_Question_. Have you noticed the decision of Mr. Nathaniel Jarvis,
Jr., clerk of the Naturalization Bureau of the Court of Common
Pleas, that an Atheist cannot become a citizen?
_Answer_. Yes, but I do not think it necessary for a man to be a
theist in order to become or to remain a citizen of this country.
The various laws, from 1790 up to 1828, provided that the person
wishing to be naturalized might make oath or affirmation. The
first exception you will find in the Revised Statutes of the United
States passed in 1873-74, section 2,165, as follows:--"An alien
may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the
following manner, and not otherwise:--First, he shall declare on
oath, before a Circuit or District Court of the United States,
etc." I suppose Mr. Jarvis felt it to be his duty to comply with
this section. In this section there is nothing about affirmation
--only the word "oath" is used--and Mr. Jarvis came to the conclusion
that an Atheist could not take an oath, and, therefore, could not
declare his intention legally to become a citizen of the United
States. Undoubtedly Mr. Jarvis felt it his duty to stand by the
law and to see to it that nobody should become a citizen of this
country who had not a well defined belief in the existence of a
being that he could not define and that no man has ever been able
to define. In other words, that he should be perfectly convinced
that there is a being "without body, parts or passions," who presides
over the destinies of this world, and more especially those of New
York in and about that part known as City Hall Park.
_Question_. Was not Mr. Jarvis right in standing by the law?
_Answer_. If Mr. Jarvis is right, neither Humboldt nor Darwin
could have become a citizen of the United States. Wagner, the
greatest of musicians, not being able to take an oath, would have
been left an alien. Under this ruling Haeckel, Spencer and Tyndall
would be denied citizenship--that is to say, the six greatest men
produced by the human race in the nineteenth century, were and are
unfit to be citizens of the United States. Those who have placed
the human race in debt cannot be citizens of the Republic. On the
other hand, the ignorant wife beater, the criminal, the pauper
raised in the workhouse, could take the necessary oath and would
be welcomed by New York "with arms outstretched as she would fly."
_Question_. You have quoted one statute. Is there no other
applicable to this case?
_Answer_. I am coming to that. If Mr. Jarvis will take the pains
to read not only the law of naturalization in section 2,165 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States, but the very first chapter
in the book, "Title I.," he will find in the very first section
this sentence: "The requirements of any 'oath' shall be deemed
complied with by making affirmation in official form." This applies
to section 2,165. Of course an Atheist can affirm, and the statute
provides that wherever an oath is required affirmation may be made.
_Question_. Did you read the recent action of Judge O'Gorman, of
the Superior Court, in refusing naturalization papers to an applicant
because he had not read the Constitution of the United States?
_Answer_. I did. The United States Constitution is a very important
document, a good, sound document, but it is talked about a great
deal more than it is read. I'll venture that you may commence at
the Battery to interview merchants and other business men about
the Constitution and you will talk with a hundred before you will
find one who has ever read it.
--_New York Herald_, August 8, 1886.