Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this bool< is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 92401 2832527 
 
Cornell University Library 
 KF4708.1.S53 
 
 Syllabus-digest of decisions under the 
 
 3 1924 012 832 527 
 
SYLLABUS-DIGEST 
 
 OF 
 
 DECISIONS 
 
 UNDER THE 
 
 Law of Naturalization 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 SEPTEMBER, 1906 
 
 TO 
 
 AUGUST, 1913 
 
 BY 
 
 JEROME C. SHEAR 
 
 Chief United States Naturalization Examines 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 1913 
 
 COLLINGSWOOD, N. J. 
 
 I. L. SHEAR 
 
 PUBLISHER 
 
Copyright, 1913. by Jerome C. Shear 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The purpose of this digest is to afford a means of quick 
 reference to decisions in naturalization law. The descriptive- 
 word method has been employed, and the subjects are alpha- 
 betically arranged throughout. 
 
 The digest includes reported decisions by the federal courts 
 
 and the courts of last resort in the different States from the 
 
 ct of June 29, 1906, became effective 
 
 J prior decisions have been included 
 
 n r\\i ^>^^'C1 1 "vered or made sufficiently clear by 
 
 LUKNhLL ng that period. 
 
 UNIVERSITY J ^ ^ 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 In memory of 
 
 Lou CoNKLiN Ginsberg 
 
 Class of 1927 
 
 and 
 
 Alexander Ely Ginsberg 
 Class of 1926 
 
 OLIN RESEARCH LIBRARY 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Index i-xviii 
 
 Syllabus-Digest 1-163 
 
 Table of cases digested 165-171 
 
INDEX. 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 ABSENCE. (See Residence.) 
 
 AFFIDAVIT. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 AGE OF DECLARANT. (See Declaration of Inten- 
 tion.) 
 
 AGE OF PETITIONER FOR NATURALIZATION. 
 Certificate of naturalization cannot issue to a minor, i. 
 Petition for naturalization may be filed by a minor, i. 
 
 ALLEGIANCE. (See Amendment; Declaration of In- 
 tention.) 
 Renunciation of allegiance not required when making 
 declaration of intention, 2. 
 
 AMENDMENT. 
 Court record, 3. 
 
 Evidence, 3. 
 Declaration of intention, 3-5. 
 
 Containing name of wrong country and sovereign, 3-4. 
 
 Clerical error, 3-4. 
 Failure to renounce allegiance particularly, by name, 
 
 etc., 4. 
 Filed in fictitious or assumed name, 4-5. 
 Not a judicial instrument, 5. 
 
 Cannot be amended mmc pro tunc, 5. 
 Judgments, 5-6. 
 Proceedings may be amended nunc pro tunc, 5-6. 
 
 Directory provisions of statute, 5-6. 
 Change of name after naturalization, 6. 
 Jurisdiction, 6. 
 
U INDEX. 
 
 Amendment — Continued. 
 
 Petition to cancel certificate of naturalization, 6-7. 
 Affidavit showing good cause omitted, 6-7. 
 
 APPEAL. (See Canicbllation.) 
 
 State courts act quoad hoc as United States courts, 8. 
 Naturalization not being a judicial, but a political act, 
 such proceedings are not subject to review, 8-9. 
 Congress may lodge in executive department, 8. 
 Discretionary power, 8-9. 
 A petition for naturalization is not a "case" within Sec. 
 6, Circuit Courts of Appeal Act March 3, 1891, and 
 the Circuit Court is without jurisdiction to review 
 such decisions, 8-9. 
 Direct appeal not provided for, 8-9. 
 Discretion, abuse of, 8-9. 
 Judgments not void if erroneous, 10. 
 How set aside, 10. 
 Cannot be collaterally attacked, 10. 
 State laws, construction by state courts, 10. 
 Jurisdiction of federal courts concurrent, not re- 
 visory, ID. 
 
 ARMENIANS. (See White Persons.) 
 
 ARREST. (See Good Moral Character.) 
 
 ARRIVAL. (See Evidence; Certificate of Arrival.) 
 
 B 
 
 BILL TO REVOKE. (See Cancellation.) 
 BURDEN OF PROOF. (See Evidence.) 
 
 C 
 
 CANCELLATION. 
 
 Power of Congress to authorize, 11. 
 Constitutionality, 11. 
 Certificate of naturalization granted by another court, 
 11-12. 
 Residence, 12. 
 
INDEX. lU 
 
 Cancellation — Continued. 
 Mode of review, 13. 
 
 Legislative discretion, 13. 
 Retrospective provisions of law, 13. 
 Vested rights, 13. 
 Penalty, 13. 
 Law is not ex post facto, 13-14. 
 Proceedings, nature of, 14-15. 
 Not triable by jury, 14. 
 Pleadings, 14-15. 
 Procedure, 14-15. 
 Presumption, statutory, 15. 
 
 Due process of law, 15. 
 Jurisdiction, 15-19. 
 
 State and federal courts, 16. 
 State courts, 16. 
 On motion, 16. 
 
 Cannot be sustained six months after date of 
 order, 16-17. 
 Consent to cancel certificate of naturalization, 
 16-17, 21-22. 
 Construction of state laws, 17. 
 Comity, 17. 
 Federal courts, 18-19. 
 
 Certificate of naturalization granted by another 
 court, 18-19. 
 Marine Corps, 18-19. 
 Collateral attack, 19. 
 Bill to revoke, 20-21. 
 Allegations, 20-21. 
 Presumption, 20. 
 Jurisdiction, 20. 
 Demurrer, 20-21. 
 Complaint, proceedings to revoke order made more than 
 six months previously must be supported by, 21. 
 Sufficiency, 21-22. 
 Fraud, 21-22. 
 
 Consent to cancel certificate of citizenship, 16-17, 21-22. 
 Petition to cancel certificate of citizenship, 22-24. 
 Private petition, 22. 
 
IV INDEX. 
 
 Cancellation — Continued. 
 Demurrer, 22-23. 
 Amendment, 22. 
 Affidavit showing good cause, must be supported 
 
 by, 23. 
 Averments, 23. 
 
 Fraudulently or illegally procured, 23. 
 Conclusions, 23. 
 Service of notice to cancel, 23. 
 On son claiming citizenship on deceased father's 
 fraudulent certificate of naturalization, 23-24. 
 On absentees, 24. 
 By publication, 24. 
 On curator ad hoc, 24. 
 Certiorari to review order cancelling certificate of nat- 
 uralization, 24-25. 
 Evidence, 25. 
 
 Consular officers' statements, 25. 
 Judgments, 25-26. 
 
 Amendment of proceedings nunc pro tunc, 25-26. 
 
 Directory provisions, 25-26. 
 Res judicata, 26. 
 
 Ex parte proceedings, 26. 
 Court's finding conclusive, 26. 
 Declaration of intention, 26. 
 Record of naturalization, 27. 
 Construction, 27. 
 
 Clerk's omission or inadvertence, 27. 
 Illegality, 27. 
 Jurisdiction, 27. 
 Procedure, 27. ,^ 
 
 Error of law, 27. 
 Subornation, 27. 
 Void judgments, 28. 
 Fraud, 28-31. 
 Deception, 29. 
 Collusion, 29-30. 
 Socialism, 30. 
 Protection abroad, 31. 
 Residence, 31. 
 
INDEX. V 
 
 Cancellation — Continued. 
 Intention, 31. 
 
 Intention to become a permanent citizen, 31. 
 Technical or formal defects in naturalization proceedings 
 
 not vital, 31-32. 
 Competent witness substituted for one disqualified, 32. 
 Laches, cancellation proceedings barred by, 32. 
 Laches cannot be pleaded against the United States, 33. 
 Moral character, 33. 
 
 Drunkenness, 33. 
 Residence, 33-35. 
 
 Abroad, 33-34. 
 
 Physical absence, 34. 
 
 Fraud, 34. 
 
 Illegality, 34. 
 
 In the United States less than five years, 34-35. 
 United States attorney, duty to prosecute proceedings, 35. 
 
 CAUCASIANS. (See White Persons.) 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF DISCHARGE AND GOOD CON- 
 DUCT. (See Sailors; Seamen; Soldiers.) 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION. (See Cancel- 
 lation.) 
 CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL. 
 Must be attached to petition for naturalization, 36. 
 Must be based on registry made at time of alien's ar- 
 rival, 36-37. 
 May be made up from information obtained subsequent 
 to alien's arrival, 37-38. 
 
 CERTIFIED COPY OF COURT RECORD. (See Clerks 
 OF Courts; Declaration of Intention.) 
 
 CERTIORARI. 
 
 Can only issue where court has exceeded its jurisdic- 
 tion, 39. 
 
 CHILDREN. (See Declaration of Intention.) 
 Naturalization through parent, 40-42. 
 
 Resident abroad, 40-42. 
 
 Immigration, 40-42. 
 Naturalization of stepfather, 42. 
 
VI INDEX. 
 
 CHINESE. (See White Persons.) 
 
 CHARACTER. (See Good Moral Character.) 
 
 CITIZENSHIP. (See Children; Evidence; Wife; Wit- 
 nesses.) 
 Illegal naturalization, 43. 
 
 Surrender of certificate for cancellation, 43. 
 Status, 43. 
 
 CLERKS OF COURTS. 
 State courts — 
 Authority, 45. 
 Nature of duties, 45. 
 
 Power of Congress to prescribe fees, 45-46. 
 Fees, 45-49. 
 
 Must be turned in to county treasurer, 46-47. 
 May be retained by clerk, 48-49. 
 Certified copy of court record, 49-50. 
 Declaration of intention, 49-50. 
 Prima facie evidence of existence of original, 49-50. 
 Duty to file petition for naturalization, 50-51. 
 Refiling, 51. 
 
 Disqualified witness, 51. 
 Removal of naturalization records from clerk's office not 
 
 authorized, 51. 
 Reports to Department of Commerce and Labor, 52. 
 
 COMITY. (See Courts.) 
 
 COMMISSIONERS. 
 Appointment of in naturalization cases not authorized, 53. 
 
 COMMON LAW JURISDICTION. (See Courts.) 
 
 COMPLAINT. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. (See Courts.) 
 
 CONFLICT OF LAWS. (See Clerks of Courts— Fee^; 
 Wife — Immigration. ) 
 
 CONSENT TO CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF NAT- 
 URALIZATION. (See Cancellation.) 
 
INDEX. VU 
 
 CONSTITUTION. (See United States Constitution.) 
 
 CONSTITUTIONALITY. (See Cancellation; Statutes.) 
 
 CONSULAR OFFICERS' STATEMENTS. (See Can- 
 cellation.) 
 
 CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE. (See Residence.) 
 
 CORRECTION. (See Amendment.) 
 
 COURTS. (See Judgments ; Cancellation.) 
 Jurisdiction, 54-62. 
 
 Common law jurisdiction defined, 54-55. 
 State and federal courts, 55. 
 Concurrent, not revisory, 55. 
 Comity, 55. 
 Time jurisdiction vests, 56. 
 Exercise of, 56-58. 
 Evidentiary facts must be proved, 58. 
 
 Recording, 58. 
 Declaration of intention less than two years old, 58-59. 
 Judicial district, 59-62. 
 
 Removal of alien from after filing petition for nat- 
 uralization, 61-62. 
 Records, 62-64. 
 Validity, 62. 
 
 Power to correct or purge, 62. 
 Certified copy, 62-63. 
 Evidence of naturalization, 63-64. 
 Secondary evidence, 63-64. 
 Forged certificate of naturalization, surrender of, 64. 
 Acts, political, 64. 
 Function, judicial, 64. 
 Construction of proceedings, 65. 
 
