In the same report, the Commissioner of Naturalization points to one reform embodied at least potentially in the present system, which alone would have justified it: There is, too, for the person naturalized, a security of title to his political or national status never before enjoyed by him. The title to citizenship is the recorded order of the court. The certificate is simply the conclusive evidence of such order. If there was no written record made, as was often the case, or if that record was destroyed, as happened not infrequently, the title to citizenship hung by the slender thread of a piece of paper carried by the owner and subject to all the risks attendant upon such possessions. If lost, to all practical intents his citizenship was also lost. Now the duplicate written record, one in the court and one in the Bureau [of Naturalization], is an ample defense against all such accidents. It _would_ be, indeed; but what if in course of time these records in the Bureau should have come into such condition, owing to inadequate clerical force and increasing absorption of the Bureau in other activities, that the record there could not be traced! However, any criticism or consideration of the present system, to be intelligent or fair, must take into account, first, the incredibly chaotic conditions which formerly prevailed, and second, the fact that never--not even now--has the naturalization system, as a problem in public administration, received even superficial attention of the public. WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES Before we proceed to consider the naturalization process as in action it has affected annually upward of one hundred thousand human beings seeking admission to citizenship in the United States, let us see the principal provisions of the law with which they come into contact. Section 4 of the Naturalization Law[62] provides that an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner “and not otherwise.”