opinion, and the Attorney General held that this little Tobiassen girl lost her citizenship by reason of the naturalization in Norway of her father.

The same point arose in the Elg case, and the Supreme Court said the Elg girl did not lose her citizenship, and the Attorney General was wrong in the Tobiassen opinion.

So I feel I should not be called upon to express an opinion on such a controversial point at this time.

Mr. REES. We are not calling upon you to do that. We are just calling on you to express view of what you had in mind as to the policy the committee may take in covering the question as it has been stated and is being discussed. If you do not want to make any statement as to the policy you believe should be followed, then we will pass

on to someone else.

I would like to pass this question which we have been discussing off the record for just a moment. We will go back to it if necessary.

Mr. HAZARD. Mr. Rees, I have nothing to add to the statement which Mr. Shoemaker has made, and your own admirable summary of the point, except possibly the language of this proposed amendment be added, which Mr. Riley has suggested, in the words "by his own voluntary act," and that there be added in line 8, after the term "American citizen," "by his own voluntary act."

to run.

On the next line there is the expression "from the date of the approval of this act," extending from which the 2 years is to begin Inasmuch as the rest of the code usually provides for action to be taken from the effective date of the code, I would suggest that that possibly might be a desirable change if the provision should be considered favorably.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, I should like to inquire whether Mr. Shaughnessy would object to changing the word "act" to "action." "Act" indicates a single deed at one time. "Action" may include residence over a long period of time. I think "action" would be better than "act."

Mr. RILEY. Excuse me, I just want to inquire whether what our position is as a matter of policy.

you know

Now, by inserting the words "by his voluntary act," do you think you have accomplished what we have set out to do, or do you think that is still capable of construction? I mean, would you say he has not heretofore expatriated himself by his voluntary action? You would not construe that as meaning residence?

Mr. FLOURNOY. I would. That is the reason I would like to have it, to be frank with you.

Mr. RILEY. I was going to say cannot we arrive, just as a matter of drafting, on an amendment which expresses the point of view of the Labor Department, and an amendment which expresses your point of view? Then since a question of policy has been reached, that the committee vote up or down on each position.

Mr. REES. Let me proceed. Do you have any further statement to make, Mr. Shaughnessy?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No. I stand on the argument of Mr. Shoemaker, but again express the hope that these statements of the different persons in summation may appear as close to the end of the transcript as possible.

It seems to me all of this argument following the summation statements of these persons now is sort of beclouding the transcript. Mr. REES. That is what I am trying to prevent.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I am perfectly willing to have my last question and

the answer thereto deleted from the record.

Mr. REES. I will appreciate it if you will. Now, Mr. Riley, do you have anything further to add on the question of policy?

Mr. RILEY. No. I concur with Mr. Shoemaker on the question of policy.

The collateral question was also raised as to whether it is in the power of Congress to write such a policy into the statute because of certain dicta which were in the Elg decision. My only observation on that is that the dicta were not based on constitutional questions, but on questions of statutory interpretation, and I submit therefore that Congress does have the power by statute to overrule any Supreme Court decision.

Mr. REES. All right. Mr. Noel.

Mr. NOEL. I shall have to be careful about what I say, because this particular problem has not been presented to our committee, and the committee has not acted on it.

Mr. REES. Then you are not in a position to speak for the committee?

Mr. NOEL. All I can say is that the policy of our committee is this: First, let me repeat, we want the code this session. That is the general policy.

And, secondly, the general policy, as expressed by the committee at meetings heretofore, has been that they want to limit the responsibilities and duties of the United States Government as much as possible, and it would seem that that policy of our committee, or that view of our committee, would more nearly follow the State Department's view than the Labor Department's view on this matter.

But I want it distinctly understood that our committee has not discussed this particular point.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. May I make a remark there?

Mr. REES. Just a moment. In other words, you are not quite able to speak for the committee?

Mr. NOEL. No; I would not say I was in a position to do so.

Mr. REES. But it is your opinion?

Mr. NOEL. No; it is not my opinion. That is the general feeling of our committee. We want to make the problem as small as possible and exclude as many as possible.

Mr. REES. Do you want to express your personal views?
Mr. NOEL. My personal views would be the same.

If a person has not thought enough of American citizenship to take advantage of it until it is announced that the door is going to be closed in 2 years, it seems to me he does not value it very much in comparison to the other.

Mr. REES. Are you through?

Mr. NOEL. Yes.

Mr. REES. Now, as a matter of fairness, we have struck out the question that was asked by Mr. Flournoy.

Do you want to ask or raise that question again, Mr. Flournoy?
Mr. FLOURNOY. I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. REES. Mr. Shoemaker, do you want to express any opinion?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I just want to make one remark with regard to the statement of Mr. Noel that he is anxious to have the Departments relieved of as much difficulty as possible. That is exactly our idea. Our clause will do exactly that. And if it is not an active clause, we will be deciding the question of citizenship for 40 or 50 years to come. Mr. REES. That is the view of your Department?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Yes; that is the view of our Department.

Mr. FLOURNOY. While I have withdrawn my question, Mr. Chairthere is one brief statement I should like to add.

man,

Mr. REES. We would be glad to have it.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The first point is that the proposal by the Department of Labor would have the effect of multiplying cases of dual nationality.

In all discussions on the subject of dual nationality for years by scholars and persons who have paid attention to the subject of nationality, there is a great desirability of some method of terminating dual nationality, and that has been the theme.