 D 
 
 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. (See Amendment.) 
 Nature of, not judicial, 66. 
 Must be in conformity with law, 66. 
 
Vni INDEX. 
 
 Declaration of Intention — Continued. 
 Does not naturalize, 67. 
 
 Does not require renunciation of allegiance, 6y. 
 Absence from record of naturalization does not import 
 
 invalidity, 67-68. 
 Abandonment, 68. 
 Age of declaration of intention, 69. 
 
 Less than two years old, 69. 
 
 Made prior to passage Act June 29, 1906, 69-70. 
 Containing name of wrong country and sovereign, 70-71. 
 
 Clerical error, 70-71. 
 Failure to renounce allegiance particularly, by name, 
 
 etc., 72. 
 Filed in fictitious or assumed name, 72. 
 Certified copy, 72-73. 
 
 Prima facie evidence of existence of original, 72-73. 
 Removal of naturalization records from clerk's ofifice not 
 
 authorized, 73. 
 Declaration need not be made in clerk's office, 74. 
 Hawaii, residents of, 74. 
 Declaration by a minor under 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S., 74-77. 
 
 Is valid, 74-77. 
 
 Ratification, 76-77. 
 
 Is void, 77. 
 Minor son of deceased declarant, 77-79. 
 
 Stepchild, 78-79. 
 
 Time, 79. 
 Widow of deceased declarant, 78-80. 
 Widow of deceased United States soldier must declare 
 
 intention, 79-80. 
 Seamen, 80-81. 
 
 Certificates of discharge and good conduct, 80-81. 
 
 DEMURRER. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 DEPOSITIONS. (See Evidence.) 
 
 DIRECTORY PROVISIONS OF STATUTE. (See Can- 
 cellation; Amendment.) 
 
 DISCRETION. (See Appeal.) 
 
 "DISTRICT." (See Evidence.) 
 
INDEX. IX 
 
 ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT. (See Judgments.) 
 EVIDENCE. 
 Amendment of record, 82. 
 
 Certified copy of declaration prima facie evidence of ex- 
 istence of original, 82-83. 
 Presumption, 83. 
 
 Rule of evidence, 83. 
 Burden of proof, 83. 
 
 Arrival, 83. 
 Absence, material only as evidence of intention, 84. 
 Consular officers' statements, 84. 
 Residence, 84-85. 
 Age, 84-85. 
 
 Qualification of petitioner for naturalization, 85. 
 Witnesses, 85-86. 
 
 Personal knowledge, 85-86. 
 Soldiers, 86. 
 
 Degree of proof, 86. 
 Depositions, when admissible, 87. 
 
 '"District" construed, 87-89. 
 
 Soldiers, 89-90. 
 Naturalization, 90. 
 
 Secondary evidence, 90-91. 
 
 EX PARTE HEARING. (See Judgments.) 
 
 EXPATRIATION. (See Wife.) 
 
 ENLISTMENT, TERM OF. (See Marines.) 
 
 EXAMINER, UNITED STATES NATURALIZATION. 
 (See United States Naturalization Examiner.) 
 
 FATHER. (See Children; Wife.) 
 
 FEES. (See Clerks of Courts.) 
 
 FILIPINOS. (See White Persons.) 
 
 FRAUD. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 FREE WHITE PERSONS. (See White Persons.) 
 
INDEX. 
 
 GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 
 Character defined, 92. 
 What constitutes, 92. 
 Perjury, 92-94. 
 Willful disregard of law, 94. 
 Violation of law requiring saloon to be closed Sundays, 
 
 95- 
 
 False answers to Chief Naturalization Examiner during 
 
 investigation, 96. 
 Second degree murder, 96. 
 Drunkenness, 96-97. 
 
 Use of illegal certificate of naturalization, 97. 
 Term of good moral character, 97-98. 
 
 Act involving moral turpitude, 97-98. 
 Petitioner's testimony, 98. 
 Pardon, effect of, 98. 
 
 Not retrospective, 98. 
 Judicial discretion, 98-99. 
 
 GOVERNMENT, FORM OF. (See United States Con- 
 stitution.) 
 
 H 
 
 HALF-BREEDS. (See White Persons.) 
 
 HAWAII. (See Declaration of Intention.) 
 
 HONORABLY DISCHARGED UNITED STATES SOL- 
 DIERS. (See Soldiers.) 
 
 HUSBAND. (See Wife; Children.) 
 
 IMMIGRATION. ( See Wife ; Children.) 
 INDIANS. (See White Persons.) 
 INTENTION. (See Cancellation; Residence.) 
 ILLEGALITY. (See Cancellation.) 
 
INDEX. XI 
 
 JAPANESE. (See White Persons.) 
 
 JUDGMENTS. (See Amendment; Cancellation.) 
 
 Nature and characteristics of judgment granting citizen- 
 ship, IOC. 
 What constitute judgments, lOO. 
 
 Recording, loo. 
 
 Signature, loo. 
 
 Directory provisions of statute, loo. 
 Time of taking effect, loi. 
 
 Record must show existence of jurisdictional facts, loi. 
 Construction of record, 101-102. 
 
 Clerk's omission or inadvertence, 102. 
 Validity, 102. 
 
 Legal prerequisites, 102. 
 
 Declaration of intention, 102. 
 
 Recording, 102. 
 Not void for non-compliance with directory provisions of 
 
 statute, 103. 
 Res judicata, 103. 
 
 Estoppel by judgment, 103. 
 
 Judgments procured ex parte not conclusive, 103. 
 
 JUDICIAL DISTRICT. (See Courts.) 
 JURISDICTION. (See Courts; Cancellation.) 
 JURY, TRIAL BY. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 K 
 
 KNOWLEDGE OF UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
 (See United States Constitution.) 
 
 KNOWLEDGE OF WINESSES. (See Witnesses.) 
 
 L 
 
 LACHES. (See Cancellation.) 
 
Xll INDEX. 
 
 M 
 
 MARRIAGE, NATURALIZATION BY. (See Wife; 
 Children.) 
 
 MARINES. 
 
 Posting notice, 104. 
 Term of enlistment, 104-105. 
 
 Disability, discharge for before expiration of term of en- 
 listment, 104-105. 
 Japanese marine not eligible to naturalization, 105. 
 
 MEXICANS. (See White Persons.) 
 MINORS. (See Children.) 
 
 MINOR DECLARANT. ( See Declaration of Intention. ) 
 MINOR PETITIONER FOR NATURALIZATION. (See 
 Age of Petitioner for Naturalization.) 
 
 MORAL CHARACTER. (See Good Moral Character.) 
 
 MOTION TO CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF NATURAL- 
 IZATION. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 N 
 
 NATURALIZATION. 
 
 Nature of, political, not judicial, 106. 
 
 May be vested in executive department, 106. 
 Rule, uniform, 106-107. 
 
 Right to prescribe, 106-107. 
 Renaturalization, 107-108. 
 
 Restoration of record, 108. 
 
 NAVY. (See Sailors.) 
 
 PARDON. (See Good Moral Character.) 
 PARSEE. (See White Persons.) 
 PERJURY. (See Good Moral Character.) 
 
INDEX. XIll 
 
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. (See Witnesses.) 
 
 PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. ( See Witnesses. ) 
 Nature of, 109. 
 
 Facts, 109. 
 
 Evidence, 109. 
 Adjudication, 109. 
 
 Recording judgment, 109. 
 Filing, 109-110. 
 
 Duty of clerk, 109-110. 
 Receiving and entering, no. 
 
 Basis, IXC. 
 Refiling, iio-iii. 
 Motion for leave to file, in. 
 Chronological filing, in. 
 
 Materiality, in. 
 Duplicate filing, 1 12. 
 
 Judgments not void for non-compliance with directory 
 provisions of statute, 112. 
 Signature, 112. 
 Verification, 112-113. 
 
 By one witness on one day and by another witness on 
 the following day, 112. 
 
 Number of witnesses, 113. 
 
 Soldier's petition does not require verification, 113. 
 
 PETITIONER FOR NATURALIZATION. (See Age of 
 Petitionee foe Natuealization ; White Peesons; 
 Sailoes; Soldiees; Marines; Declaration of Inten- 
 tion — Widow; Wife; Childeen; Good Moeal Chae- 
 acter; United States Constitution; Residence.) 
 
 PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. (See White Persons— Filipinos.) 
 
 PLEADINGS. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 POSTING. ( See Maeines ; Sailoes ; Soldiees ; Witnesses. ) 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, ATTACH- 
 MENT TO. (See United States Constitution.) 
 
 PROCEDURE. (See Cancellation.) 
 
XIV INDEX. 
 
 R 
 
 REPEAL. (See Statutes.) 
 
 RES JUDICATA. (See Judgments.) 
 
 RULE OF NATURALIZATION. (See Naturalization.) 
 
 RESIDElNCE. (See WIitneisses ; Soldiers; Sailors; 
 
 Marines; Wife; Children; Cancellation; Courts — 
 
 Jurisdiction; Evidence.) 
 Abroad before naturalization, 115. 
 
 Acts, 115. 
 
 Declarations, 115. 
 Abroad after naturalization, 115-116. 
 
 How determined, 115-116. 
 
 Intention, 115-116. 
 Continuous, 116-118. 
 
 Physical absence, 117-118. 
 
 Fraud, 117-118. 
 
 Illegality, 117-118. 
 
 Temporary absence, length of material only as evidence 
 of intention, 118. 
 Five years in U. S., 118-119. 
 
 Fraud, 118-119. 
 
 Intention, 119. 
 
 Protection abroad, 119. 
 Petitioner's testimony, 119. 
 Permanent resident, 119-120. 
 
 Intention, 1 19-120. 
 
 Fraud, 120. 
 
 SAILORS. 
 
 Residence, 121. 
 
 Continuous, 121. 
 Posting notice, 122. 
 Japanese sailors not eligible to naturalization, 122. 
 
INDEX. XV 
 
 SEAMEN. 
 Certificate of discharge and good conduct, 123-124. 
 Declaration of intention, 12^-124. 
 
 SERVICE BY PUBLICATION. (See Cancellation.) 
 
 SIGNATURE. (See Petition for Naturalization; Judg- 
 ments.) 
 
 SOCIALISM. (See United States Constitution.) 
 
 SOLDIERS. 
 Verification of petition for naturalization, 125. 
 Degree of proof, 125. 
 Need not prove one year's residence in state, 126. 
 
 Depositions, 126. 
 Japanese soldiers not eligible to naturalization, 126. 
 Widow of soldier must make declaration of intention, 126-127. 
 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. not repealed, 127. 
 
 SON. (See Children.) 
 
 SOVEREIGN, NAME OF. (See Declaration of Inten- 
 tion; Allegiance; Amendment.) 
 
 STATE, NAME OF. (See Declaration of Intention; 
 Amendment.) 
 
 STATE COURTS. (See Courts.) 
 
 STATUTES. (See Cancellation.) 
 Naturalization laws — 
 Constitutionality, 128. 
 Construction, 128-129. 
 
 Statutes in the nature of a franchise, 128. 
 Uniformity, 129. 
 Words and phrases, 129. 
 Popular sense, 129. 
 Technical meaning, 129. 
 Common right, not in derogation of, 129. 
 Naturalization not a right, but a privilege, 129. 
 Apply only to aliens, 130. 
 Directory provisions, 130. 
 
 Judgments not void for non-compliance with, 130. 
 Not ex post facto, 131. 
 
XVI INDEX. 
 
 Statutes — Continued. 
 
