in Social Assimilation.”

See report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1920.

Gustavus Myers, History of Tammany Hall, p. 128 et seq.

Gustavus Myers, History of Tammany Hall, p. 118.

John I. Davenport, The Wig and the Jimmy, pp. 12-13.

John I. Davenport, The Wig and the Jimmy, pp. 17-18.

William Bennet Munro, Government of American Cities, Macmillan, 1912, p. 167 et seq.

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.

Joshua vi, vii.

Joshua vii: 24, 25.

F. T. Piggott, Nationality, London, 1906, and E. M. Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, New York, 1916.

United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649.

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.

Cockburn, Nationality, p. 7.

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.

Revised Statutes, sec. 1993. See House Document 326, Fifty-ninth Congress, Second Session.

See discussion of this question by Borchard--The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 583 et seq., and footnotes.

See Department of State, Circular notice, January 9, 1914.

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.

See Hall, International Law, 7th ed., p. 247.

See Hall, International Law, p. 246.

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.

Edwin M. Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 549.

Hall, International Law, 7th ed., p. 241.

See Dr. jur. A Romen, Reichs und Staatsangehorigkeitsgesetz, Güttentag Sammlung, No. 111.

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.

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.

See Edwin M. Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, pp. 19, 591.

See chap. vi, p. 148 et seq.

21 Wallace, 162.

Butchers’ Benevolent Association vs. Crescent City Live Stock Company, 16 Wallace, 36.

McClain, Constitutional Law in the United States, p. 276.

See Willoughby on the Constitution, i, p. 272.

See in re Wehlitz, 16 Wisconsin, 443.

United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U. S., 542.

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.

13 George II, chap. 7--Ruffhead’s Statutes-at-Large, vi, p. 384.

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.

Constitution of the United States, art. i, sec. 8, 4.

United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. i, pp. 103-104.

United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. i, pp. 414-441.

United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. ii, pp. 153-155.

United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. ii, pp. 292-293.

Ibid., p. 811.

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 53.

Ibid., vol. iii, p. 259.

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 69.

Ibid., vol. iv, p. 310.

Ibid., vol. ix, p. 240.

United States Statutes-at-Large, vol. xii, p. 597.

Ibid., vol. xix, p. 2.

Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 268, and vol. xxviii, p. 124.

Ibid., vol. xxxii, pt. 1, p. 1222.

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.

The report of this commission is available as House Document 46, Fifty-ninth Congress, First Session.

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.

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).

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.

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 itself.

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.

See Van Dyne, Naturalization, pp. 42-50; Moore, Digest of International Law, vol. iii, p. 329.

In re Lopez, unreported; Supreme Court, District of Columbia, December 13, 1915. In re Fernandez, unreported; same court, September 24, 1913.

See chapter ix, on Military Naturalization.

See p. 237, this volume.

Compiled from the reports of the Commissioner of Immigration.

District Court for Washington County, Colorado: In re William Wallace Mackey (1914). Unreported.

In re Friedl, 202 Fed., 300.

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.)

See bill (H. R. 9949) of Representative Johnson of Washington, Sixty-sixth Congress, First Session. October 15, 1919.

Report of Commissioner of Naturalization, 1917, p. 75.

Mexico appears to be the only other country in which any such preliminary declaration and extended period of probation is required.

In re Boovris, 205 Fed., 401.

In re William Phillips (1913), Court of Common Pleas for Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Unreported.

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.

These efforts of the Bureau to augment its scope and authority are discussed in this volume, p. 180 et seq.

See H. R. 9949, introduced by Mr. Johnson of Washington, Sixty-sixth Congress, First Session.

United States vs. Gerstein.

Art. I, sec. 8, par. 4.

See Report of the President’s Commission on Naturalization, 1905, Fifty-first Congress, First Session, House Document 46.

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.

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.

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 report.

Report of the Commissioner for fiscal year ending June 30, 1916.

Report of the Commissioner for fiscal year ending June 30, 1915, p. 33.

Compare S. 4792, July 2, 1918, and S. 5001, October 21, 1918, Senate bills, Sixty-fifth Congress, Second Session.

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.

Sixty-sixth Congress, First Session, H. R. 6176; Calendar No. 43 (Senate), Report No. 52, June 23, 1919.--Calendar Day, June 26, p. 179.

H. R. 9949 (Committee print); Sixty-sixth Congress, First Session, October 15, 1919.

Report of Commissioner of Naturalization, 1917, p. 27.

Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1918-19, pp. 30-31.

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 Citizenship.”

See F. V. Thompson, Schooling of the Immigrant.

Chap. viii, p. 225 et seq.

Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1919, p. 24.

Ibid., p. 25.

Grace Abbott, The Immigrant and the Community, 1917, pp. 248-249.

Chap. viii, p. 236 et seq.

Abstracts, vol. i, p. 485.

See Table VIII in this volume, p. 207.

Edward A. Ross, The Old World and the New, 1914.

John B. Clark, A Documentary History of American Industrial Society, 1910, vol. i, p. 52.

John R. Commons, Races and Immigrants in America, 1907, pp. 191-192.

Edward A. Ross, The Old World and the New, 1914, p. 266.

See Table X, p. 211.

Report of Immigration Commission, vol. i, p. 488.

Compiled from Report of the Immigration Commission, vol. i, pp. 379, 385, 397.

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.

Compiled from Reports of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1908-1918.

See p. 109.

See p. 231.

See chap. v, p. 108.

See chap. ix, p. 255, et seq.

The full tables regarding marital condition and number and nativity of children will be found (Tables LVI and LVII, respectively) in the Appendix.

New York (boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx and Queens), Cleveland, Cincinnati, Bridgeport, Paterson, Portland (Oregon), and Rochester (New York).

Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1917, p. 21.

Ibid., p. 53, Table 26.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, June 30, 1918, pp. 3, 31.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, June 30, 1918, pp. 30-31.

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, June 30, 1918, p. 33.

Section 2, Act of August 1, 1894 (United States Statutes-at-Large, 216).

Section 12, Act of March 2, 1899 (30 United States Statutes-at-Large, 979).

Speech of Jacob E. Meeker, M.C., of Missouri, July 12, 1918. Reprint from Congressional Record; Government Printing Office, 1918.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General to the Secretary of War, 1918, p. 89.

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.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 95

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.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 96.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 102, Table 30.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918. p. 102.

Ibid., pp. 104, 105.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, pp. 101, 102.

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.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 107.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 102.

Scott Nearing in New York Call, April 24, 1919.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 206; Appendix table 77-A, p. 462.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 206, Table 77.

Second Report of the Provost Marshal General, 1918, p. 86.

Ibid.

Report of the Commissioner of Immigration, 1917, p. 1.

Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, 1910, vol. v., p. 57 et seq.

Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1919, pp. 21, 22.

Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1919, p. 37.

See chap. iii on Citizenship, p. 40 et seq.

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.”

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.

See chap. ix, p. 255 et seq.

Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1919, p. 16.

Ibid., 1918, p. 28.

Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1918, p. 28.

Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1916, p. 46.

Report of the Commissioner of Naturalization, 1919, p. 73.

Quoted in “The Immigrant Woman and the Vote,” by Vira Boardman Whitehouse, in The Immigrants in America Review, September, 1915.

Ibid.

Quoted in “The Immigrant Woman and the Vote,” by Vira Boardman Whitehouse, in The Immigrants in America Review, September, 1915.

See Table XLV, and accompanying comment, in this volume, p. 362 et seq.

See Appendix Tables of Occupations, Tables LXIII and LXIV.

See chap. ix, on “The Foreign-born Woman in Politics,” p. 296 et seq.

McMaster, History of the People of the United States, 7:370--cited in Warne’s The Tide of Immigration, p. 242.

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.

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.

The Outlook, New York, January 14, 1911, vol. xcvii, p. 42.

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.

Popular Science Monthly, New York, October, 1914, vol. lxxxv, pp. 397-403.

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.

The spirit and methods of the Grand Rapids Americanization Society are described in chap. x, p. 330 et seq., in this volume.

William Bennett Munro, The Government of American Cities, Macmillan, 1912, pp. 36-37.

American Labor Year Book, 1916, p. 133.

Peter A. Speek, Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, No. 878, 1917, p. 129.

John M. Gillette, The Survey, March 1, 1919.

Paul Frederick Brissenden, Ph.D., The I. W. W., a Study of American Syndicalism, Columbia University, 1919.

Congressional Record, June 2, 1906.

See Appendix, Tables LIX and LX, Analysis of Denials, pp. 433-435.

In an article in Better Times, organ of the United Neighborhood Houses of New York City.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

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))’ inserted. 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’.