as a man of good character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”20 Furthermore, the applicant was required to make a declaration of intention to become a citizen, before a court with naturalization power, at least two years prior to his actual application.21 Yet if the alien had come to the United States under eighteen years of age, he was exempted from the preliminary declaration of intention.22 In the Commission’s opinion, the exemption of the two-year waiting period, normally imposed after the declaration was registered, was the primary source of fraud. It encouraged youthful-looking immigrants who had attained the age of majority to commit perjury by swearing that they had arrived prior to their eighteenth birthday.
The Commission also identified several other deficiencies and inequities. For one, the court procedure was discreet and ex parte, taking place between the applicant and the court, with no “interested party on the other side to oppose the applicant’s claim, pose tough questions or dig up counter-evidence.”23 Additionally, naturalization fees were entirely regulated by state law and varied widely. In California, for instance, there was no charge of any kind. But in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas, the fee was five dollars, and in Nevada, it was ten dollars.
Finally, the Commission cited competition among the courts as another source of fraudulent and improper naturalizations. Under the United States’ original federal naturalization law, passed on March 26, 1790, naturalization could be conferred by any common law court of record.24 In 1802, additional requirements were added: in order to naturalize new citizens, courts should have a clerk and a seal.25 This meant that more than five thousand courts were legally authorized to compete for the approximately hundred thousand original naturalization applications processed each year across the United States.26 For the courts, naturalization was a business, and court clerks reaped the dividends: “One court bids for business against another, and the court which is strict in enforcing the law loses the fees which a more lax court gets.”27 When state courts in New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island began to require that “public notice . . .be given in advance of a hearing for naturalization, all the naturalization business went to the Federal Court, where the procedure was not strict so far.”28
According to the Commission the bottom line was clear: uniformity in both fees and procedure were a necessity. In its view, the Constitution left no doubt as to the Congress’s right to provide for effective federal control of the naturalization machinery and to create a “uniform rule of Naturalization.”29
The Commission recommended that only federal courts in cities of over a hundred thousand inhabitants be given the power to naturalize alien residents.30 In addition, it proposed a uniform naturalization fee of at least seven dollars throughout the United States and a cap on the revenue that administration of the naturalization process could generate for clerks. Half of the collected fees, up to $3,000, would be subject to the court’s disposition; everything collected beyond that amount would go to the federal government.31 The Purdy Commission also suggested mandating permanent residence in the United States and requiring knowledge of English as preconditions for naturalization. And, in order to discourage fraud, naturalization would be forbidden in the thirty days preceding a presidential or congressional election.32
Additionally, the commission proposed that the preliminary declaration of intention which meant “little or nothing,” be eliminated. As a substitute, all aliens would be required to file a petition at least ninety days before a hearing by the court. Meanwhile their petitions would be transmitted immediately to a new Bureau of Naturalization, which would be created within the Department of Commerce and Labor33 to supervise the execution of the naturalization laws.34
Ultimately, many of the Purdy Commission’s recommendations became part of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906. For example, the Act mandated that aspiring citizens be able to speak English. It also required applicants to have lived continuously in the United States during the five years directly prior to naturalization and to continue to reside in the United States afterward.
However, the Naturalization Act did not include the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the declaration of intention, nor did it provide that federal courts in large cities possess exclusive jurisdiction over naturalization. Indeed, many cities of more than a hundred thousand inhabitants did not possess a federal court. New Jersey, for example, had a federal court in Trenton but lacked one in Newark or Hudson City.35 As a result, Congress preserved the authority of state courts to naturalize new citizens—with the condition that, in addition to having a seal and a clerk, the courts should exert universal competence.
Nevertheless, the new law did reinforce a certain degree of federal control over naturalization. Now, proceedings were required to be held in open court, and a representative of the United States would have the right to appear. Under the new procedures, the federal government could cross-examine the petitioner and his or her witnesses, as well as subpoena its own witnesses, produce relevant evidence, and “be heard in opposition to the granting of any petition in naturalization proceedings.”36A new Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization within the Department of Commerce and Labor was given the task of enforcing naturalization laws.
In addition, Section 15 of the Act conferred upon U.S. attorneys the authority to institute denaturalization proceedings “in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens . . .for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured.”37 Another provision in the same section also permitted denaturalization on grounds previously raised by Theodore Roosevelt in response to the common practice of newly naturalized returning to their native countries as soon as they secured U.S. citizenship.
The Naturalization Act went into effect on September 27, 1906. The newly established Division of Naturalization, responsible for overseeing the implementation of the law, settled into the Munsey Building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. Twenty-five hundred square feet of office space was rented to house seventeen people, including fourteen clerks.38 Within several months, the chief of the new division, Richard Campbell, expressed his satisfaction: “That something has been accomplished in the direction of reducing the notorious and long-continued abuses in conferring citizenship by naturalization is palpable.” He noted that the new regime’s success was reflected in a number of new trends: “First the greatly reduced number of naturalizations, and, second, the high grade of the petitioners, as stated by the U.S. attorneys, and partly shown by the small portion of denials. . . . The number of cancellations, secured or pending, of certificates improperly issued is another evidence of the practical value of the new law as a reform measure.”39
Indeed, in the years following its passage, the effect of the 1906 Act was immediate and quantifiable. Before 1906, the number of naturalizations was estimated at 100,000 per year. In 1907, however, the number of certificates issued plummeted to 7,953. Just one year later, in 1908, the number of naturalizations had tripled, to 25,963, and in 1909, it rose to 38,372.40 But it would be several years before the pace of naturalization again reached pre-1906 levels.
The courts and assistant U.S. attorneys did not share Campbell’s contentment with the effects of the broad reforms and felt overwhelmed by their new tasks. Part of the problem was that the Naturalization Act cut in half the number of courts offering naturalization proceedings. Under the old system, nearly 5,160 different state and federal courts were qualified to conduct naturalization procedures.41 Under the new criteria fixed by the 1906 Act, even though there were upward of 3,000 courts vested with the authority to conduct naturalizations,42 the number of courts actually offering naturalizations settled at around 2,200 and 90 percent of these were state courts. And while the courts remained in charge of receiving and registering applications for naturalization and of delivering the oath of citizenship, they now also had to fulfill new legal requirements, which increased their workload. Court clerks were obligated to shoulder these additional burdens despite a decline in resources. Some came to the conclusion that the financial benefit of offering naturalization service was not worth