 Retrospective provisions, 131. 
 Repeal, 131-132. 
 
 By implication, 131. 
 
 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. not repealed, 132. 
 
 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. not repealed, 132. 
 
 STEPCHILD. (See Children.) 
 
 SUBSTITUTE WITNESSES. (See Witnesses.) 
 
 SYRIANS. (See White Persons.) 
 
 T 
 TERM OF ENLISTMENT. (See Marines.) 
 
 U 
 
 UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION. (See Nat- 
 uralization.) 
 
 UNITED STATES. (See United States Constitution.) 
 
 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. 
 
 Cancellation proceedings, duty to prosecute, 133. 
 
 Objections, duty to state and support by argument, 133- 
 134- 
 UNITED STATES COURTS. (See Courts.) 
 
 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
 Principles, knowledge of, 135. 
 Principles, attachment to, 135-138. 
 
 Socialism, 137-138. 
 Knowledge of and attachment to principles of United States 
 Constitution and form of government, 138-140. 
 Materiality, 139-140. 
 
 UNITED STATES SOLDIERS. (See Soldiers.) 
 
 UNITED STATES ARMY. (See Soldiers.) 
 
 UNITED STATES NAVY. (See Sailors.) 
 
INDEX. XVU 
 
 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS. (See Marines.) 
 
 UNITED STATES NATURALIZATION EXAMINER. 
 (See United States Attorney.) 
 False answers by petitioner during investigation, 141. 
 
 V 
 VOUCHERS. (See Witnesses.) 
 
 W 
 
 WHITE PERSONS. 
 Armenians are, 142. 
 Chinese are not, 142. 
 
 Half-breeds, 142. 
 Filipinos are not, 142-143. 
 
 Navy, 142-143- 
 Indians are not, 143. 
 Japanese are not, 143-145. 
 
 Marines, sailors, 144. 
 
 Soldiers, 144. 
 
 Half-breeds, 144-145. 
 Mexicans are, 145. 
 Parsee are, 145-146. 
 Syrians are, 146-147. 
 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. not repealed, 147. 
 
 WIDOW. (See Declaration of Intention.) 
 
 WIFE. 
 
 Of alien husband not eligible to naturalization, 148. 
 Expatriation, 148-149. 
 
 Witness on husband's petition for naturalization, 148- 
 149. 
 Disqualification, 148-149. 
 Citizenship by birth not lost by marriage to an alien, 149. 
 Naturalization by marriage, 149-152. 
 Residence, 150-152. 
 Immigration, 150-152. 
 
Xvm INDEX. 
 
 WITNESSES. (See Citizenship.) 
 Citizens, must be, 153-154. 
 Wife of petitioner, 153-154. 
 Incompetency, 153-154- 
 Competent, must be, 154-156. 
 Illegal naturalization, 154. 
 Disqualification, 154-155. 
 Five years' acquaintance prior to date of petition, 
 
 154-156. 
 Substitute witnesses, 155-156. 
 Number of witnesses, 156. 
 Competent witness substituted for one disqualified, 156- 
 
 157, 161-162. 
 Posting, 157. 
 
 Names of substitutes need not be posted, 158-160. 
 Names of substitutes must be posted ninety days, 160- 
 
 162. 
 Competent witness substituted for one disqualified, 156- 
 157, 161-162. 
 Personal knowledge, 162. 
 Character, 162. 
 Residence, 162. 
 Navy, 163. 
 
 WORDS AND PHRASES. (See Statutes.) 
 
 WRIT OF ERROR. (See Appeal.) 
 
AGE OF PETITIONER FOR NATURALIZATION. 
 
 AGE OF PETITIONER FOR NATURALIZATION. 
 
 Certificate of naturalisation cannot issue to a minor. 
 
 There is nothing in the statute (naturalization act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, 
 p. 420] ) specifying any requirements as to age, but it has been 
 universally held that final papers cannot be given to an alien ap- 
 plicant Wiho has not reached his majority. 
 
 Dicta In re Gross, 160 Fed., 739. (District Court, E. 
 
 D. New York, February 17, 1908.) 
 
 Petition for naturalization may be filed by a minor. 
 
 Under the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 
 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), an infant 
 who makes declaration of his intention to become a citizen of 
 the United States after reaching the age of eighteen years, 
 may petition for naturalization two years after the date of 
 such declaration of intention, although he is a minor at the 
 time the petition is filed. 
 
 In re Rousos, 119 N. Y. Supp., 34. (Supreme Court, 
 
 Special Term, Monroe County. September 28, 1909.) 
 
ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 Declaration of intention does not require renunciation of alle- 
 giance. 
 
 Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, page 
 1329), providing that aliens shall make declaration of their 
 intention to become citizens of the United States two years 
 at least before applying for naturalization, does not require 
 a renunciation of allegiance to the foreign sovereign, or the 
 actual declaration of allegiance to the United States, at the 
 time the declaration of intention is made. 
 
 In re Symanowsski, 168 Fed., 978. (Circuit Court, N. 
 
 D. Illinois, E. D. March 29, 1909.) 
 
AMENDMENT. 
 
 AMENDMENT. 
 
 Court Record — Evidence. 
 
 A record of naturalization cannot be corrected to show that 
 the name of the person naturalized was other than that set 
 forth therein in the absence of any entry or memorandum 
 among the files of the court or in the office of the clerk by 
 which the record can be corrected ; and a certificate purporting 
 to be a copy of the naturalization record, under the seal of 
 the court and signed by the clerk, filed in support of the appli- 
 cation but which is not sustained by the record, is a nullity 
 and cannot be used to correct the record. 
 
 In re O'SuUivan, 117 S. W., 651. (St. Louis Court of 
 
 Appeals. Missouri. March 23, 1909.) 
 
 Declaration of intention containing name of wrong country 
 and sovereign — Clerical error. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States made under the provisions of the Act of Congress of 
 June 29, 1906, Sec. 4, Subd. i, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 528), which avers the place of birth 
 of the declarant to have been Eisenberg, Germany, and that 
 he intends to forever renounce allegiance particularly to "Wil- 
 liam II, Emperor of Germany, of which I am a subject," when 
 in fact he was born in Eisenberg, Austria-Hungary, and was 
 at the time of his attempted declaration a subject of the sov- 
 
4 AMENDMENT. 
 
 ereign of that country, is void and not susceptible of amend- 
 ment; and the hardship resulting to the declarant cannot be 
 relieved against merely because it may appear that the error 
 is clerical, and not his own. 
 
 In re Friedl, 202 Fed., 301. (District Court, E. D. Wis- 
 consin. January ii^ 1913.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States which sets forth that the declarant is a native of France 
 and intends to renounce allegiance, etc., to the Republic of 
 France, when, in fact, he was a native of Russia and a subject 
 of the Czar of Russia, is void.^ 
 
 In re Lewkowicz, 169 Fred., 927. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. April 28, 1909.) 
 
 Declaration of intention — Failure to renounce allegiance par- 
 ticularly, by name, etc. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States made under Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. 
 Comp. St., 1901, p. 1327), which contains a general renun- 
 ciation of allegiance, but fails to renounce allegiance par- 
 ticularly, by name, to the prince, etc., to whom the declarant 
 owes allegiance, is vitally defective and cannot be amended. 
 In re Stack, 200 Fed., 330. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
 Declaration of intention Hied in fictitious or assumed name. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 6, 
 34 Stat. 598 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 1911, p. 532), empowers 
 the court to make a decree changing the name of an alien 
 
AMENDMENT. 5 
 
 at the time of his admission to citizenship. The Penal Law 
 (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1102 [U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1911, p. 1611]), makes it an offense for anyone to apply 
 for naturalization in a fictitious or assumed name. Held, that 
 where an alien made declaration of his intention in the name 
 of Isaac Boorvis, and afterwards filed a petition to be made 
 a citizen under his real name of Isaac Brody, he could not be 
 allowed to amend the declaration of intention, but must file a 
 new one in his right name. 
 
 In re Boorvis, 205 Fed., 401. (District Court, S. D. 
 New York. May 5, 1913.) 
 
 Declaration of intention not a judicial instrument — Cannot he 
 amended nunc pro tunc. 
 
 The filing of a declaration of intention is not a judicial 
 proceeding, nor is a declaration of intention a judicial in- 
 strument, and it cannot be amended nunc pro tunc. 
 
 In re Stack, 200 Fed., 330. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
 Judgments — Attack. 
 
 A decree granting naturalization is like any other judg- 
 ment of the court, and cannot be corrected at a subsequent 
 term, nor attacked except in the manner and for the causes 
 for which judgments of a court of record may be assailed. 
 In re O'Sullivan, 117 S. W., 651. (St. Louis Court 
 
 of Appeals. Missouri. March 23, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Proceedings may be amended nunc pro tunc — Direc- 
 tory provisions of statute. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 9, 34 Stat. 596 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), provides that every 
 
6 AMENDMENT. 
 
 final order which shall be made upon a petition for naturali- 
 zation shall be under the hand of the court and entered 
 in full upon a record kept for that purpose, and Section i8 
 makes it a felony for any clerk or other person to issue 
 or be a party to the issuance of a certificate of citizenship 
 contrary to the provisions of this act, except upon a final 
 order under the hand of a court having jurisdiction to make 
 such order. Held, that where a court rendered a judgment 
 admitting an alien to citizenship, and the clerk of the court 
 issued a certificate of naturalization before the judgment 
 had been entered and signed, the proceeding is not void, 
 but may be amended nunc pro tunc, the provisions of the 
 statute being only directory. 
 
 U. S. v. Stoller, i8o Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Change of name after naturalization — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Where an alien duly naturalized as a citizen of the United 
 States in 1898 in the name of Frederick Persky, subse- 
 quently had his name changed to Perkins by order of the 
 state court, a federal court, in which the judgment of nat- 
 uralization was entered, has no jurisdiction to alter the 
 judgment to show that the name of the applicant for cit- 
 izenship was Perkins instead of Persky. 
 
 In re Perkins, 204 Fed., 350. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. April 16, 1913.) 
 
 Petition to cancel certificate of naturalization — Affidavit. 
 
 Where a judgment of the lower court overruling a de- 
 murrer to a petition for cancellation of a certificate of cit- 
 izenship, and to vacate the order admitting the respondent 
 to citizenship, was reversed on the ground that the petition 
 
AMENDMENT. 7 
 
 was not supported by affidavit, the cause was remanded by 
 this court, with direction to the lower court to sustain the 
 demurrer, and unless the petition might be amended to show 
 the existence of a proper affidavit at the time it was filed, to 
 dismiss the, petition without prejudice. 
 Cohen v. U. S., 38 App. D. C. 123 
 
 ^ The court said : "The declaration as drawn was a complete and 
 intelligible document. It may not have been true — I do not think it 
 was true — ^but such as it was it contained no clerical error, and it is 
 going much too far to ask any court to correct the error of the 
 applicant or his interpreter, and thus to manufacture an entirely new 
 paper." 
 
APPEAL. 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 State courts act quoad hoc as United States courts. 
 
 The right of appeal exists in a naturalization proceeding. 
 
 In entertaining such proceedings the Supreme Court acts 
 
 quoad hoc as a court of the United States. 
 
 U. S. vs. Breen, 120 N. Y. Supp., 304. (Supreme 
 Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. De- 
 cember 30, 1909.) 
 
 Naturalization not being a judicial, but a political act, such 
 proceedings are not subject to review. 
 
 The admission of aliens to citizenship is not a judicial, 
 but a political act, is not necessarily a business of the 
 courts, and may be lodged by Congress in an executive 
 department of the government, but the courts having been 
 vested with the power to grant citizenship on proof to the 
 satisfaction of the court, the exercise of that power is dis- 
 cretionary and not subject to review. 
 
