in comparison to what was required in denaturalization cases.53 This put a significant strain on the system, because the number of denaturalization cases increased dramatically during the earlier years of the new regime: from 86 in 1907 to 457 in 1908 (see Appendix 3).
Officially, the increase in denaturalization cases was not caused by “the result of a search by government officials for violations of law.” The Division of Naturalization would declare in its 1907 Annual Report, “They were all developed as an incident of administrative work either in this or in some other department or branch of the Government.”54 In truth, however, the Division of Naturalization played a proactive role in encouraging the different agencies to convey information regarding naturalization fraud to U.S. attorneys’ offices. The division was eager to have assistant U.S. attorneys mobilized across the country working on denaturalization proceedings, and it asked them to gather and report information about any naturalization cancellations that occurred within their districts.55
Figure 2. Petition for Naturalization, Form 2204, in use from 1913 to June 30, 1929.
The Department of Justice was crushed under the weight of these obligations. The required tasks were so arduous and numerous for the U.S. attorneys that “in many naturalization petition hearings, it was impossible for the Government to appear, so the applicants received their citizenship without objection.” Despite a surge in the number of applicants for citizenship, Congress appropriated only $150,000 to the Department of Justice for the supervision of naturalization, compared to an estimated need of $325,000 for the 1909 fiscal year. From the perspective of the Department of Justice, this was unfortunate: it thought applicants were best served by having their cases thoroughly investigated prior to their admission to citizenship. Doing so would avoid the need for unpleasant proceedings later to revoke citizenship.56
The Division of Naturalization took advantage of the situation. As early as 1908,57 it pointed to the Department of Justice’s struggles as proof that it should be permitted to recruit field examiners to work on the naturalization proceedings. Eventually, Campbell was successful in convincing Congress to sign off on this plan.
The good news for Campbell and the Division of Naturalization was that Theodore Roosevelt’s Attorney General, Charles Bonaparte, had no desire to retain control over the naturalization examiners.58 In fact, Bonaparte stated in the 1907 Annual Report of the Department of Justice that, in his view, “the naturalization examiners should be transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor,” even though, within the Department of Justice, “he was in a small minority on that subject.”59
So, at the beginning of 1909, Bonaparte, who was on excellent terms with the Commerce and Labor Secretary, Oscar Straus, accepted the latter’s suggestion that he meet with Campbell to discuss how the two of them could “shape [their] request for appropriation harmoniously.”60 Despite the potential for interagency conflict, when Campbell and Bonaparte met, they rapidly came to an agreement. Instead of waiting for a prospective citizen to go to court, where precious resources might be needed in order to contest the denaturalization application, it was better, as Bonaparte would testify to Congress a few weeks later, “to advise him how that informality could be removed.” He continued, “In other words it seems to me that the tail is wagging the dog. The court work is a mere incident of a thorough investigation of the facts connected to the case.”61 In the alternative, Bonaparte suggested that responsibility for checking all applications during the ninety-day period between registration with the clerk of court and the swearing of allegiance to the United States be transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor.
At first, the joint proposal divided the congressional committee, but eventually Congress followed the joint suggestion of Bonaparte and Campbell. As requested, the employment of the naturalization examiners and clerks62 would be transferred from the Department of Justice to the Division of Naturalization in the Department of Commerce and Labor for the 1910 fiscal year, with $125,000 appropriated to cover necessary expenses.63 During the year following this change, the Attorney General expressed his satisfaction over its result: “that, with the exception of some portions of the Southern States which it has not had the means to cover, the naturalization work seems to be most effectively administered.”64 The U.S. attorneys’ offices were, from that point on, only required to participate in contested cases, appeals, and cancellation proceedings, “all of which have been reduced to a minimum.”65 With this adjustment, the Departments of Justice and Labor were able to forge a strong cooperative relationship on naturalization policy, even if they lacked the means to actively represent the government in every court proceeding.
But, while they might increasingly see eye-to-eye on naturalization policy, the views of the two departments diverged with respect to their approaches to denaturalization. The Division of Naturalization advocated an amendment to the existing statute to automatically validate naturalization certificates issued at least ten to fifteen years prior to individuals who had been continuous residents of “the United States and who, appear to have possessed (at the time they were naturalized) the prescribed personal qualifications at the time of their naturalization.”66 Attorney General Bonaparte disagreed with this lax approach. Instead of legalizing illegal naturalizations that occurred under the previous naturalization law, he urged Congress to amend the 1906 Act so that it would place clearly within the scope of its denaturalization provision “certificates issued under the old naturalization law as well as those issued under the present law.”67
But this first conflict over denaturalization ended swiftly with the arrival of the new Taft Administration. On September 20, 1909, after receiving approval from Campbell at the Division of Naturalization,68 George W. Wickersham, Taft’s new Attorney General,69 sent out an important circular to all U.S. attorneys:
In the opinion of the Department, as a general rule, good cause is not shown for the institution of proceedings to cancel certificates of naturalization alleged to have been fraudulently or illegally procured unless some substantial results are to be achieved thereby in the way of the betterment of the citizenship of the country. The legislation referred to, being retroactive, is construed to be remedial rather than penal in its nature; for the protection of the body politics rather than for the punishment of the individual concerned. Ordinarily, nothing less than the betterment of the citizenship of the country should be regarded as sufficient to justify the disturbance of personal and property rights which cancellation proceedings may occasion. This does not mean that such proceedings should not be instituted in any case where willful and deliberate fraud appears, as the perpetration of such fraud would indicate lack of the moral qualifications necessary for citizenship. If, however, many years have elapsed since the judgment of naturalization was apparently so procured, and the party has since conducted himself as a good citizen and possesses the necessary qualifications for citizenship, cancellation proceedings should not, as a rule, be instituted.
Cancellation proceedings should not be instituted merely for correction of errors and irregularities in the naturalization of a person which would properly have been the subject of consideration at the hearing or of correction on appeal.
Mere consent to the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization by the holder thereof, for some defect or irregularity, should not be regarded as in itself sufficient to justify such procedures.70 (Emphasis added)
With this circular, denaturalization was redefined in order to avoid targeting every American fraudulently or illegally naturalized—these first years of implementation had demonstrated that those fitting into this category were far too numerous. Denaturalization would now be pursued only if “some substantial results” could be “achieved thereby in the
