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

No absence whatever permitted72
A fixed time limit (three to six months very general)32
“Entirely a question of intention”210
Noncommittal26
—–
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.

Yes179
No155
—–
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
No36
Noncommittal6
—–
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?

Yes289
No34
Noncommittal11
—–
334