The Naturalization Law the Courts Were Supposed to Follow

Tacoma, Wash., Oct. 14.—C. D. C. Van Dusen, an agent of the Department of Justice, who has just returned from Tacoma to Washington, D.C., after a long tour of inspection, will find himself confronted, on his arrival at the national capital, with a monumental task. Mr. Van Dusen, a resident of Brooklyn, is a close personal friend of President Roosevelt, and was sent out on a tour of inspection by the Department of Justice to find out how the new law, which went into effect June 3, affecting the naturalization of foreigners is being complied with by the state and federal courts. He has traveled over most of the central and western states, and is said to have made some startling discoveries. The new law on naturalization is not essentially different from the old law, except that it contains an ironclad oath which prevents any one with professed anarchistic beliefs, inclinations, or tendencies from becoming a citizen, unless he perjures himself by denying his belief. The law is the direct outgrowth of the anti-anarchistic sentiment that sprang into existence after the assassination of President McKinley. Before any judge can admit a man to full citizenship he must administer this oath, which is so complete that there is no chance to evade the point.

Few Irregularities in This State.

Information concerning this phase of the law was spread broadcast by the press and the courts were officially notified, but Mr. Van Dusen finds that its existence has in many cases been ignored. He also finds that other phases of the law are being overlooked. In this state irregularities were comparatively few. The oath relating to anarchy has apparently been uniformly required since June 3, but in Pierce County it was found that four Japanese had been admitted to citizenship, and against this there is especial provision. In some other states irregularities have been on a wholesale order. One Chicago judge was found to have admitted 1,800 foreigners to full citizenship in one evening—an act which would have been physically impossible unless the oath were administered to the applicants in platoons, and the law presumes that it shall be administered to each individual separately.

Glaring Mistake in Ohio.

In Ohio a much greater mistake was made. Over 250,000 men were admitted to citizenship by probate judges, who have no right to administer the oath. Although these men made application in good faith, they are still foreigners under the law. These, Mr. Van Dusen says, are only extreme examples of the erroneous application of the law. He has sent blanks to the 9,000 courts in the United States, with instructions that they be filled out and returned to him with information concerning all acts on naturalization since June 3. These reports it becomes his duty to consider on his arrival at Washington. The many errors made, it is said, have prompted President Roosevelt to suggest that a bill be presented to the next Congress limiting the right of naturalization to the federal courts, in order that the probability of error may be reduced and the responsibility be more definitely fixed. To make the law more effective it is proposed by the president that all applications be referred by the federal judge to a commission of several individuals who shall question the applicant and take other testimony, and report the results of their examination to the judge.