 U. S. v. Dolla, 177 Fed., loi. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Fifth Circuit. March i, 1910 ) 
 
 Decisions in naturalisation proceedings not reviewable. 
 
 A proceeding for naturalization under the act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, 
 
APPEAL. 9 
 
 p. 478), does not constitute a "case" within the meaning of 
 section 6 of the Circuit Courts of Appeals Act of March 
 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 827, 828 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 
 549), providing that the Circuit Courts of Appeals estab- 
 lished by this act shall exercise appellate jurisdiction to 
 review by appeal or writ of error final decisions in the 
 District Courts and existing Circuit Courts in all cases 
 other than those provided for in the fifth section unless 
 otherwise provided by law, and as the naturalization act 
 does not provide for a direct appeal the Circuit Court of 
 Appeals is without jurisdiction to review decisions in such 
 proceedings. 
 
 U. S. V. Dolla, 177 Fed., loi. (Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Fifth Circuit. March i, 1910.) 
 
 Discretion, abuse of. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), providing that 
 it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court 
 admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately pre- 
 ceding the date of his application he has resided continu- 
 ously within the United States five years at least, and 
 within the state one year at least, and that during that 
 time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, 
 attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United 
 States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness 
 of the same, the fitness of aliens to be admitted as citizens 
 of the United States is within the discretion of the court, 
 but such discretion must be a sound judicial discretion and if 
 abused is subject to review. 
 
 U. S. V. Hrasky, 88 N. E., 1031, 240 111., 560. (Supreme 
 
 Court of Illinois. April, 1909.) 
 
lO APPEAL. 
 
 Judgments not void if erroneous — How set aside — Cannot he 
 collaterally attacked. 
 
 The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction ad- 
 mitting an alien to citizenship, even if erroneous, is not 
 void, cannot be collaterally attacked and can only be set 
 aside by appeal or writ of error taken for that very purpose 
 State ex rel. Lacy, et al. v. Brandhorst, 56 S. W. 
 
 1094 (Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2, May 
 
 21, 1900.) 
 
 Construction of state laws by state court — Jurisdiction of fed- 
 eral courts concurrent, not revisory. 
 
 A state court having reached a conclusion adverse tO' 
 the government and favorable to its jurisdiction of a peti- 
 tion for naturalization, and admitted the petitioner to cit- 
 izenship, and no steps were taken for a review by the 
 Superior Court of the state, which alone could authori- 
 tatively construe the local law on which the jurisdiction 
 depended, a federal district court will not cancel the cer- 
 tificate so issued in a proceeding by the government, such 
 court having concurrent and not revisory jurisdiction. 
 U. S. V. Anderson, 169 Fed. 201. (District Court, 
 
 D. Idaho, C. D. April i, 1909.) 
 
CANCELLATION. II 
 
 CANCELLATION. 
 
 Power of Congress to authorize. 
 
 Art. I, Sec. 8, of the United States Constitution gives 
 Congress the power to authorize a direct attack upon certi- 
 ficates of citizenship in an independent proceeding such 
 as is authorized in Sec. 15 of the act of June 29, 1906, 34 
 Stat., 596, 601, c. 3592. 
 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct., 613, 225 U. S. 
 
 227, 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 22, 
 
 1912. — Decided May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Constitutionality — Certificate of naturalisation granted by an- 
 other court. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), providing for the can- 
 cellation of certificates of naturalization for fraud, and con- 
 ferring authority on one court to set aside the order or 
 decree of another court, is not unconstitutional. 
 
 U. S. V. Mansour, 170 Fed., 671. (District Coiirt, 
 
 S. D. New York. August 18, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), authorizing the can-' 
 
12 CANCELLATION. 
 
 cellation of certificates of naturalization for fraud or 
 illegality, although granted by another court, is constitu- 
 tional. 
 
 U. S. V. Simon, 170 Fed., 680. (Circuit Court, D. 
 Massachusetts. May 25, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), providing for the 
 cancellation of certificates of naturalization procured ille- 
 gally or by fraud, is not unconstitutional because it gives 
 to one court the power to annul the judgment of another 
 court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. 
 
 U. S. V. Luria'i 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Same — Residence. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), which authorizes a 
 suit by the United States to cancel a certificate of natural- 
 ization on the ground of fraud or that it was illegally pro- 
 cured, is constitutional, and the United States may maintain 
 a suit thereunder in a federal court to cancel a certificate 
 issued by the state court under that act or former statutes, 
 on the ground of fraud, in that the allegation and evidence 
 that the applicant had resided in the United States for five 
 years was untrue. 
 
 U. S. v. Spohrer, 175 Fed., 440. (Circuit Court, D. 
 
 New Jersey. January 14, 1910.) 
 
CANCELLATION. 1 3 
 
 Mode of reviezv — Legislative discretion. 
 
 The mode of judicial review of a certificate of natural- 
 ization rests in legislative discretion. 
 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct., 613, 225 
 U. S., 227, 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 
 22, 1912. — Decided May 27, 191Z.) 
 
 Retrospective provisions of law — Vested rights — Penalty. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), is retrospective in 
 so far as it applies to certificates of naturalization granted 
 prior to its passage, but is not therefore void as depriving 
 the person naturalized of vested rights, or subjecting him to 
 a penalty, since the Constitution contemplates that only 
 those who intend to become permanent residents shall be 
 naturalized or retain their citizenship, section I of the four- 
 teenth amendment providing that "All persons born or nat- 
 , uralized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction 
 thereof are citizens of the United States and of the states 
 wherein they reside." 
 
 U. S. V. Ellis, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 1911.) 
 
 Law is not ex post facto — Fraud. 
 
 An alien has no moral nor constitutional right to retain 
 the privileges of citizenship if, by false evidence or the 
 like, an imposition has been practiced on the court, and an 
 act providing for the cancellation of certificates of nat- 
 uralization imposes no punishment upon an alien who has 
 previously procured a certificate of citizenship by fraud 
 or other illegal conduct, but simply deprives him of his 
 
14 CANCELLATION. 
 
 ill-gotten privileges, and is not an ex post facto law within 
 the prohibition of Art. I, Sec. 9, of the Constitution. 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct., 613, 225 U. S. 
 
 227, 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 22, 
 
 1912. — Decided May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Proceedings, nature of — Not triable by jury. 
 
 A proceeding by the United States to cancel a certificate 
 of naturalization for fraud is a proceeding in equity, in 
 which the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. 
 
 U. S. V. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A proceeding brought by the United States to cancel a 
 certificate of naturalization for fraud under the act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1907, p. 427), resembles a bill to revoke or set aside 
 a grant or patent, or to cancel and vacate a judgment, and 
 is not triable by jury. 
 
 U. S. V. Mansour, 170 Fed., 671. (District Court, 
 
 S. D. New York. August 18, 1908.) 
 
 Proceedings^ nature of — Pleadings — Procedure. 
 
 A suit to cancel a certificate of naturalization for fraud 
 under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), is a petition, in the 
 nature of a bill in equity to set aside a judgment, and while 
 the proof must be of the kind and force required to set aside 
 
CANCELLATION. 15 
 
 a judgment, the pleadings and procedure may be molded to 
 meet the ends of justice. 
 
 U. S. V. Mansour, 170 Fed., 676. (District Court, 
 S. D. New York. May 25, 1909.) 
 
 Presumption, statutory — Due process of law. 
 
 A statutory presumption applying to the trial of an issue 
 determined by facts which occurred before the presumption ex- 
 isted, is nevertheless due process of law. 
 
 U. S. vs. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), providing for the can- 
 cellation of certificates of naturalization, does not forfeit 
 the right of citizenship, but merely gives jurisdiction to 
 the courts to cancel a previous certificate on the ground 
 of fraud or illegal procurement in its inception. 
 
 U. S. V. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Courts generally have jurisdiction to reverse their own 
 judgments and decrees during the term at which they are 
 rendered, for error of law, fraud, mistake, or any injurious 
 irr,egularity, but it can be done after the term only under 
 statute or under proceedings taken in time. 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, 180 Fed., 137. (District Court, 
 
 D. Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
l6 CANCELLATION. 
 
 Same — State and Federal courts. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1907, p. 427), providing that it shall be 
 the duty of the United States attorney, upon affidavit show- 
 ing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any 
 court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens in the judicial 
 district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the 
 time of bringing the suit, for the purpose of setting aside 
 and cancelling the certificate of citizenship on the ground 
 of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship 
 was illegally procured, confers jurisdiction upon such courts 
 to cancel fraudulent or illegally procured certificates of 
 naturalization, although granted by another court, state or 
 federal. 
 
 U. S. V. Simon, 170 Fed., 680. (Circuit Court, D. 
 
 Massachusetts. May 25, 1909.) 
 
 Same — State court. 
 
 The power of the court to correct or purge its records 
 may be exercised in the case of the naturalization of an 
 alien as well as in any other case in which the court has 
 jurisdiction to act. 
 
 In re Macoluso's Naturalization, 85 Atl., 149. (Su- 
 preme Court of Pennsylvania. July 2, 1912.) 
 
 Jurisdiction on motion to revoke order admitting to citizenship 
 — Consent to cancel. 
 
 Under Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 473, which authorizes a 
 motion to set aside a judgment to be made within six 
 
CANCELLATION. 17 
 
 months from the time it is rendered, a motion made to 
 vacate an order admitting to citizenship made more than 
 three years after the rendition of the judgment, supported 
 by the written consent of the person naturalized to the 
 granting of the motion and his appearance in court, would 
 not give the court jurisdiction. 
 
 In re Tinn, 84 Pac, 152, 148 Cal., yy2)' ^^Z ^™- St. 
 
 Rep., 354. (Supreme Court of Cahfornia. March 14, 
 
 1906.) 
 
 Same — Cannot be sustained six months after date of order. 
 
 Under Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 473, a proceeding instituted 
 to vacate an order admitting to citizenship cannot be sus- 
 tained on motion after a lapse of six months from the 
 time such order was made. 
 
 In re Tinn, 84 Pac, 152, 148 Cal, 773, 113 Am. St. 
 
 Rep., 354. (Supreme Court of California. March 14, 
 
 1906.) 
 
 Jurisdiction of state courts under state laws — Comity. 
 
 Where a state court decides, under a construction of the 
 state laws, that it has jurisdiction of a petition for nat- 
 uralization, and admits the petitioner to citizenship, on a 
 proceeding to cancel the certificate of naturalization for 
 alleged want of jurisdiction of the state court, a federal 
 district court of concurrent jurisdiction will, on considera- 
 tions of comity, reach a conclusion in harmony with that of 
 the state court respecting the construction of the state laws. 
 U. S. V. Anderson, 169 Fed., 201. (District Court, 
 
 D. Idaho, C. D. April i, 1909.) 
 
l8 CANCELLATION. 
 
 Jurisdiction— Federal court— Certiiicate of naturalization 
 granted hy another court. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), providing for the 
 cancellation of certificates of naturalization for fraud or 
 illegality, confers on any court authorized to naturalize 
 jurisdiction to cancel the illegally issued certificate of a 
 naturalized person resident within its district, although 
 granted by another court.' 
 
 U. S. V. Meyer, 170 Fed., 983. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, S. D. May 27, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), a federal district 
 court has jurisdiction of a proceeding to cancel the cer- 
 tificate of a citizen of the United States resident within 
 its judicial district who was illegally admitted to citizenship 
 by a state court. 
 
