Mr. FLOURNOY (interposing). Of which he is also a national. Mr. REES (continuing). Of which he is also a national, thereby loses his right of citizenship?

Mr. FLOURNOY. If he does it after reaching the age of 18 years. Mr. REES. If he joins such armed forces after reaching the age of 18 years?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes. He is residing in that country and he has his residence in that country. If he is there on a temporary visit, this would not apply. If he is living in that country, he is a citizen of that country, and it is his duty to perform whatever acts the laws of that country require. A plea of duress should have no validity.

That is my view, and I think that is clearly the view of our Depart

ment.

Mr. REES. Now we will hear from the Department of Labor.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. It is our position, Mr. Chairman, that these individuals who are generally, as Mr. Flournoy has said, requesting dual nationality should not be denied the opportunity of asserting their American citizenship solely because they went into a foreign army.

These boys in many cases come from generations of Americans. They are not free agents. They are subject to the residence generally of their parents. They may have come to the United States in order to perfect citizenship by living here between the ages of 13 and 18 years, as now provided by law, and it is our position solely that these persons should have the opportunity to say whether or not they went into the army under duress, and whether they made any objection to their going in, instead of being denied their American citizenship, which they have attempted to effect solely by reason of the fact that they were required to go into that foreign army.

Mr. REES. You might broaden that a little, and say whether they were required to or did join.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. I did not want to go too far.

I am not unmindful, and I have come in contact with these cases many times, that individuals abroad, sons of American parents possessing dual nationality, have been required to go into foreign armies without any choice on their part. They have frequently protested the fact that they have had to go into such armies, and we feel that they should be given the opportunity to remain here and try to assert their American citizenship and state the facts, and then on that statement of facts to be judged as to whether or not they have lost their American citizenship.

That is all. That is the same condition which obtains today.
Mr. REES. Do you have anything further, Mr. Butler?

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I thoroughly understand now what the proviso is going to be.

Now, 401 (c) provides as it is in the code at the present time, loss of nationality by a person who enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state, unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States. Of course, if I am caught in a country that is at war I may be shoved into the armed forces of that country and might have to serve. Would I have the right when I come back here to show it was involuntary? This applies to more than dual citizenship, and it applies to anybody else.

Mr. REES. It is a clause in the present code.

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. So would I be estopped from claiming I was shoved into that army? If I am caught in a foreign country I guess I will have to get in unless the consul gives me protection.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out again that we are only discussing the case of a person who is a citizen of that country who resides in that country. We are not talking about Mr. Butler. I do not think he has dual nationality, so far as I know.

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. But there is nothing in (c) which relates to the dual-nationality phase of it.

Mr. FLOURNOY. We are not discussing that now.

Mr. REES. I was just raising the question. As I understand it, the State Department takes the view that a person with dual nationality residing in the country of nationality who joins the armed forces of that country thereby loses his right of American citizenship.

The Department of Labor says that he does not necessarily lose his right of citizenship, and he is entitled to the right to be heard. Mr. SHOEMAKER. That is correct.

Mr. REES. And have the facts as he presents them considered by the proper authority.

Mr. BUTLER. There is a question in my mind, Mr. Chairman, whether there might not be circumstances even in a case of a person who has dual nationality acted in good faith. He is residing in the country. It is partly the domicile of his father, and he is shoved in the army when 18 years of age. He might have every intention, just like the little Tobiassen girl, to come back and take citizenship here.

Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Could we not cite the case today of Norway and Sweden, which were taken so suddenly? Assuming we had a person of dual nationality in either one of those countries, they would have no opportunity to get out and make any election. They may just be taken in.

Mr. SHOEMAKER. We do not hold any brief for those persons who voluntarily do that.

We want to do the same thing as far as that is concerned as Mr. Flournoy does, but we do want to give the individual an opportunity to be heard where he may have protested going in the army and had no choice because the foreign country took him and put him in that army without regard to what he wanted to do.

Mr. REES. Any further views on this question?

Is there any other question that you gentlemen would like to discuss, especially questions where you may be in disagreement?

Mr. FLOURNOY. I think we have disagreed enough, Mr. Chairman. Mr. REES. All right. Is there any particular section which anyone who is represented here wants to discuss and draw the committee's particular attention to, or any clause of any section?

Any further amendments to be submitted?

