The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, the only country against whom we have declared war is Germany?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey are allies of the central powers, but they are not our enemies, so far as any declaration of war against them is concerned.

Mr. ROGERS. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. That discrimination would, perhaps, still exist against people with whom we are not at war.

Mr. ROGERS. This amendment covers all other belligerent powers except the allied powers.

The CHAIRMAN. For instance, take an Austrian who has gone back and fought with the Austrian Army. Under your amendment you think he would be entitled to the benefit of this law if it is passed?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes; because the language of the amendment is "any such person who has since August 1, 1914, taken an oath of allegiance to any other foreign State engaged in war."

The CHAIRMAN. With us, you mean?

Mr. ROGERS. No; engaged in war at all, the word "war" appearing in two different places and connections: First, under the language of the bill," any foreign State engaged in war with a country with which the United States is at war," and then under the language of the amendment, "any other foreign State engaged in war."

The CHAIRMAN. But you still do not cover the proposition that is suggested by Mr. Slayden's amendment. Some obligation might arise as to the question of pensions, and Mr. Slayden's amendment, offered yesterday, covered that point, namely, that this should not be construed as obligating our country to the pensioning of these men.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Slayden read that, but I have not had an opportunity to examine it. As I caught it, it was divided into two parts. Mr. SLAYDEN. There it is; read what it is; it is brief, plain, and crude.

.

Mr. ROGERS. May I read it for the benefit of the committee?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS. It goes at the end of section 1?

Mr. SLAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. ROGERS (reading):

Provided, That all former citizens who left the United States to join the military or naval forces of any country engaged in war with Germany, AustriaHungary, Turkey, or Bulgaria prior to the passage of this act, and who shall continue in the service of such country until the close of the war with the German Empire, shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities granted herein: And provided further, That no obligation in the way of pensions or other grants because of service in the army or navy of any other country or disabilities incident thereto shall accrue to the United States.

That, it seems to me, contains two provisions which do not in any way relate to each other.

Mr. SLAYDEN. You can put them in as separate sections, but they strike me as two things that ought to be incorporated in the bill.

Mr. ROGERS. I am cordially in favor of that second provision. I agree with the chairman of the committee that it probably is not necessary, but I think it is desirable to say so in explicit language. I do not see what the first accomplishes that the bill does not accomplish.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Here is what it does, it seems to me, although I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the bill: I undertook to explain yesterday that a great many Italians, who were either citizens or who had taken initial steps toward becoming citizens, have gone back and entered the Italian Army, and perhaps that is true of other countries that are now our allies. Now, a great many of those people do not speak English, and they would rather serve, as long as they are in the military service, with their own kinsmen, with their own countrymen and people, who speak their own tongue, than go into an English-speaking army, and under those circumstances they might prefer to continue in the service of those countries to the end of the war. Now, this would give to them the privileges that you seek to give to the other Americans, namely, native born, and in that way it broadens and liberalizes, it seems to me, your measure.

Mr. HOOD. What will be the status of those who are discharged from time to time by reason of physical disabilities and other causes under the provisions of that amendment? Your amendment provides that they continue in the service of such country until the close of the war with the German Empire.

Mr. SLAYDEN. But that is only as to the question of service, and the second paragraph relates to the matter of pensions, and that Mr. Rogers says he cordially approves.

Mr. HOOD. I do, too.

Mr. SLAYDEN. That will prevent the placing on this country an obligation to pay pensions to men who received wounds or disabilities in the army of one of our allies.

Mr. WILSON. The object of your amendment, then, is, if a man is disabled and apt to become a public charge by reason of having been disabled while fighting in the Italian Army, in the English Army, or any army of one of the allied countries, to place upon that country the obligation of taking care of him in the way of pension, and it does not make any difference whether it has been up to this date or hereafter?

Mr. SLAYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. If he is in that Army when he receives the disabilities?

Mr. SLAYDEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is to avoid putting on us the duty of paying pensions?