 U. S. V. Nisbet, 168 Fed., 1005. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Washington, N. D. March 31, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Marine Corps. 
 
 Where a state court issued a certificate of naturalization 
 to an alien who had not made a previous declaration of 
 intention of becoming a citizen of the United States, upon 
 proof of good moral character and honorable discharge 
 from the United States 'Marine Corps, such discharge hav- 
 ing been for disability prior to the expiration of his term 
 of enlistment, under the act of July 26, 1894, c. 165, 28 Stat. 
 I2r4 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332), as amended by the 
 
CANCELLATION. I9 
 
 Naval Appropriation Act March 3, 1901, c. 852, 31 Stat. 
 1132 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1095), providing that any 
 alien of ,the age of twenty-one years and upwards who has 
 enlisted or may enlist in the United States Navy or Marine 
 Corps, and has served or may hereafter serve five consecu- 
 tive years in the United States Navy or one enlistment in 
 the United States Marine Corps, and has been or may 
 hereafter be honorably discharged, shall be admitted to 
 become a citizen of the United States upon his petition, 
 without any previous declaration of his intention to become 
 such, a federal court has jurisdiction of a proceeding 
 brought by the United States to cancel such illegally pro- 
 cured certificate, under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 
 Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. St. 1909, p. 485). 
 
 U. S. v. Plaistow, 189 Fed., 1006. (District Court, 
 W. D. New York. August 2, 1910.) 
 
 Collateral Attack. 
 
 A proceeding in which an alien is naturalized cannot be 
 questioned collaterally. 
 
 In re Wagner, 135 N. Y. Supp. 678. 
 
 Same. 
 
 The judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction admit- 
 ting an alien to citizenship, even if erroneous, is not void, 
 cannot be collaterally attacked, and can only be set aside 
 by appeal or writ of error taken for that very purpose. 
 State ex rel. Lacy, et al. v. Brandhorst, 56 S. W., 
 
 1094. (Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2. 
 
 May 21, 1900.) 
 
20 CANCELLATION. 
 
 Bill to revoke — Allegations — Presumption — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Where a bill to revoke a certificate of citizenship under 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), did not allege that 
 the defendant had not in fact continuously resided in the 
 United States or some territory thereof for the full period 
 of five years, and within the state of Iowa one year, imme- 
 diately prior to the filing of his petition, or that the defen- 
 dant was not in fact entitled ,to be admitted as a citizen, 
 or that the affidavits attached to the petition did not fully 
 comply with the requirements of the naturalization act on 
 their face or were in any manner insufficient to authorize 
 the state court to admit the alien to citizenship, it will be 
 presumed that the petition was sufficient to authorize the 
 court to act thereon. 
 
 U. S. v. Rose, 166 Fed., 999. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 Iowa, W. D. February 3, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Allegations — Demurrer. 
 
 A bill to revoke a certificate of citizenship under the act 
 of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 U. S. Comp. 
 St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), merely alleged that the witnesses 
 who made affidavit to the petition and testified upon the 
 final hearing, did not have personal knowledge of the de- 
 fendant's residence in the United States and in the state 
 of Iowa for the requisite time to authorize his admission 
 to citizenship. The bill did not allege that the witnesses, 
 or either of them, intentionally or knowingly testified 
 falsely, or that the defendant procured them to so testify, 
 or that he knew that they did not have personal knowl- 
 edge of his residence in the United States and in the state 
 of Iowa for the requisite time. The affidavit of the Chief 
 Examiner, which formed the grounds for bringing the suit. 
 
CANCELLATION. 21 
 
 simply stated that it appeared from the naturalization rec- 
 ords of his ofHce that one of the witnesses did not see the 
 defendant for two years of the period covered by his tes- 
 timony, during which time the defendant was in Dakota. 
 Held, that ,the bill was demurrable, for want of facts. 
 U. S. V. Rose, i66 Fed., 999. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 Iowa, W. D. February 3, 1909.) 
 
 Complaint, proceedings to revoke order made more than six 
 months previously must be supported by. 
 
 Under Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 405, a proceeding to vacate 
 an order admitting to citizenship made more than six 
 months previously must be supported by a complaint. 
 In re Tinn, 84 Pac, 152, 148 Cal., yy^x "S Am. St. 
 
 Rep., 354. (Supreme Court of Cahfornia. March 14, 
 
 1906.) 
 
 Same — SuMciency — Fraud. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906', c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 
 601 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), a complaint by 
 the United States in a proceeding to cancel a certificate of 
 naturalization for fraud is insufficient where it fails to 
 tender the material issue of fraud, but merely alleges change 
 of residence, which is only prima facie upon the issue. 
 
 U. S. v. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Same — Consent to cancel certificate of naturalisation. 
 
 An oral motion to revoke an order granting citizenship, 
 supported by a written consent of the person naturalized 
 
22 CANCELLATION. 
 
 that such order be set aside for fraud, cannot be considered 
 as a complaint under Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 405. 
 
 In re Tinn, 84 Pac, 152, 148 Cal, 773, 113 Am. St. 
 
 Rep., 354. (Supreme Court of California. March 14, 
 
 1906.) 
 
 Private petition to cancel. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 537), providing a pro- 
 cedure for cancelling certificates of naturalization obtained 
 by fraud or otherwise illegally procured, does not deprive 
 a state court of the power to enter a decree annulling a 
 forged certificate of citizenship and directing its surrender 
 for cancellation upon a private petition joined in by the 
 district attorney of the county. 
 
 In re Macoluso's Naturalization, 85 Atl., 149. (Su- 
 preme Court of Pennsylvania. July 2, 1912.) 
 
 Petition to cancel — Demurrer — Amendment. 
 
 Where a judgment of the lower court overruling a de- 
 murrer to a petition for cancellation of a certificate of cit- 
 izenship, and to vacate the order admitting the respondent 
 to citizenship, was reversed on the ground that the petition 
 was not supported by affidavit, the cause was remanded 
 by this court, with direction to the lower court to sustain 
 the demurrer, and, unless the petition might be amended 
 to show the existence of a proper affidavit at the time it 
 was filed, to dismiss the petition without prejudice. 
 Cohen v. U. S., 38 App. D. C. 123. 
 
CANCELLATION. 23 
 
 Same — Affidavit showing good cause — Demurrer. 
 
 In a petition filed by the United States to cancel a cer- 
 tificate of naturalization on the ground of fraud under 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), an affidavit showing 
 good cause therefor should appear in the record, either by 
 reference and contemporaneous filing with the petition, or 
 by allegations therein sufficient to show compliance with 
 the statute, and to warrant its production if denied, and a 
 petition not supported by such an affidavit is demurrable. 
 Cohen v. U. S., 38 App. D. C, 123. 
 
 Same — Averments — "Fraudulently or illegally procured" — 
 Conclusions. ^ 
 
 In a suit to cancel a certificate of naturalization under 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), the averment that the judg- 
 ment "was fraudulently or illegally procured" is a mere 
 conclusion and of no avail unless the facts alleged show 
 that the judgment was so procured. 
 
 U. S. v. Rose, 166 Fed., 999. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 Iowa, W. D. February 3, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Service — Son claiming citizenship on deceased father's 
 fraudulent certificate of naturalisation. 
 
 Where it appears from a petition to the court for a rule 
 to show cause why a certificate of naturalization should not 
 be canceled that the person whose name appears in the 
 certificate is dead, and that his son resides in another 
 
24 CANCELLATION. 
 
 county, and the hearing is continued and ten days' personal 
 notice is served on the son by a justice of the peace of 
 the county in which he resides, such service will be held 
 sufficient. 
 
 In re Macoluso's Naturalization, 85 Atl., 149. (Su- 
 preme Court of Pennsylvania. July 2, 1912.) 
 
 Same — Absentees — Service by publication — Curator ad hoc. 
 
 In a proceeding to cancel a certificate of naturalization 
 under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), which provides that 
 "if the holder of such certificate is absent from the United 
 States or from the district in which he last had his resi- 
 dence, such notice shall be given by publication in the 
 manner provided for service of summons by publication 
 or upon absentees as provided by the laws of the state 
 or place where such suit is brought," and the law of the 
 state provides for the appointment of an attorney at law 
 as curator ad hoc to represent an absentee, service on him 
 is sufficient. 
 
 U. S. v. Ellis, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 1911.) 
 
 Certiorari to reviezv order of cancellation — Jurisdiction. 
 
 Under Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 1068, a writ of certiorari can 
 only issue when the court under review has in some manner 
 exceeded its jurisdiction, and an order of the Superior 
 Court cancelling a previous order granting citizenship can- 
 not be reviewed by certiorari, although it may have been 
 
CANCELLATION. 25 
 
 rendered on insufficient evidence or in some irregular 
 method not going to the jurisdiction. 
 
 In re Tinn, 84 Pac, 152, 148 Cal, 773, 113 Am. St. 
 
 Rcp-j 354- (Supreme Court of California. March 14, 
 
 1906.) 
 
 Evidence — Statements of consular officers — Residence abroad. 
 
 The statements of United States consular officers in a 
 foreign country to the effect that defendant had established 
 a permanent residence abroad, are admissible in evidence 
 in a proceeding to cancel a certificate of naturalization for 
 fraud under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 
 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485). 
 
 U. S. V. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Judgments — Amendment of proceedings nunc pro tunc — Di- 
 rectory provisions of statute. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 9, 34 Stat. 596 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), provides that every 
 final order which shall be made upon a petition for nat- 
 uralization shall be under the hand of the court and entered 
 in full upon a record kept for that purpose, and section 
 18 makes it a felony for any clerk or other person to issue 
 or be a party to the issuance of a certificate of citizenship 
 contrai-y to the provisions of this act, except upon a final 
 order under the hand of a court having jurisdiction to 
 make such order. Held, that where a court rendered a 
 judgment admittng an alien to citizenship, and the clerk 
 of the court issued a certificate of naturalization before the 
 
26 CANCELLATION. 
 
 judgment had been entered and signed, the proceeding is 
 not void, but may be amended nunc pro tunc, the provisions 
 of the statute being only directory. 
 
 U. S. V. Stoller, i8o Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Res judicata — Ex parte proceedings. 
 
 The foundation of the doctrine of res judicata, or estoppel 
 by judgment, is that both parties have had their day in 
 court, and a certificate of naturalization procured ex parte 
 is not entitled to conclusive effect against the public, and 
 is open like other public grants to be revoked if found to 
 have been unlawfully or fraudulently procured. 
 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct, 613, 225 U. S., 
 
 227; 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 
 
 22', 1912. — Decided May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Court's finding conclusive — Declaration of intention. 
 
 Where an alien twenty-five years of age was naturalized 
 April I, 1902, by a court of competent jurisdiction, and his 
 certificate of naturalization recited that he had made his 
 declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States according to law, it should be accepted as a finding 
 that all other requirements of the law necessary to sustain 
 his application were complied with, and therefore the cer- 
 tificate of naturalization cannot be canceled on the ground 
 that he did not make a declaration of intention two years 
 before his admission to citizenship, the judgment of the 
 court having been based upon a consideration of all the 
 facts. 
 
 U. S. V. Nechman, 183 Fed., 788. (District Court, 
 
 E. D. Michigan. May 12, 1910.) 
 
CANCELLATION. 27 
 
 Record of naturalization — Construction — Omission or inad- 
 vertence of clerk. 
 
 Every reasonable intendment of construction should be 
 applied to give effect to a record of naturalization as would 
 be allowed to sustain a record in ordinary cases; and an 
 alien who has complied with all the requirements of the 
 Act of Congress of April 14, 1802, c. 28, Sees, i, 3, 2 Stat. 
 I53> 155 (Rev. St. U. S., Sec. 2165 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 
 p. 1329]), should not be deprived of his privileges on ac- 
 count of some immaterial omission or inadvertence of a 
 clerk in making up the record. 
 