Now, then, to clarify the situation a little, I have a revised bill that has just been handed me, dated April 16, 1940. That, as I understand it, contains all of the amendments that have been submitted. I have before me H. R. 6127 with the amendments thereto inserted therein. I believe it contains all of the amendments that are to be submitted by the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, or I can put it another way: Does the Department of Justice or

the Department of Labor want to submit any further amendments than those contained in this revised bill as I have it before me?

(No response.)

Mr. REES. Now, then, the Department of State, as I understand it, has one amendment that has not been included, and which they would like to have considered.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Or, rather, we have a different amendment to section 401 (a). I think I have given you a copy of our proposals, but I will be glad to

Mr. REES (interposing). You have a different amendment for section 401 (a)?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. For subsection (a) of section 401, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is different, you see.

Mr. FLOURNOY. And also the proposal which I mentioned last, this thing about the effective entry into a foreign army.

Mr. REES. And where is that to be inserted in the bill?
Mr. FLOURNOY. That was to come in section 401, also.

of

When I go back to the Department I will be glad to get a copy it and send it to you and at the same time I will send it to the other two Departments.

Mr. REES. I just want to get the record as clear as I can. where would your amendment be inserted in this bill?

Mr. FLOURNOY. It is at the end of section 401.

Just

Mr. REES. And does that amendment relate to the other subsections in this section 401?

Mr. FLOURNOY. Mr. Chairman there are two differences, I think; one relates to section 401 (a), which has been the principal subject of our discussion today.

Mr. REES. And the other?

Mr. FLOURNOY. And the other relates to the classifications that we last discussed.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. May I interrupt?

Mr. REES. Yes.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Unless we properly classify and style these sections the record will all be confused. 401 (a) is entirely different from section A of 401. In other words, our differences of opinion are on subsection (a) of section 401.

Mr. FLOURNOY. That is right.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We had better keep it clear because it will make the record appear that we are in disagreement on section 401 (a). Mr. FLOURNOY. I am not sure what you mean by section 401 (a). Mr. BUTLER. You see, here is section 401 (a) (indicating). Mr. FLOURNOY. Our first proposal relates to section A. It is in parentheses of section 401.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is better.

Mr. FLOURNOY. I have already given you, I think, a copy of our proposals. In other words, our proposals are to take the place of what appears in red type on page 81 of the amended bill.

Mr. REES. Make it clearer than that. It is to take the place of the proposal submitted by the Labor Department.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir.

Mr. REES. All right.

Mr. FLOURNOY. The other proposal, which we have discussed last, I think should be inserted at the end of section 401.

Mr. RILEY. Would it not be at the end of section 401 (c)?

Mr. REES. Then let the record show you have a further amendment that relates to the subject matter contained in section (c) of section

401.

Mr. FLOURNOY. Yes, sir.

Mr. REES. Are there any further amendments to be submitted? Mr. Noel, do you have any proposals?

Mr. NOEL. I have been glancing through it. It seems to be very much improved in the final draft. It looks pretty good to me, with the things that have been discussed this morning and the War Department's provisions.

I still see you have not defined a felony, convicted of a felony.
Mr. BUTLER. What page is this on, now, Mr. Noel?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. On definitions.

Mr. REES. Do you want to submit an amendment to be considered by the committee that has to do with the definition of a felony? Mr. NOEL. I do not think I could submit one. The courts are in disagreement on it, too.

Mr. REES. You raised a question about it.

Mr. NOEL. I submitted a memorandum one time on this thing.
Mr. REES. But you do not submit a proposed amendment?

Mr. NOEL. No. I just thought the committee would do the best they could do about it. These offenses do not seem to be labeled. Some are pretty serious matters, and others are not so serious.

I go back to our main proposition that we want a code. We can iron those other things out later.

Mr. REES. All right. Is there anything further that any one present wants to submit to this subcommittee?

As a matter of fairness to Mr. Henry F. Butler, I am not sure whether or not he wants to submit amendments to this subcommittee in addition to those he proposed the other day.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Mr. Chairman, may I make this statement for the record: Mr. Henry F. Butler called me on the phone this morning about 9:30 and stated he would have to be in court, and wished me to convey the following thought to the chairman of the subcommittee: He wished to express his sincere appreciation for the extreme courtesy the subcommittee has extended to him, and he wished to say that as regards the various amendments now perfected he has nothing further to offer, and on the disagreement between the Departments of State and Labor on subsection (a) of section 401 of chapter 4, he is inclined to go along with the position taken by the Department of Labor. I am making this statement at his request.

Mr. REES. If there are no other statements we will adjourn the hearing.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the hearing in the foregoing matter was adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.)