BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes	179
No	155
	—–
	334

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

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

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

Yes	289
No	34
Noncommittal	11
	—–
	334

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

Yes	167
No	157
Noncommittal	25
	—–
	359

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

Yes	208
No	134
Noncommittal	33
	—–
	375

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes	204
No	104
Noncommittal	25
	—–
	333

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

Yes	220
No	127
Noncommittal	17
	—–
	364

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

Yes	100
No	225
Noncommittal	34
	—–
	359

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

Yes	111
No	113
Doubtful	28
No opinion	58
	—–
	310

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

Yes	180
No	102
Noncommittal	44
	—–
	326

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

Yes	112
No	208
	—–
	320

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

Yes	76
No	202
	—–
	278

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

Yes	48
No	222
	—–
	270