 City of Rockland v. Inhabitants of Hurricane Isle, 
 76 Atl., 286. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. No- 
 vember 27, 1909.) 
 
 "Illegally procured" — Jurisdiction — Procedure. 
 
 The term "illegally procured," used in the naturalization 
 act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 537), authorizing the cancellation 
 of certificates of naturalization on the ground of fraud or 
 illegality, imports a certificate issued by a court without 
 jurisdiction or in violation of the laws of procedure. 
 
 U. S. v. Albertini, 206 Fed., 133. (District Court, D. 
 
 Montana. May 28, 1913.) 
 
 "Illegally procured" — Error of law-, — Subornation. 
 
 The words "illegally procured," used in the act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1909, p. 4.85), means procured by subornation or some 
 other illegal means used to impose upon the court, and 
 not that the certificate was issued through error of law. 
 U. S. V. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
28 CANCELLATION. 
 
 Void Judgments — Obtained through fraud. 
 
 The general rule that judgments are not subject to at- 
 tack unless they are void or obtained through fraud, is 
 applicable to judgments which admit persons to citizenship. 
 U. S. V. Stoller, i8o Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) 
 
 Fraud. 
 
 Where an alien admitted to citizenship under Sec. 2165 
 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), providing 
 that only those persons possessing the necessary qualifica- 
 tions and intending bona fide to become citizens could be 
 naturalized, did not in good faith intend to become a 
 permanent citizen, and made his oath with a mental res- 
 ervation to that effect, he is guilty of fraud in procuring 
 the decree, and the certificate of citizenship may be can- 
 celed under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 
 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), authorizing 
 the cancellation of certificates of naturalization on the 
 ground of fraud. 
 
 U. S. V. Ellis, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 191 1.) 
 
 Same — Illegality. 
 
 A certificate of naturalization may be set aside for fraud 
 or illegality in its procurement, which would comprehend 
 false swearing by means of which the certificate was pro- 
 cured, as well as error in rendering judgment upon a given 
 statement of facts. 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, 180 Fed., 137. (District Court D. 
 
 Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
CANCELLATION. 29 
 
 Same. 
 
 For the purpose of naturalization acts, all courts having 
 jurisdiction thereunder are federal courts, and may vacate 
 each other's judgments of . naturalization for fraud or 
 illegality. 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, i8o Fed., 137. (District Court D. 
 
 Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Deception — Collusion. 
 
 Authority to vacate or set aside a judgment or decree 
 which is a mere nullity is incident to the jurisdiction of all 
 courts of record, and may be successfully invoked when 
 the action of the court has been procured by fraud, decep- 
 tion or collusion. 
 
 In re Macoluso's Naturalization, 85 Atl., 149. (Su- 
 preme Court of Pennsylvania. July 2, 1912.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A naturalization proceeding is not adversary, but essen- 
 tially ex parte, and it is the duty of the applicant to make 
 full and true disclosure of his qualifications; and a cer- 
 tificate of naturalization granted to an alien who stated in 
 his petition for naturalization that he was unmarried, when 
 he in fact had a wife and children in his native country 
 whom he had deserted, is subject to cancellation on the 
 ground of fraud. 
 
 U. S. V. Albertini, 206 Fed., 133. (District Court, D. 
 
 Montana. May 28, 1913.) 
 
30 CANCELLATION. 
 
 Same. 
 
 Suit lies to revoke a judgment or decree where the un- 
 successful party has been prevented from exhibiting his 
 case fully, by his adversary's fraud or deception, as by 
 keeping him away from court, or making a false promise to 
 compromise, or where an attorney fraudulently assumes to 
 represent the unsuccessful party and connives at his defeat 
 or where his attorney sells out to the adversary. 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, i8o Fed., 137. (District Court D. 
 
 Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Socialism. 
 
 An alien who, for the purpose of securing naturalization 
 as a citizen of the United States under the act of June 29, 
 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 
 420), intentionally represented to the court at the final 
 hearing of his application that "he was attached to the 
 principles of the Constitution of the United States and well 
 disposed to the good order and happiness of the same," 
 on a suit to cancel his certificate of naturalization brought 
 by the United States upon the ground of fraud in that such 
 representations were untrue, admitted that he advocates 
 the common ownership of all land, buildings and industrial 
 institutions, to be accomplished by use of the power of the 
 ballot, and that when that object shall have been attained 
 the political government of the country will be entirely 
 abrogated, as there will be no use for it, and that such 
 beliefs were entertained by him at and previous to his 
 admission to citizenship. Held, that the certificate of nat- 
 uralization was procured through fraud, and that the 
 United States is entitled to its cancellation.'- 
 
 U. S. V. Olsson, 196 Fed., 562. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Washington, S. D. May 11, 1912.) 
 
CANCELLATION. 3 1 
 
 Same — Protection abroad — Residence — Intention. 
 
 A certificate of naturalization granted to an alien who had 
 not been a bona fide resident of the United States for five 
 years before his admission to citizenship, and who did not, at 
 the time of naturalization, intend to become a resident of 
 the United States, but desired a certificate to secure protec- 
 tion abroad, will be canceled for fraud. 
 
 U. S. V. Mansour, 170 Fed., 671. (District Court, 
 
 S. D. New York. August 18, 1908.) 
 
 Same — Intention to become a permanent citizen. 
 
 Where an alien admitted to citizenship under Sec. 2165, 
 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), providing 
 that only those persons possessing the necessary qualifications 
 and intending bona Me to become citizens could be natural- 
 ized, did not in good faith intend to become a permanent citi- 
 zen, and made his oath with a mental reservation to that effect, 
 he is guilty of fraud in procuring the decree, and the cer- 
 tificate of citizenship may be canceled under the act of June 
 ^9, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1909, p. 485), authorizing the cancellation of certificates of 
 naturalization on the ground of fraud. 
 
 U. S. V. ElHs, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 191 1.) 
 
 Technical or formal defects in naturalisation proceedings not 
 vital. 
 
 Naturalization proceedings are governed by the same gen- 
 eral principles as ordinary judicial proceedings, and should 
 
32 CANCELLATION. 
 
 not be vacated if the defects are merely technical and for- 
 mal, although the defects cause annoyance and trouble to 
 the supervising administrative department. 
 
 U. S. V. Erickson, i88 Fed., 747. (District Court, W. 
 D., Michigan, S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
 Competent witness substituted for one disqualHied. 
 
 A certificate of naturalization should not be canceled as 
 having been illegally obtained where one of the verifying wit- 
 nesses to the petition for naturalization was found to be dis- 
 qualified because not a citizen of the United States and his 
 name erased from the witnesses' afi&davit and the name of a 
 competent witness substituted and the affidavit redated as of 
 the date of verification by the new witness, although no 
 duplicate of the amended affidavit was forwarded to the 
 Department of Commerce and Labor. 
 
 U. S. V. Erickson, 188 Fed., 747. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Michigan, S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
 Laches, cancellation proceedings barred by. 
 
 The time for vacating an order admitting to citizenship 
 for an error of law of the court having expired before nat- 
 uralization act, June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), suit does not now lie 
 to vacate it, though that act authorizes suits to vacate cer- 
 tiiicates of citizenship. 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, 180 Fed., 137. (District Court, 
 
 D. Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
CANCELLATION. 33 
 
 Laches, cannot he pleaded against United States. 
 
 In a suit to cancel a certificate of naturalization the defense 
 of laches cannot be pleaded against the United States. 
 
 U. S. V. Spohrer, 175 Fed., 440. (Circuit Court, D. 
 New Jersey. January 14, 1910.) 
 
 Moral character — Well disposed to the good order and happi- 
 ness of the United States — Drunkenness. 
 
 A certificate of naturalization which might immediately be 
 obtained anew will not be canceled on the ground that the 
 holder had not for five years immediately preceding the date 
 of his application for citizenship behaved as a man of good 
 moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution 
 of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and 
 happiness of the same, where it is shown that he was convicted 
 of drunkenness fifteen times during the ten years prior to 
 the five year period, and once thereafter, but had reformed and 
 remained sober for more than four and one-half years prior to 
 the filing of his petition for naturalization. 
 
 U. S. V. Dwyer, 170 Fed., 686. (Circuit Court, D. 
 
 Massachusetts. May 18, 1909.) 
 
 Residence abroad. 
 
 In a proceeding to cancel a certificate of naturalization under 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), a decree is authorized where 
 it is shown that the alien was naturalized August 11, 1899, 
 arrived in South Africa November 23d of the same year, and 
 engaged in business there, where he continued to reside until 
 after March 11, 1910, when a suit was instituted to cancel his 
 certificate of citizenship, it further appearing that he had 
 
34 CANCELLATION. 
 
 stated to the United States consul that he did not know when 
 he could return to the United States, that he was not engaged 
 solely as a representative of American trade and commerce, 
 that his residence abroad was not for reasons of health or edu- 
 cation, and that no controlling exigency beyond his power to 
 foresee had prevented him from carrying out a bona Me in- 
 tention of returning to the United States. 
 
 U. S. V. Ellis, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 1911.) 
 
 Same — Physical absence — Fraud — Illegality. 
 
 The residence in the United States for a period of at least 
 five years, required as a prerequisite to naturalization under 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), is broken by the physical ab- 
 sence of the alien from the United States for seven months, 
 during which time he obtained admission to another allegiance ; 
 and his certificate of naturalization as a citizen of the United 
 States granted under these conditions was fraudulently or 
 illegally procured, and subject to cancellation on either ground. 
 U. S. V. Simon, 170 Fed., 680. (Circuit Court, D. Mas- 
 sachusetts. May 25, 1909.) 
 
 Residence in United States for less than Hve years. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. 
 S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), which authorizes a suit by 
 the United States to cancel a certificate of naturalization on 
 the ground of fraud or that it was illegally procured, is con- 
 stitutional, and the United States may maintain a suit there- 
 under in a federal court to cancel a certificate issued by a 
 state court under that act or former statutes, on the ground 
 
CANCELLATION. 35 
 
 of fraud, in that the allegation and evidence that the appli- 
 cant had resided in the United States five years was untrue. 
 U. S. V. Spohrer, 175 Fed., 440. (Circuit Court, D. 
 New Jersey. January 14, 1910.) 
 
 United States attorney, duty of to prosecute proceedings. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 
 34 Stat. 6or (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 427), imposes 
 upon the United States attorney, and not upon the Bureau of 
 Immigration and Naturalization, or its representatives, the 
 duty of prosecuting proceedings to cancel certificates of natu- 
 ralization. 
 
 U. S. V. Anderson, 169 Fed., 201. (District Court, D. 
 
 Idaho, C. D. April i, 1909.) 
 
 ■■ "The people of this country ordained the Constitution of the 
 United States, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
 domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the 
 general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and 
 their posterity, and thereby established a national government, to 
 endure permanently. The notion that citizens of this country may 
 absolve themselves from allegiance to the Constitution of the United 
 States, otherwise than by expatriation, is a dangerous heresy. The 
 nation generously and cordially admits to its citizenship aliens having 
 the qualifications prescribed by law, but recognizing the principle of 
 natural law, called the law of self-preservation, it restricts the privilege 
 of becoming naturalized to those whose sentiments are compatible 
 with genuine allegiance to the existing government as defined by the 
 oath which they are required to take. Those who believe in and 
 propagate crude theories hostile to the Constitution are barred." 
 