Mr. WELTY. Suppose he is discharged now, Mr. Slayden, under the provisions of your amendment would he have the privilege of availing himself

Mr. SLAYDEN (interposing). Of our pension laws?

Mr. WELTY. No; not of our pension laws. I mean if he is honorably discharged now, without his continuing until the end of the war, will he be privileged to avail himself of the right to restoration of citizenship?

Mr. SLAYDEN. It may be amended to do so. The amendment provides:

That all former citizens who left the United States to join the military or naval forces of any country engaged in war with Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, or Bulgaria prior to the passage of this act and who shall continue in the service of such country until the close of the war with the German Empire shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities granted herein.

Now, if they are American citizens-and that is all Mr. Rogers's bill undertakes to take care of-they are entitled to a restoration of their privileges. You do not want to give that privilege to anybody but American citizens, do you?

Mr. ROGERS. No.

Mr. SLAYDEN. And your bill takes care of them in that way?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. If the language in this bill amounts to anything it means that a man who withdraws from his native country and renounces the rights and liabilities of citizenship in the country where he was born, that he thereby becomes a citizen of another country. It seems to me that the full purport of this section is that he not only renounces his rights and liabilities of citizenship in this country, but that he becomes a citizen of another country. That is the real meaning of that word as I gather it.

Mr. SLAYDEN. You mean expatriation?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. He does not necessarily become a citizen of the other country?

Mr. RAKER. That is what the dictionary gives as the meaning of the word. It says, "to renounce the rights and liabilities of citizenship where one is born and to become a citizen of another country."

Mr. SLAYDEN. That is a bad definition, because expatriates are men who have left their country.

Mr. RAKER. Expatriation is the act of forsaking one's own country. Mr. WILSON. But it stops there; he does not have to become a citizen of another country.

Mr. HOOD. But a man is certainly a citizen of some country, is he not?

Mr. WILSON. I do not know; a man may float around without any citizenship.

Mr. CAMPBELL. He could be a citizen of the world.

Mr. CRIST. I tried yesterday to state the difference between the two phases of expatriation. To my mind there are two distinct phases of this. A man should not be forced to give up his American citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Is it not for Congress to decide whether he should or not? If Congress says by resolution or bill that any man who takes an oath of allegiance to another country shall, ipso facto, forfeit his citizenship in this country, it would be legal, because Congress has the unquestioned right to do that.

Mr. CRIST. Yes; I suppose Congress has the right to do that; but. on the other hand, we are here to consider the changing of that, because it does not operate, according to the minds of many, properly or fairly, and we want to make a change because of its improper effect on these people.

Mr. SLAYDEN. That is a question of opinion.

Mr. RAKER. I do not quite get your viewpoint-the fact that there is anything unfair or a discrimination, or unjust in the law. I wish you would just explain that a little bit.

Mr. CRIST. What I mean is this: Expatriation means assuming allegiance to the other country and becoming a citizen of the other country while disavowing allegiance to the native country, wherever it may take place.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be a dictionary definition, but that is not the common understanding. Expatriation in the common acceptation and as applied to the statute proposed to be amended means the decitizenizing of a man whether he assumes citizenship somewhere else or not.

Mr. SLAYDEN. Colloquially the man on the street speaks of expatriates as those people who have gone away from their own country and who live abroad. We had a great colony, before the war at least, of American expatriates living in Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna, and so on. They are commonly referred to as expatriates, because they have abandoned their country.

The CHAIRMAN. Whether they have assumed citizenship in the other country or not?

Mr. SLAYDEN. Yes. Take the case of Perdicaris, who came here and was a student at Harvard. He took out citizenship papers; he then abandoned the country and became an expatriate; and while Mr. Roosevelt went wild over him and demanded Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead, as a matter of fact it is notorious that the man had only become an American in form, had gone out of the country, and had not been here for about 20 years. He was an expatriate.