This proposal has the opposite effect. A person after being naturalized in a foreign state through his parent, nevertheless, remains an American. That means all those thousands, hundreds of thousands, who have been naturalized here in this country through the naturalization of their parents, to be consistent, we must recognize them as having dual nationality. The principle, we think, is bad.

The second point I want to mention is that where there are decisions of any officers of the Government to the effect that an individual, whether in these cases or in other cases, has lost his citizenship, that individual has, as I see it, an opportunity to obtain a judicial decision by making a petition for a declaratory judgment.

If I am wrong about that, I would be glad to hear the other side; but that is my understanding.

Mr. REES. Is there anything further on that point?

Now, a further amendment has been offered to section 401 (a). By whom is this section?

Mr. HAZARD. The War Department, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REES. All right. Is there any objection on the part of the Department of State to the amendment that has been offered by the War Department to section 401 (a)?

Mr. FLOURNOY. You mean the War Department's proposal of the other day?

Mr. REES. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOURNOY. No, sir; I think not.

Mr. REES. Or by the Department of Labor?

Mr. RILEY. Is that the one with reference to incorporated territory? My understanding is all the Departments concurred on that draft as it now stands.

Mr. REES. We will put it this way then: Is there any objection on the part of any Departments represented here to the amendment submitted by the War Department?

(No response.)

Mr. REES. Is there any objection on the part of the organization you represent, Mr. Noel?"

Mr. NOEL. We have not considered it at all. It has not been brought to our attention. But I would assume to say that there is not any,

if the three Departments and the War Department are agreed on it. I do not think there is any harm done by not referring it to us.

Mr. REES. There is a new subsection (c) to section 402, following section (b) on page 83, that reads:

residing continuously for 5 years in any other foreign state except as provided in section 404 hereof.

Is there any objection to that subsection from the Departments represented here?

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I thought we all approved that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. REES. I believe we have. I want to make sure there was no objection at this time.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I think we did.

Mr. REES. I call attention to an amendment on page 84 at the end of section 405, a proviso as follows:

Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent, unless and until the child attains the age of 23 years, without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.

As I recall it, we agreed on that amendment.

Is there any objection on the part of any Departments to that? Mr. BUTLER. Didn't we agree to strike out that comma after the "23 years"?

Mr. HAZARD. Where, Mr. Butler?

Mr. BUTLER. Next to the last line.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. There was a question about it.

Mr. BUTLER. I think we agreed to strike out that comma there. Mr. REES. Where?

Mr. BUTLER. After "twenty-three years."

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes; after "twenty-three years."

Mr. REES. Is that for clarification?

Mr. BUTLER. Yes; that is clarification only.

Mr. HAZARD. Yes, clarification.

Mr. REES. I see. Is there any further discussion by any of the departments represented as to chapter 4 on the subject of loss of nationality? This may seem to be going backward, but it is the chapter that has created the greater part of the discussion.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, I thought we had agreed to insert a provision that I do not see here so far, and that related to a person born with dual nationality who was living in the foreign country of which he is a national, and put in the army of that country, to the effect that such entry into the foreign army would be presumed to be voluntary. I thought that had been agreed to. I do not see it here.

Mr. HAZARD. Mr. Chairman, as having been responsible for the preparation of this copy, I would say that that was not included because certainly there was no agreement on the part of the Department of Labor to any such provision.

Mr. REES. The matter was discussed.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I recall the discussion.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I had the impression that was discussed and agreed to, but I may be mistaken.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Discussed, but there was no agreement on it.

Mr. REES. As I remember, the proposition was discussed rather fully.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Very fully.

Mr. REES. Fully and earnestly. Personally, I think it is a question that should not have been passed over. If it is agreeable to this group, when we are able to do it for the sake of the record, I would like to have a brief statement, if I may have it, from the State Department as to its view, and then the view from the other Departments, so that if no one wants to submit an amendment on the question, the committee will take the proposition under consideration. I think perhaps it is fair.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. Do you have a clause somewhere, Mr. Flournoy, to cover that?

Mr. REES. So I will turn to section 401 (c).

Subsection (c) reads:

Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States.

What suggested amendment do you have, Mr. Flournoy?

Mr. FLOURNOY. I was just looking to see whether I have the draft, Mr. Chairman, of the proposal. I can state briefly what it is.

Mr. REES. I will be glad if you will state it as briefly as you can. Tell us the point in question, and let us get the answer.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The point is simply this: We have a provision in the code to the effect that nationality is lost by voluntary entry into a foreign army or service in a foreign army. We have another provision to the effect that an individual cannot expatriate himself until he has reached the age of 18 years. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that we have had a great many cases in the past in the State Department concerning the effect of persons entering foreign armies and taking the foreign oath of allegiance. Frequently they are persons of dual nationality.

The excuse given in those cases is that the entry into the foreign army was under duress, and the individual usually produced some proof that he made a protest of some kind. He was a citizen of that country, and he was living there, and obviously it was his duty to serve if the law of that country required it. Nevertheless, he puts up some pretense of a protest, says it was duress. That will happen again. So that unless we have a provision of the kind suggested that the pleas of duress would not be valid in those cases, the provision we have in here concerning loss of citizenship through entry into a foreign army will be practically a nullity insofar as it relates to those persons of dual nationality who are taken into the armies of countries of which they are nationals.

And the provision was to the effect that the plea would not be valid. I thought that finally there had been some agreement on that, but I seem to have been mistaken about that.

I handed you a copy of it, I think, Mr. Chairman, a copy of the drafted proposal.

I am not going to argue it any further. I merely submit it for what it is worth.

Mr. REES. Is this a correct statement, that it is your view that an American citizen who joins the armed forces of a foreign state-