SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. H E E MAN P. GOEBEL. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
 the Union and haying under consideration the bill H. R. 17850—the 
 naval appropriation bill— 
 
 Mr. GOEBEL said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: Immigration and naturalization necessarily 
 go hand in hand and are subjects of vital importance to the wel¬ 
 fare of our common country. I am a firm believer in stringent 
 immigration laws and in. the strict enforcement of them. Sev¬ 
 eral bills are now pending in this House on that subject, and I 
 hope that in the near future some legislation will be enacted 
 which will have a tendency to check the influx of an undesirable 
 class of aliens. It is indeed unfortunate that, notwithstanding 
 our present laws, we have received such a large and very unde¬ 
 sirable class of foreigners. They are necessarily a menace to 
 good government; and there is evidently a defect somewhere 
 in our present system which has enabled this class of aliens to 
 land in our midst. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, that subject is not before us at this time. 
 We are now considering the bill introduced by the gentleman 
 from New Jersey [Mr. Howell], as reported by the Committee 
 on Immigration and Naturalization, which provides, in part, for 
 a uniform rule of naturalization of aliens throughout the 
 United States. I shall address myself especially to section 9 
 of the bill, which provides, among other things, “ that no alien 
 shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the 
 United States who can not write in his own language or in the 
 English language, and who can not read, speak, and understand 
 the English language.” The reason urged for this provision is 
 found in the report of the committee, which reads as follows: 
 
 It has seemed to your committee that any alien of ordinary intelli¬ 
 gence who desires to take advantage of these opportunities and to fit 
 himself for citizenship in our country could, in five years’ residence, 
 which is required in the country before he can apply for naturalization, 
 acquire sufficient education to comply with the requirements that he 
 shall be able to either read in his own language or in the English lan¬ 
 guage and speak, read, and understand the English language. If an 
 alien be so deficient in mental capacity as to be unable to meet that re¬ 
 quirement or so careless of the opportunities afforded him, it is the 
 opinion of your committee that he would not make a desirable citizen 
 and should be refused naturalization. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, no one will contend, as an abstract proposition, 
 that it would not be better for the individual that he speak, 
 read, and understand the English language; not because, in my 
 judgment, it would make him a better citizen of the United 
 States, but because it is the language of our country, and with 
 it he ought to be familiar. But I resent the imputation that the 
 6859 3 
 
4 
 
 absence of that requirement makes him an undesirable citizen 
 and, therefore, naturalization should be refused him. You 
 will observe that by this bill, although an alien may be of good 
 moral character, a firm believer in our form of government, and 
 willing to support and defend the Constitution and laws, and 
 who may possess all the other qualifications of good citizen¬ 
 ship, yet lacking this one qualification, namely, to be able to 
 read, speak, and understand the English language, is absolutely 
 disqualified. Again, has it occurred to the gentlemen advocating 
 this measure that this is discriminating in favor of the English- 
 speaking as against the German and every other non-English- 
 speaking alien? Why this discrimination? Why discriminate, 
 for instance, against the Germans? Have they now T become so 
 undesirable for lacking the qualification required in this bill; 
 and why were they not so at any other time? Read the history 
 of the United States and you will acknowledge that the Germans 
 have t^iken an honorable part in the development of our nation; 
 in the tendency toward government for the people and by the 
 people and in the development of national and individual pros¬ 
 perity the German influence has made itself felt 
 
 The German thought tends to strengthen the feeling that im¬ 
 plies not only right, but duty. They have never wavered iu 
 their loyalty, and in that respect never gave blind obedience 
 to any creed, party, or class, but ever marching on to a higher 
 aim of the moral and intellectual growth of this nation. The 
 share of the German in the wars of the United States is by no 
 means limited to the rebellion. From the very beginning of 
 their settlement in this country they have always stood ready 
 to take their place in its defense. They took a full share in 
 the war of 1812 and in the Mexican war, and at all times gave 
 freely of their men and their means to the cause of liberty in 
 the war of the rebellion, and wherever they were strongest in 
 numbers they gave more than the proportionate strength to the 
 forces raised for the defense of the Union. In those days the 
 question was not raised whether he could read, speak, and under¬ 
 stand the English language. I point with pride to my German 
 fellow-citizens and to their history, that in war and in peace 
 they have always done their duty. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, it is here urged that if an alien is so 
 careless of the opportunities afforded him as not to be able to 
 read, speak, and understand the English language naturalization 
 ought to be refused to him. The fact is lost sight of that he 
 may not have the opportunities; or that he may not be able to 
 avail himself of such opportunities. It is no answer to say that 
 if he does not understand our language, how can he understand 
 our form of government and its requirements of him as a citizen? 
 