36 CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL. 
 
 CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL. 
 
 A certificate of arrival must be attached to the petition for 
 naturalization. 
 
 An alien who arrived in the United States after the passage 
 of the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 597 (U. 
 S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 479), must, at the time of filing 
 his petition for naturalization, file with the clerk of the court 
 a certificate from the Department of Commerce and Labor 
 stating the date, place and manner of his arrival, as required 
 by the act, and upon failure to do so the petition will be dis- 
 missed. 
 
 In re Liberman, 193 Fed., 301. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Washington, N. D. January 31, 1912.) 
 
 Certificate of arrival not based upon registry made at the time 
 of alien's arrival in the United States^ but upon informa- 
 tion subsequently obtained, does not comply with Sec. 4, 
 Act June 29, ipo6. 
 
 Sec. I, Act June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 597 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 124), provides that it shall be the 
 duty of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization to pro- 
 vide, for use at the various immigration stations throughout the 
 United States, books of record, wherein the commissioners of 
 immigration shall cause a registry to be made in the case of 
 each alien arriving in the United States from and after the 
 passage of this act of the name, age, occupation, personal de- 
 
CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL. 37 
 
 scription (including height, complexion, color of hair and 
 eyes), the place of birth, the last residence, the intended place 
 of residence in the United States, and the date of arrival of 
 said alien, and, if entered through a port, the name of the ves- 
 sel in which he comes. And it shall be the duty of said com- 
 missioners of immigration to cause to be granted to each alien 
 a certificate of such registry, with the particulars thereof. Sec. 
 4 of the said act (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. iQii, p. 530), pro- 
 vides that at the time the alien files his petition for naturaliza- 
 tion there shall be filed with the clerk of the court a certificate 
 from the Department of Commerce and Labor, if the petitioner 
 arrives in the United States after the passage of this act, stat- 
 ing the date, place and manner of his arrival in the United 
 States, etc. Held, That a certificate not based on a registry 
 made at the time of the alien's arrival in the United States, 
 but upon information subsequently obtained to the effect that 
 while at the port of New York he deserted the ship upon which 
 he was employed and entered the United States without 
 inspection, which was granted for the sole purpose of 
 enabling him to file a petition for naturalization so that the 
 court might determine whether the certificate required by 
 Sec. 4 must be made up from the registry prescribed in Sec. 
 I of the naturalization act, does not meet the requirements 
 of Sec. 4 of said act; and before the applicant can be nat- 
 uralized he must be properly inspected and manifested by 
 the proper immigration officers, and then refile his petition. 
 In re Hollo, 206 Fed., 852. (District Court, N. D. Ohio, 
 E. D. June 2, 1913.) 
 
 Certificate of arrival not based upon registry made at the time 
 of alien's arrival in the United States, but upon informa- 
 tion subsequently obtained, is sufficient. 
 
 Where, through oversight on the part of the immigration 
 officers, no registry was made of the arrival of an alien in the. 
 
38 CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL. 
 
 United States as required by naturalization act June 29, 1906, 
 Sec. I, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 
 124), and a certificate of arrival, regular in form upon its face, 
 was issued by the Department of Commerce and Labor upon in- 
 formation subsequently obtained for the sole purpose of allow- 
 ing a petition for naturalization to be filed so that a judicial 
 determination might be reached as to the sufficiency of such 
 certificate to meet the requirements of Sec. 4 of said act 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 530), the court will not 
 refuse naturalization to an alien otherwise qualified upon 
 the ground that the certificate was not made up from the 
 registry prescribed by Sec. i of said act. 
 
 In re Page, 206 Fed., 1004. (District Court, E. D. 
 Michigan, S. D. April 14, 1913.) 
 
CERTIOEARI. 39 
 
 CERTIORARI. 
 
 Review by certiorari. 
 
 Certiorari by the State, on the relation of the United States, 
 against the District Court of the Seventeenth District and 
 others, to review a judgment of said court. (See State ex 
 rel. U. S. V. District Court of Seventeenth Dist., et al., 120 
 N. W., 898.) 
 
 Certiorari can only issue zvhere the court has exceeded its 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Under Code Civ. Proc, Sec. 1068, a writ of certiorari can 
 only issue when the court under review has in some manner 
 exceeded its jurisdiction, and an order of the Superior Court 
 cancelling a previous order granting citizenship cannot be 
 reviewed by certiorari, although it may have been rendered on 
 insufficient evidence or in some irregular method not going 
 to the jurisdiction. 
 
 In re Tinn, 84 Pac, 152, 148 Cal., 773, 113 Am. St. 
 
 Rep., 354. (Supreme Court of California. March 14, 
 
 1906.) 
 
40 CHILDREN. 
 
 CHILDREN. 
 
 Naturalisation through parent. 
 
 ( Syllabus by the Court ) 
 The naturalization of a father operates to confer the right 
 of citizenship upon his minor child, who is dwelling at the 
 time of the father's naturalization within the jurisdiction of the 
 United States, or who dwells within that jurisdiction subse- 
 quent to the father's naturalization and during his own minor- 
 ity. 
 
 Conover v. Old, 77 Atl., 1070. (Supreme Court of 
 New Jersey. Argued June term, 1910.) 
 
 Sa^ne — Resident abroad — Immigration. 
 
 The naturalization of the father does not confer citizenship 
 upon his minor daughter who had been refused admission to 
 the United States by the immigration officers as an alien 
 afflicted by trachoma, a dangerous, contagious disease, and 
 was at the time receiving hospital treatment by authority of 
 the Acting Secretary of the Department of Commerce and 
 Labor, under bond appropriate to such cases ; nor would the 
 naturalization of the father avoid the penalty of the bond. 
 In re Camaras, 202 Fed., 1019. (District Court, D. 
 
 Rhode Island. February 19, 1913.) 
 
CHILDREN. 41 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of March 2, 1907, Sec. 5, 34 Stat. 1229 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 440), provides that a child born 
 without the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a 
 citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of 
 the parent, provided that such naturalization takes place dur- 
 ing the minority of the child ; and, provided further, that the 
 citizenship of such minor child shall begin at the time that 
 such minor child begins to reside permanently in the United 
 States. Held, that a minor child who had never resided in 
 the United States, but whose father was a naturalized citizen, 
 did not become a citizen until permanently resident in the 
 United States, and hence was not entitled to enter the United 
 States as a citizen. 
 
 U. S. ex. rel. De Rienzo v. Rodgers, U. S. Com'r of 
 
 Immigration, et al., 182 Fed., 274. (District Court, E. 
 
 D. Pennsylvania. October 26, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of March 2, 1907, Sec. 5, 34 Stat. 1229 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 440), provides that a child born with- 
 out the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a citi- 
 zen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of 
 the parent, provided that such naturalization takes place during 
 the minority of the child; and, provided further, that the 
 citizenship of such minor child shall begin at the time that 
 such minor child begins to reside permanently in the United 
 States. Held, that the minor child of a naturalized parent, 
 born abroad, where he remained until after the naturalization 
 of his father, is an alien until he begins to reside permanently 
 in the United States, and he cannot begin to so reside if he 
 
42 CHILDREN. 
 
 belongs to a class of aliens prohibited from entering the United 
 
 States by the immigration laws. 
 
 U. S. ex. rel. De Rienzo v. Rodgers, U. S. Com'r Immi- 
 gration, et al., 185 Fed., 334. (Circuit Court of Appeals, 
 Third Circuit. April 12, 191 1.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The naturalization of the father does not confer citizenship 
 upon a minor child who has never dwelt in the United States, 
 Sec. 2172 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1334), 
 applying only to the minor children of naturalized citizens 
 "dwelling in the United States.'' Hence, such child is sub- 
 ject to the provisions of the act of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat. 
 L. 1213, chap. 1012, U. S. Comp. St Supp. 1903, p. 170, U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 274), debarring from the United 
 States aliens afflicted with a dangerous contagious disease. 
 Zartarian v. Billings, 27 S. Ct, 182, 204 U. S., 170, 51 
 
 L. Ed., 428. (January 7, 1907.) 
 
 Naturalization of stepfather. 
 
 When the husband of an alien woman becomes naturalized, 
 she, as well as her infant son, dwelling in the United States, 
 likewise become citizens. 
 
 U. S. ex rel. Fisher v. Rodgers, U. S. Immigration 
 Com'r, et al., 144 Fed., 711. (District Court, E. D. Penn- 
 sylvania. April 5, 1906.) 
 
CITIZENSHIP. 43 
 
 CITIZENSHIP. 
 
 Illegal naturalisation — Surrender of certificate for cancel- 
 lation — Status. 
 
 A person unlawfully naturalized under the laws of the 
 United States, who has surrendered his certificate of cit- 
 izenship for cancellation, is not a citizen of the United 
 States. 
 
 Dicta In re Aprea, 158 Fed., 702. (Circuit Court, 
 
 S. D. N. Y. February 26, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An applicant for citizenship is bound to see that the 
 jurisdictional facts upon which the grant is predicated ac- 
 tually exist, and if they do not exist he takes nothing by 
 his paper grant.^ 
 
 Dicta, U. S. V. Spohrer, 175 Fed., 440. (Circuit 
 
 Court, D. New Jersey. ■ January 14, 1910.) 
 
 " The following language contained in Spohrer v. U. S., supra, is 
 quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Johannessen v. U. S. : 
 
 "An alien friend is offered, under certain conditions, the privilege 
 of citizenship. He may accept the offer and become a citizen upon 
 compliance with the prescribed conditions, but not otherwise. His 
 claim is of favor, not of right. He can only become a citizen upon 
 and after a strict compliance with the Acts of Congress. An applicant 
 for this high privilege is bound, therefore, to conform to the terms 
 upon which alone the right he seeks can be conferred. It is his 
 
44 CITIZENSHIP. 
 
 province, and he is bound, to see that the jurisdictional facts upon 
 which the grant is predicted actually exist, and if they do not he 
 takes nothing by his paper grant. Fraud cannot be substituted for 
 facts." 
 
CLERKS OF COURTS. 45 
 
 CLERKS OF COURTS. 
 
 State Courts — Authority — Nature of duties. 
 
 In authorizing state courts to act in naturalization pro- 
 ceedings the United States government selects such courts 
 and the clerks thereof as government agencies through 
 whom said government is discharging a function of sov- 
 ereignty; and, while Congress has power to confer author- 
 ity upon state courts which they may constitutionally ex- 
 ercise when authorized to do so, it cannot make the acts 
 in that regard a part of their duties as state courts ; and the 
 power conferred and the duties imposed under the nat- 
 uralization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), are not ex-oMcio 'povfGts znA 
 duties belonging to and devolving upon the state .office as 
 such. 
 
 Eldridge v. Salt Lake County, 106 Pac, 939. (Su- 
 preme Court of Utah. January 17, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Power of Congress to prescribe fees. 
 
 Const. Wash., Sec. 6, Art. 4, expressly confers the power 
 of naturalization upon the superior courts. The statutes 
 of the state of Washington (Laws of 1907, p. 9, c. 56), 
 provide for a fee of $3, "for entering the final admission 
 of an alien to citizenship, and for a certified copy thereof 
 under seal." The United States laws (Act of June 29, 1906, 
 c- 3592, 34 Stat. 500, Sec. 13, U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, 
 
46 CLERKS OF COURTS. 
 
 p. 426), Drovide that a fee of $2 shall be charged and col- 
 lected by the clerk of the court for such services, one-half 
 of which shall be accounted for to the Bureau of Immigra- 
 tion and Naturalization; and Sec. 21 of the same act pro- 
 vides that it shall be ufllawful for the clerk to charge, col- 
 lect or receive any other or additional fees or moneys than 
 those specified in Sec. 13 of the act. Congress has power 
 under the Constitution of the United States to establish 
 a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United 
 States (8 Fed. St. ann., Art. i, Sec. 8). Relator was ad- 
 mitted to citizenship by the Superior Court. Held, that on 
 payment of $2 the clerk of the court must issue to relator 
 a certificate of naturalization, since the power of Congress 
 to prescribe fees in naturalization proceedings is exclusive 
 when exercised, and is binding upon the state and state 
 courts. 
 
