The opinion
On Rehearing.
[6] On petition for rehearing the attention of the court has been urgently called to the provision of the subsequent Act of July 19, 1919, to which reference was made, but which was not discussed in brief or argument at the former hearing. The provision referred to reads as follows:
“Any person of foreign birth who served in the military or naval forces of the United States during the present war, after final examination and acceptance by the said military or naval authorities, and shall have been honorably discharged after such acceptance and service, shail have the benefits of the seventh subdivision of section 4 of the Act of June 29, 1906, Thirty-fourth Statutes at Large, part 1, page 596, as amended, and shall not be required to pay any fee therefor; and this provision shall continue for the period of one year after all of the American troops are returned to the United States.”
*214 Because of the importance of the question involved and the earnestness of counsel, the court has made further investigation of the proceedings in Congress attending this legislation, in Order, if possible, to ascertain the intent and purpose of that body in view of the claimed ambiguity in the lánguage employed. This enactment appears in the naturalization section of the Sundry Civil Act, Public No. 21. 66th Congress. It is not mentioned in the report on the bill, and a search of the Congressional Record discloses that it was not mentioned in any of the debates either in the House or Senate, and therefore there is nothing in the records of Congress to show the intent of Congress as to this particular section. It is worthy of note in this connection that a bill of similar purport, PI. R. 6804, entitled “A bill to facilitate the naturalization of persons who served in the military or naval forces of the United States since April 6, 1917, who have been, or who may be, honorably discharged therefrom,” introduced June 27, 1919, by Congressman Rogers, and referred to the committee on immigration and naturalization, failed to pass. It would seem, therefore, that this clause of the naturalization section of the Act approved July 19, 1919, was simply attached as a rider to an appropriation bill, and went through without scrutiny or debate by either house. It cannot, therefore, in the absence of language clearly expressing that purpose, be held to relax the provisions- of the prior Act of May 9, 1918, which have been duly considered.
The court has also received a copy of the report of the Senate committee on immigration upon the Act of May 9, 1918, aforesaid. It contains this significant language:
“It [section 2 of the act] also declares that nothing in the act shall enlarge or repeal in any way section 2169 of the Revised Statutes, except as specified in the seventh subdivision and under-the limitation therein defined. This means that Filipinos may be naturalized who are enlisted in the army or navy of the United States and are honorably discharged therefrom.”
This confirms the purpose and intent of Congress as deduced and declared in the foregoing memorandum. The words “any person of foreign birth” occurring in the Act of July 19, supra, do not enlarge the word “alien” as contemplated by these acts, in view of their specific reservations. A reason for the later legislation, if one is necessary to be advanced, is found in the further limitation of the application of the provisions of section 7 to a period of one year after all the American troops are returned to the United States, which provision is not found in the earlier act.
For the foregoing reasons, I am constrained to adhere to the conclusion reached in my original opinion. -