 Let me say to you that newspapers and other publications 
 printed in his own language give him the desired information. 
 By assimilating and coming in contact with our own people he 
 is soon informed of the requirements of a citizen under our form 
 of government. But, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with 
 naturalization affecting Federal citizenship, as distinguished 
 from State citizenship, and there is a wide distincton between 
 the two. One carries obligations of a different nature than that 
 of the other. But before discussing that proposition let me say 
 that this bill does not provide for an examination or test. It 
 would therefore depend entirely upon the judge before whom 
 the applicant appeared whether he can, at least to his satisfac- 
 6859 
 
tion, read, speak, and understand the English language. In no 
 instances, therefore, it will be observed, would such an examina¬ 
 tion or test be uniform. One judge may fix a high standard, 
 while another may be more lax in the requirements. Again, an 
 applicant may be able to speak and understand the English lan¬ 
 guage, but not be able to read it; for, mark you, he must be 
 able to read, speak, and understand the English language. IIow 
 accurate shall he be in his reading, speaking, and understand¬ 
 ing? Suppose the judge shall require as a test that the appli¬ 
 cant speak correctly the name of the gentleman from Colorado 
 [Mr. Bonynge], or speak correctly the name of the gentleman 
 from Hawaii [Mr. Jona»h Kuhio Ivalanianaole], would the 
 gentleman from Colorado insist that that individual would not 
 make a good citizen, possessing all the other qualifications, and 
 that naturalization ought to be refused him? It can be readily 
 seen to what absurdities this provision may lead, and the only 
 way to obviate that condition is to establish a board of exam¬ 
 iners, nonpartisan in its character, who shall be‘governed by 
 uniform rules, so that in the examination there may not enter 
 the whims and prejudice of a partisan or the hatred of one 
 against a class. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, coming to the proposition to which I 
 have already alluded, I contend that as Congress can only deal 
 with Federal citizenship the educational qualification prescribed 
 in this bill is not essential to Federal citizenship and that it 
 was never contemplated by the Congress. In the first place, 
 what is citizenship? It has been defined as “the status of a 
 citizen, with its rights and privileges.” “ He is a member of a 
 nation or a sovereign state, especially a republic, and one who 
 owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection 
 from it.” (See Standard Dictionary (1898) ; Webster’s Dic¬ 
 tionary ; Century Dictionary; G Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 
 2d ed.) 
 
 It does not necessarily follow from this definition that the 
 grade or quality or privilege of citizenship must be identical 
 in all citizens, even in a republican government. In many cases 
 arising under our system it has been repeatedly decided that 
 the bestowal of political privileges upon an individual is not 
 essential to constitute him a citizen. (See Wise on Citizen¬ 
 ship, p. 3, and authorities there cited.) There are two kinds 
 of citizenship in this country, national and State, each dis¬ 
 tinct from the other. A person may be a citizen of the United 
 States without enjoying State citizenship and the special rights 
 and privileges which State citizenship confers. For prior 
 to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution 
 of the United States no mode existed of obtaining citizenship 
 of the United States except by first becoming a citizen of some 
 State; but after the adoption of the fourteenth amendment 
 that controversy was set at rest, for that provision defines and 
 declares who shall be citizens of the United States, namely, 
 “ all persons born or naturalized in the United States and sub¬ 
 ject to the jurisdiction thereof.” 
 
 Congress is empowered by the amendment to enforce, with 
 appropriate legislation, its provisions, and it did so by enact¬ 
 ing “ that all persons born in the United States and not subject 
 to any foreign power, exclusive of Indians not taxed, shall be 
 citizens of the United States.” Whatever special rights and 
 privileges it may be within the power of a State to confer upon 
 
 6859 
 
6 
 
 its citizens, there are certain constitutional rights which all 
 “ Federal citizens ” enjoy in common, whether they are citizens 
 of a State or not. As to all common rights, the Federal Con¬ 
 stitution establishes an equality between all persons, although 
 it may be unable to confer equality as to other privileges. 
 These rights in common are known as privileges ana immunities 
 and are fundamental in character. Federal citizenship may be 
 acquired by inheritance, by marital relations, by the union or 
 transfer of foreign territory, by naturalization, by treaty, by 
 special act of Congress, by the admission of a Territory to 
 statehood. Such a citizen owes to the Government allegiance, 
 service, and money by way of taxes. The Government in turn 
 grants and guarantees him liberty of his person and conscience, 
 the right of acquiring and possessing property, security in per¬ 
 son, estate, and reputation. Anyone may be a citizen of the 
 United States and yet not of any particular State, but not vice 
 versa. The Supreme Court of the United States, in what is 
 known as the “Slaughterhouse case” (16 Wallace, 36), held 
 that “ not only may a man be a citizen of the United States 
 without being a citizen of a State, but an important element 
 is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must 
 reside within a State to make him a citizen of it; it is only 
 necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United 
 States to be a citizen of the Union.” Federal citizenship is 
 totally unconnected with the right of suffrage or the elective 
 franchise. It does not confer the right to vote. Federal citi¬ 
 zenship confers no political rights whatever. Civil and political 
 rights have been definitely disassociated by the fourteenth 
 amendment. This view was strongly maintained long before 
 the adoption of the fourteenth amendment by the minority in 
 the Dred Scott case, who held that a slave’s lack of political 
 rights did not prevent his being a citizen with a right to sue 
 in the courts. This, however, is no longer disputed. 
 