Mr. ROGERS. The law of 1907 takes care of just such a case as that. Mr. SLAYDEN. It declares him to have forfeited his citizenship, as well as all men of that class, does it not?

Mr. KNUTSON. Is not 10 years residence abroad sufficient to make a man an expatriate?

Mr. FLOURNOY. In the case of naturalized citizens there is a provision in the same law that when any naturalized citizen shall have resided for two years in the foreign State from which he came, or for five years in any other foreign State, it shall be presumed that he has ceased to be an American citizen. I have seen a great deal of the workings of that provision, and it seems to me it is a very necessary, a very sensible, and a very reasonable provision. That does not require a man to obtain another citizenship at all; it is simply intended to make a rule in order to determine when persons have abandoned this country, and that is all we are interested in.

Mr. SLAYDEN. All we undertake to provide is when they forfeit their citizenship?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. There are provisions in the laws of several of the European countries to the effect that when a citizen, either native or naturalized, leaves the country and stays away for 12 years he ceases to be a citizen. That is in the laws of the Scandinavian countries, and was formerly in the German law, but it was recently taken out of the German law.

Mr. RAKER. What is the English law in regard to becoming a citizen, and what rights accrue to a man who has joined their army? Mr. FLOURNOY. He does not become a citizen.

Mr. RAKER. What is their provision on that?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Their provision, as I understand it, is that a man can not properly and regularly join their army without becoming a British subject; but as the recruiting officers are anxious to get as many men as possible these people are taken in, or, rather, go in under a somewhat uncertain condition; that is, they really pretend that they are British subjects.

Mr. RAKER. Just take this oath that has been presented here and apply it to their law. A man takes the oath, and he presents it to their proper tribunal; he has served in the war and has a discharge; what is the law of England on his case- -a concrete case now-and without any extraneous evidence as to what his intentions were or anything else? He has served in the war and is discharged, and he appears before the proper tribunal of England to assert his rights as a British subject. Now, under the law, what would be his status?

Mr. FLOURNOY. We have been informed that that oath and enlistment does not make a man a British subject. There have been a great many cases where we have gotten young Americans out of the British Army. When they were under 21 years of age, they let them out; but if they are over 21 years of age, they say that the man has engaged to serve in the army, is of full age, and therefore they will not let him out. But in no cases do they say that a man is a British subject.

Mr. RAKER. What is the holding of their English courts, because there must have been cases of that kind presented?

Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not know how the courts have ruled, but I know we have been informed by the British Government to that effect.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not understand that they have to go through all the formalities required to become a British subject when they take this oath, nor that when they take this oath they become citizens of Great Britain; that is a military oath and does not meet their citizenship requirements.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The oath is the same, but they do not meet the other requirements. There are other requirements for naturalization that these people enlisting do not comply with at all, so that they do not become British subjects by taking the oath.

Mr. CRIST. I would not advocate for a moment a departure from the policy that is contained in this provision. The only thing that it seems to me desirable is to avoid any obligation on the part of this country because of the fact that these Americans have gone to these various European countries and have gone into their armies. They have gone into the armies of Austria, Germany, France, England, Bulgaria, and Greece. We have records of that-that is, we have reports from those countries in the petitions to know where they stand-naturalized Americans as well as native Americans. There are two phases of this law, of which Mr. Flournoy has spoken. This act of 1907 applies to naturalized citizens who go abroad to reside, and the act of 1906 also applies to them.

The CHAIRMAN. And to American citizens, too?

Mr. CRIST. Not native born; that is, not as residents abroad. When a naturalized person becomes an American citizen and acquires a citizenship status, he must reside permanently in this country; if he should depart within five years after he is naturalized and go to any foreign country or to the country of his nativity

Mr. RAKER (interposing). How is that?

Mr. CRIST. If a man is naturalized in this country, he must live here permanently; if he should depart from the country within five years after he is naturalized and go to the country of his allegiance