Americans by Choice

by John Palmer Gavit

“PERSONAL EQUATION” OF THE JUDGES

According to the report of the Commissioner of Naturalization for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, a total of 2,306 courts of all these kinds have exercised naturalization jurisdiction during that year, and a list of judges, compiled by the Americanization Study from information obtained from the Naturalization Service and from other sources, shows that about 1,450 individual judges, Federal, state, and local, preside in these courts. A grand total of approximately 100,000 cases a year—the figure roughly used in estimating the naturalization business of recent years—would give to each judge an average of about 70 cases a year; but since in the great majority of rural districts this business is exceedingly small—in some cases not more than two or three in a year—and since the bulk of it is in the large cities and in particular regions, such as the mining districts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, etc., certain courts have a very large number of cases, in some instances running into thousands.

In the last analysis, the individual judge is, subject to certain noteworthy restrictions and interferences, the final arbiter in every case. Upon his “personal equation,” his opinions and prejudices, to a great extent depends the reception which the petitioner experiences when he comes into court for the final stage of his initiation as an American citizen.

Obviously, then, it becomes important to ascertain the general attitude of the naturalizing judges throughout the country toward the law as it stands, toward the naturalization process in general, toward the petitioner for citizenship. In the last analysis the judge is a human being, moved by human motives, warped by human prejudices, subject to the same personal, local, and general influences that condition the emotions and actions of the rest of us toward our fellow men.

With this in view, the Americanization Study addressed a questionnaire to each of the approximately 1,400 judges throughout the country entitled[85] to jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings in the 2,300 courts over which from time to time they preside for this purpose. Somewhat less than one-third (423, or about 31 per cent) of the judges thus addressed replied or were accounted for in some manner more or less complete. Any exact or conclusive tabulation of the replies would be impracticable because the questions called for expression of opinions rather than categorical or statistical answers; a large proportion of the judges left one or more of the questions unanswered or qualified their answers in such a way as to preclude the possibility of precise classification. Nevertheless, the results as a whole are highly significant and informing—almost as much so in their negative aspects as in the definite replies evoked.

For example, it is interesting to observe the difference not only in the ratio of replies received to the number of judges questioned, but in the character of the replies as regards general strictness or liberality of attitude, in the various parts of the country. The first point is to be seen in the following list of naturalization districts, with the approximate number of judges in each and the number of them heard from:

TABLE IV

Number of Replies from Judges in Each District

Boston District.—Comprising the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island.

State	Judges	Replies from
Maine	9	3
New Hampshire	6	1
Vermont	7	4
Massachusetts	29	3
Connecticut	18	4
Rhode Island	8	2
	—	—
Total	77	17

New York District.—Comprising Northern, Eastern, and Southern New York, and Hudson County, New Jersey.

State	Judges	Replies from
New York	74	19
New Jersey	3	0
	—	—
Total	77	19

Philadelphia District.—Comprising the Eastern and Middle Districts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey (except Hudson County).

State	Judges	Replies from
Pennsylvania	46	11
Delaware	4	2
New Jersey	24	10
	—	—
Total	74	23

Pittsburgh District.--Comprising Western Pennsylvania, Western New York, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland (counties of Allegheny, Frederick, Garrett, and Washington), Kentucky (counties of Campbell and Kenton).

State	Judges	Replies from
Pennsylvania	29	7
Kentucky	1	0
Maryland	4	0
New York	22	6
Ohio	81	22
West Virginia	27	9
	—	—
Total	164	44

Washington District.--Comprising the District of Columbia, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky (except the counties of Campbell, Jefferson, and Kenton), Louisiana, Maryland (except the counties of Allegheny, Frederick, Garrett, and Washington), Mississippi, North Carolina, Porto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee (except Shelby County), Texas, and Virginia.

State	Judges	Replies from
District of Columbia	1	0
Alabama	7	2
Florida	12	3
Georgia	10	0
Kentucky	12	2
Louisiana	18	2
Maryland	14	2
Mississippi	13	1
North Carolina	10	1
Porto Rico	1	0
South Carolina	6	0
Tennessee	9	3
Texas	25	8
Virginia	9	1
City of Baltimore	9	1
	—	—
Total	157	29

St. Louis District.--Comprising Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Shelby County, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois.

State	Judges	Replies from
Arkansas	35	9
Illinois	20	6
Iowa	62	27
Kansas	39	14
Nebraska	34	11
Missouri	43	11
Oklahoma	34	11
	—	—
Total	267	89

Chicago District.--Comprising Northern Illinois, Indiana, Southern Wisconsin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, Southern Peninsula of Michigan, and Mackinac County, Michigan.

State	Judges	Replies from
Illinois	87	20
Indiana	70	20
Michigan	51	18
Wisconsin	15	5
	—	—
Total	223	63

St. Paul District.--Comprising Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Northern Wisconsin, Northern Peninsula of Michigan (except Mackinac County).

State	Judges	Replies from
Minnesota	48	20
Michigan	4	3
North Dakota	13	6
South Dakota	13	5
Wisconsin	11	7
	—	—
Total	89	41

Denver District.—Comprising Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and the counties of Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Bonneville, Custer, Franklin, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison, Oneida, and Power, Idaho.

State	Judges	Replies from
Colorado	17	7
New Mexico	9	5
Utah	9	3
Wyoming	8	2
Idaho	5	3
	—	—
Total	48	20

San Francisco District.—Comprising California, Arizona, and Nevada.

State	Judges	Replies from
California	95	34
Arizona	16	8
Nevada	12	2
	—–	—
Total	123	44

Seattle District.—Comprising Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho (except as assigned to Denver).

State	Judges	Replies from
Washington	47	15
Oregon	27	11
Montana	26	7
Idaho	11	1
	—–	—
Total	111	34

Recapitulation

Total number of judges addressed	1,410
Replies received from	423

Percentage of Replies

St. Paul District	46.0
Denver District	41.7
San Francisco District	37.4
St. Louis District	33.3
Philadelphia District	31.0
Seattle District	30.6
Chicago District	28.2
Pittsburgh District	26.8
New York District	24.6
Boston District	22.0
Washington District	18.5
Average	30.9

It would be perilous to generalize from these figures as to the interest of judges in various parts of the country in the study of the problems involved in naturalization. Silence does not necessarily imply indifference; moreover, the courts in large centers of population are overburdened with ordinary litigation, and it is not surprising that there should be procrastination or entire failure in responding to a more or less elaborate questionnaire. Nevertheless, there is food for reflection in the fact that the lowest percentages of exhibited interest are in the East and South—the highest west of the Mississippi River.

The judges who did reply to the questionnaire represent on the whole both wide experience and substantial interest in the subject. Of those who state the number of naturalization cases coming before them in an average year, more than 100 passed upon 100 cases or more—not including the very large numbers passed by a few in acceptance of soldiers under the “military naturalization law”; at least as many more had from 50 to 100 cases a year (160 between 10 and 100); only 67 reported less than 10. Upward of 400 judges, each answering for himself, undoubtedly afford a reasonably reliable cross-section of the opinion of the naturalizing agency of the government.