 A Federal citizen owes only a duty to the General Govern¬ 
 ment, and that is limited in its extent. It must be remembered 
 that the Federal Government has no greater power than that 
 which the States have expressly granted and that all other 
 powers have been reserved by the States. We must, therefore, 
 conclude that the powers so granted are never exclusive of 
 similar powers existing in the States, except when exclusive 
 powers have been given, or the exercise of like powers is pro¬ 
 hibited to the States, or when there is a direct repugnancy or 
 incompatibility in the exercise of it by the States. 
 
 A closer sudy of the question will reveal how little has been 
 conferred upon the Federal Government as to the right of 
 creating Federal citizenship and how much has been retained 
 by the States; for let me repeat that Federal citizenship re¬ 
 quires only fidelity and obedience by the individual to his Gov¬ 
 ernment ; he must bear his burden necessary to sustain the 
 Government by the payment of taxes, and he must be ready to 
 bear arms or render other personal service for the common 
 defense and for the security of the liberties and general wel¬ 
 fare of the Government. In return for this he receives the 
 protection of his Government in the manner that I have already 
 indicated. 
 
 I pause now to ask whether in conferring Federal citizenship, 
 or whether in the enjoyment of the rights which such citizen- 
 6859 
 
7 
 
 ship confers, it is essential that the beneficiary be able to read, 
 speak, and understand the English language, and whether 
 such qualifications (if you may so term it) are essentially pre¬ 
 requisite to conferring citizenship and in the enjoyment of it. 
 I contend that it never was contemplated by the States that 
 any greater pov^er be conferred upon the Federal Government 
 in that regard than was absolutely necessary to safeguard the 
 Government against an alien of bad character and not disposed 
 to the good order and happiness of our Government; and that it 
 was left to the State to enact all further restrictions, and this 
 must be apparent. 
 
 The present acts of Congress relating to naturalization of 
 aliens, except as to the amendments relating to the thirteenth 
 and fourteenth amendments, has been in force for more than 
 one hundred years. It has stood the test,,of time and expedi-. 
 ency. What necessity is there for engrafting upon the Federal 
 statutes such a qualification? Why not leave it, as it has been 
 left, to the States to regulate, though Cqngress has the power 
 to so prescribe? It might with some force be said that the 
 educational qualification is essential in the exercise of political 
 rights. Its wisdom, however, I question. These political rights, 
 however, are conferred by State citizenship, as I have stated, 
 and not by Federal citizenship. These rights were reserved by 
 the States. Although the Federal authority within its scope is 
 supreme and beyond the States, it can not prevent nor secure 
 to its citizens rights and privileges which are not expressly or 
 by implication placed under its jurisdiction. Therefore one of 
 the greatest privileges of a State citizen is the right of suffrage, 
 or the elective franchise. This, I have shown, is not conferred 
 upon a Federal citizen. The privilege of voting arises under 
 the constitutions of the States and not under the Constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 It is within the power of the State to prescribe the qualifica¬ 
 tions of a voter, and the power is almost without limitation. 
 In some States the right to vote has been granted to persons not 
 citizens. It can restrict the right to either sex or give it to 
 both. The State may go to any length in determining the quali¬ 
 fications of voters. The United States circuit court, in the case 
 of The United States against Anthony (11 Blatchford, 205), 
 held that a State may, without violating a right derived from the 
 Federal Constitution, provide that no person having gray hair 
 or who has not the use of all his limbs shall be entitled to vote. 
 The only restriction upon the States is that they can not ex¬ 
 clude a citizen from the enjoyment of the franchise on account 
 of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It is true 
 that a citizen of a State owes a dual allegiance, but the nature 
 of the obligation is different. 
 
 I have tried to draw a distinction between a Federal citizen 
 and a State citizen, and that the former has only civil rights 
 while the latter has both civil and political rights. The quali¬ 
 fications prescribed by section 9 of this bill can have only a bear¬ 
 ing or relate to the exercise of political rights, and hence are 
 not essential or prerequisite to Federal citizenship. 
 
 Entertaining these views, I shall, at the proper time, move 
 to strike out the objectionable feature. [Loud applause.] 
 
 G359 
 
 o 
 
112 061891757