ACTION OF THE COURTS.

The actual number of petitions for citizenship granted during the fiscal year 1916 is 93,911, a decrease of about 3 per cent as compared with the 96,390 reported last year. The variation is but small and may be attributed, in part at least, to the fact that politically last year was an "off year." Attention must be drawn to that provision of the law which bestows citizenship also upon the children of a naturalized person who reside in the United States during their minority and subsequent to that person's naturalization. The figures above given must not be taken, therefore, to represent even approximately the total of the naturalized citizens admitted last year. The bureau has lacked thus far the clerical aid necessary to compile and report the figures showing those thus admitted by derivation. from the naturalization of the parent.

TABLE I.-Number of persons granted or denied citizenship during the fiscal years 1907 to 1916, inclusive.

19 months only.

2 These figures represent the total admissions to citizenship, while the figures in Table VI (C), 87,421, show only such certificates as have been accounted for and reported to the bureau by the clerks of courts.

In the next table there are given the number of denials of petitions, together with the reasons therefor, amounting to 11,927. This number, taken with the number granted, shows that 105,838 petitions were disposed of during the year. Those denied upon purely personal grounds were 1,336 for ignorance of the institutions to which they professed attachment, and 588 for immorality, or a total of only 1,924 out of the 105,838 petitions disposed of. Of the remaining 10,004 denials all except 172, whose petitions were abated by decease prior to hearing, 95 who appeared to be citizens already, and 3 rejected under section 2169 of the United States Revised Statutes failed to secure admission simply from neglect to comply in some particular with the requirements of the law.

North Carolina..

North Dakota.

64652°-LAB 1916-28

The provisions of section 2169 of the United States Revised Statutes confine naturalization to "aliens being free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." This language has been fruitful of much honest diversity of construction by the public and by the courts, and, in the absence of legislative attempt to remove its obscurity, the practical result has now been reached by the courts that "white persons," as used in the law above quoted, means all who are not either black persons or Mongolians. Thus out of 105,838 petitioners but 3 were found who were neither white persons nor 66 Africans."

Another item in the above table furnishes an instance of a judicial tendency to narrow the construction of the law in a much more serious matter that of residence with the opportunity it alone furnishes the witnesses who testify credibly that upon their personal knowledge of a petitioner's behavior during such residence they can assure the court of his good character and fitness in all respects to become a citizen of this country. That item shows that of the 105,838 petitioners heard during the year but 297 were rejected because of insufficient residence-about one-fifth of 1 per cent. The tendency of judicial ruling seems to be that the residence prescribed by law is not physical presence, but merely domicile with an intention during absence therefrom to return thereto. Section 2170 of the Revised Statutes declares that "No alien shall be admitted to become a citizen who has not for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission resided within the United States." Similarly the fourth paragraph of section 4 of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, declares that "it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately preceding the date of his application he has resided continuously within the United States five years at least," etc.

The following cases are submitted to show the latitude used in construing these requirements as to residence, because it seems impossible to use more aptly expressive language than that quoted from the statutes and because of the effect of such a construction upon the value of the testimony of witnesses as to the behavior of petitioners during the entire five years anteceding the filing of their petitions:

United States v. Shanahan, 232 Fed., 169:

It appears that Shanahan was absent from the United States from July, 1910, to March 17, 1913, all within the five years preceding the date of the petition for naturalization; petitioner claimed continuous residence from 1904. Cancellation proceedings dismissed. In dismissing the proceedings, the court said:

"The law, it is true, requires the applicant to have 'resided continuously' in the United States the prescribed time. If this means an unbroken physical presence, this applicant, under the facts averred now, should not have been admitted, and his admission by the court might well be held to be such an abuse of power as to make the issue of the certificate 'illegal.' This, however, it does not mean. It means only that the applicant shall have maintained a bona fide residence or domicile here. This has been determined for us in the case of United States v. Cantini, 212 Fed., 925, with a clearness of statement which should finally settle this strangely vexing question of what constituted residence. It is a question of fact, into which intention enters as a controlling element. * * *

"However this may be, the conclusion reached is that the court, when it admitted this applicant was 'satisfied' of the fact of residence, and, being so

satisfied, it was proper to admit him to citizenship, and we see no justification for canceling the certificate because of the fact (even if it were a fact) that from a view of part of the proofs which were then before the court we differed in our judgment of the weight of the evidence."

In United States v. Cantini, 212 Fed., 925:

The opinion of the circuit court of appeals indicates that it was admitted that Cantini, although he married and lived in his native country for two years of the period of five years, intended ultimately to return to the United States and make his home here. The circuit court of appeals said: "In a word, the question must of necessity be a question of fact in any given case, and the mere declaration by the alien that he intended to maintain his residence here may not be sufficient to overcome the persuasive facts that point in an opposite direction. * * * We can only say that the undisputed facts before us seem to establish the fact that Cantini had not resided continuously within the United States for at least five years preceding his application. As a result we think that the Government's attack upon his certificate should have been sustained.” (Reversed, with instructions to enter an order of cancellation.)

United States v. Santoro. United States District Court:

First arrived in the United States in 1902; in December, 1904, returned to Italy and was married, again returning to the United States in March, 1907; filed a declaration of intention in 1908. Held, certificate of second arrival unnecessary, although absent approximately 2 years and 3 months, because of previous residence and previous holding by the court that temporary absence does not break continuity of residence.

Robert Benson Forest case (service on board foreign vessels and absence from United States on two occasions, one of 4 months, another 15 months): A United States district court admitted the applicant to citizenship. At the hearing on his petition he showed arrival in this country in 1907; was employed on shore a few weeks and thereafter served on a vessel flying the British flag for about one year, when he returned, in 1909, to his home in Scotland, to pass an examination for certificate as second-class engineer; upon return to United States again sailed on foreign vessels until July, 1911, when he again returned to Scotland to obtain chief engineer's certificate, remaining in Scotland for about 15 months, until December, 1912, when he rejoined a foreign vessel abroad and from time of return to this country in 1912 in the service of a foreign vessel until January, 1916; was on a vessel under the British flag and left such employment to attend final hearing of petition for naturalization, as he desired to enter American merchant marine (evidently as a chief engineer), which he could do only after being naturalized. Most of his trips on vessels were to South American ports, except one to Italy and one to France and his return from abroad at the termination of the 15 months' absence.

Paul Gillot case (absence and service in foreign army):

Applicant arrived in United States in 1902; filed a declaration of intention in 1914; between 1902 and 1914 was absent from the United States five or six times on business trips of not more than five or six weeks' duration. On August 15, 1914, after the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, left the United States for the purpose of enlisting in the French Army and enlisted immediately upon arrival; continued service in French Army until May 22, 1915, when discharged from military service by reason of physical disability; returned to United States June 15, 1915, after an absence of 10 months and, subsequent to filing petition for naturalization and in connection with preliminary examination, stated he would still have been in the French Army had he not become physically disabled.

In November, 1914, his wife went to France from the United States and resided with applicant's mother in Paris, and petitioner did not see his wife in France until May, 1915, when he was sent to a hospital because of illness.

Petition for naturalization, filed February 10, 1916, was granted by a United States district court and certificate No. 600876 issued.

In Table III is given a statement of number of motions filed for the cancellation of certificates which were illegally granted, in the