 State v. Libby, 92 Pac, 350, 47 Wash., 481. (Supreme 
 Court, Washington. November 5, 1907.) 
 
 Same — Fees must be turned in to county treasurer. 
 
 A resolution of the county board of Barron County, Wis- 
 consin, passed pursuant to Laws 1901, c. 411, placed the 
 clerk of the circuit court on a salary basis, by which he 
 was to receive for his services a fixed salary in lieu of all 
 emoluments, and required that all fees, per diem, and com- 
 pensation for services rendered by him be turned over to 
 the county treasurer. The naturalization act of June 29, 
 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 13, 34 Stat., 600 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1909, p. 483), provides for fees to be charged by clerks of 
 courts exercising naturalization jurisdiction, and authorizes 
 the clerks to retain one-half of the fees received, and pay 
 over the balance to the Bureau of Immigration and Nat- 
 uralization. Held, that the words "authorized" and "per- 
 
CLERKS OF COURTS. 47 
 
 milted" refer solely to the adjustment between the clerks 
 and the Bureau, and do not authorize clerks on a salary- 
 basis to hold part of such fees as against the counties, but 
 that such fees must be turned over to the county treasurer as 
 fees received by the clerks in their official capacity. 
 
 Barron County v. Beckwith, 124 N. W., 1039, 142 Wis., 
 519. (Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Feb. 22, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The clerk of the city and county of San Francisco must 
 pay into the city and county treasury one-half of the fees 
 collected in naturalization proceedings under the provisions 
 of the Act of Congress of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 596, c. 
 3592 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 483), he being bound 
 to account therefor as money coming into his hands as 
 county clerk, the remaining one-half thereof to be paid 
 over to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization ; and 
 his surety is liable on his official bond for his failure to pay 
 over such fees.^ 
 
 City and County of San Francisco v. Mulkrevy, 
 
 et al., 113 Pac, 340. (Court of Appeal, First District, 
 
 California. December 13, igio. Rehearing denied by 
 
 Supreme Court February 9, 1911.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Services performed by ithe clerk of the county court in 
 naturalization proceedings under Act Cong. June 29, 1906, 
 c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 483),, 
 are performed in his official capacity, and the fees must be 
 accounted for under Rem. Bal. Code, Sec. 4073. 
 
 Franklin County v. Barnes, 123 Pac, 779. (Wash.) 
 
48 CLERKS OF COURTS. 
 
 Same — Fees may he retained by the Clerk. 
 
 St. 1908, c. 253, which requires that all fees received by 
 the clerk in naturalization cases shall be paid over to the county 
 treasurer, conflicts with Act Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 
 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 483), conferring 
 naturalization jurisdiction upon certain courts, and requir- 
 ing the clerk to account for one-half of the fees collected, and 
 permitting him to retain the other half, first paying therefrom 
 all additional clerical force, and the clerk need not account 
 to the county treasurer for fees received in naturalization 
 cases. 
 
 Inhabitants of Hampden County v. Morris, 93 N. E., 
 579, 207 Mass., 167. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- 
 chusetts. Jan. 2, 191 1.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The clerk of a county court receiving an annual salary is 
 not required to pay over to the county one-half of the fees 
 collected in naturalization proceedings under the provisions of 
 the Act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 596, U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 483). 
 
 In re Beyer, 130 N. Y. Supp., 281. (Supreme Court, 
 
 Special Term, Erie County. May, 1911.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The clerk of a district court may retain fees collected by 
 him in naturalization proceedings under the provisions of the 
 Act of Congress of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. 
 S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 483), such action not being in 
 
CLERKS OF COURTS. 49 
 
 violation of the principle that an incumbent of a public oiSce 
 must discharge the duties imposed upon such office for the 
 compensation fixed by law, and if additional duties are im- 
 posed upon such office without additional compensation such 
 duties must be discharged for the compensation fixed by law. 
 Eldridge v. Salt Lake County, io6 Pac, 939. (Su- 
 preme Court of Utah. Jan. 17, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The clerk of a state district court in discharging the duties 
 and performing services in naturalization proceedings under 
 the povisions of the Act of Congress of June 29, 1906, c. 
 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 483), acts 
 as the agent of the government, and not ex-ofUcio clerk of 
 the court; hence he is not required to account to the county 
 for fees collected by him in such proceedings. 
 
 Eldridge v. Salt Lake County, 106 Pac, 939. (Su- 
 preme Court of Utah. Jan. 17, 1910.) 
 
 Certified copy of declaration of intention is prima facie evi- 
 dence of existence of original. 
 
 A certified transcript of a record, shov/ing that the appli- 
 cant had appeared before the clerk of the court and made 
 declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States and to renounce his existing allegiance, certified the 
 same day to be a full, true and complete transcript of the rec- 
 ord as the same then remained in his office, duly attested 
 with the seal of the court, should prevail over the testimony 
 of a deputy clerk seven years later that he had made a thor- 
 
50 CLERKS OF COURTS. 
 
 ough search and was unable to find such a record, and that 
 the naturalization records of the court were very poorly kept. 
 U. S. V. Brelin, i66 Fed., 104. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A certified copy of a record, by a public officer authorized 
 to make it, not only vouches for its own correctness, but 
 proves prima facie the original to have been in existence when 
 it was made, an officer's certificate being r.ccorded the sanctity 
 of a deposition. 
 
 U. S. V. Brelin, 166 Fed., 104. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1908.) 
 
 Duty to Hie petition for naturalization. 
 
 The clerks of federal courts are not subject to instruction 
 by district attorneys, or by the United States itself, as a party 
 to a judicial proceeding, but it is their duty to file petitions for 
 naturalization which contain all proper allegations, though in 
 their judgment the petitioner is not eligible to naturalization 
 as a citizen of the United States because of race, color or other 
 disqualifications. 
 
 In re Halladjian, et al., 174 Fed., 834. (Circuit Court, 
 
 D. Massachusetts. December 24, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Act June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 3, 34 Stat., 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), is mandatory upon clerks of 
 
CLERKS OF COURTS. 5 1 
 
 United States Courts in requiring them to receive, file and 
 enter applications for citizenship immediately upon receipt 
 thereof. 
 
 Marvin v. U. S., 45 Ct. CL, 528. 
 
 Refiling petition — Disqualified witness. 
 
 Where a petition for naturalization is defective in that one 
 of the verifying witnesses is disqualified because not a citizen 
 of the United States, it v^fould be more orderly for the clerk 
 to refile the petition and give it a new consecutive number upon 
 the records than to permit its amendment by the substitution 
 of a competent witness and redating the witnesses' affidavit, 
 but the absence of a filing endorsement or calendar entry by 
 the clerk with reference to a petition which is actually filed, 
 and upon which the clerk has acted, is immaterial, if the fact 
 of filing sufficiently appears. 
 
 U. S. v. Erickson, 188 Fed., 747. (District Court, W. 
 
 D. Michigan, S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
 Removal of naturalization records from clerk's office not 
 authorised. 
 
 The clerk of the United States Circuit Court has no author- 
 ity to remove the records of the court to a private residence 
 and there take the alien's declaration of intention to become 
 a citizen of the United States. 
 
 In re Langtry, 31 Fed., 879. (Circuit Court, D. Cali- 
 fornia. July 19, 1887.) 
 
 See also Santo Scola's Case, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep., 344 
 (1890); Bosa's Application, 6 Kulp, 83 (1890), to the 
 same effect. 
 
52 CLERKS OF COURTS. 
 
 Reports to Department of Commerce and Labor. 
 
 The failure of the clerk of the court to report to the De- 
 partment of Commerce and Labor any details which he ought 
 to have reported concerning a petition for naturalization can- 
 not affect the right of the applicant for citizenship. 
 
 U. S. V. Erickson, i88 Fed., 747. (District Court, W. 
 
 D. Michigan, S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
 ^ The San Francisco city charter provides that, " * * * and every 
 officer shall pay all moneys coming into his hands as such officer, no 
 matter from what source derived or received, into the treasury of the 
 city and county of San Francisco within twenty-four hours after the 
 receipt of the same." The case of Eldridge v. Salt Lake County is 
 distinguished. The court said: "Our attention is called to Eldridge 
 v. Salt Lake County, 106 Pac, 939, where the Supreme Court of Utah 
 held that the clerk may retain such fees under the Act of Congress 
 in question. While we do not approve of the doctrine as laid down 
 in the Utah case, it is sufficient to say that it can be readily dis- 
 tinguished from the case at bar. There the law provided that the 
 county officers 'shall be required by law to keep true and correct 
 accounts of all fees collected by them, and to pay the same into the 
 proper treasury, and the officer whose duty it is to collect such fees 
 shall be held responsible on his bond for the same.' It does not 
 appear from that opinion to have been a condition of the bond, or 
 the duty of the clerk, to perform all official duties that may have 
 been imposed upon him by law, nor did the statute require the clerk 
 to pay all moneys, 'no matter from what source derived,' into the 
 treasury of the county." 
 
COMMISSIONERS. 53 
 
 COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 Appointment of commissioners in naturalisation cases is not 
 authorised. 
 
 The appointment of special commissioners in naturaliza- 
 tion cases is not authorized. 
 
 Alexander v. U. S., 43 Ct. CI., 389. 
 
54 
 
 COURTS. 
 
 COURTS. 
 
 Jurisdiction, common law — Clerk — Seal. 
 
 Under Sec. 2165, Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 
 p. 1329), a court which has some common law jurisdiction, 
 and a clerk and a seal, has jurisdiction to naturalize aliens 
 as citizens of the United States, it not being essential that 
 the court should have general common law jurisdiction. 
 U. S. V. Nechman, 183 Fed., 788. (District Court, 
 
 E. D. Michigan. May 12, 1910.) 
 
 Common law jurisdiction defined. 
 
 Under Sec. 2165, Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 
 p. 1329), a court of common law jurisdiction authorized to 
 admit aliens to citizenship need not be one possessing a 
 general common law jurisdiction, but if any part of its 
 jurisdiction answers that designation the requirement of 
 the statute is fulfilled. Courts having common law juris- 
 diction are those who have the power to punish offenses, 
 to enforce rights, or to redress wrongs recognized by the 
 common law, or which, in the determination of causes 
 which they decide, are governed by the principles, rules, 
 and usages of that law. The term "having common law 
 jurisdiction" is used to distinguish these courts from those 
 which have no jurisdiction save in equity, in admiralty, or 
 in matters not involving offenses or rights under the com- 
 mon law. The county courts of Tennessee do not come 
 
COURTS. 55 
 
 within this description, and (therefore are not courts of 
 common law jurisdiction with authority to naturalize aliens 
 as citizens of the United States. 
 
 In re Wolf, i88 Fed., 519. (Circuit Court, M. D. 
 Tennessee, Nashville Division. April 13, 191 1.) 
 
 Jurisdiction^ state and federal courts, concurrent, not revisory. 
 
 A state court having reached a conclusion adverse to the 
 governmenit and favorable to its jurisdiction of a petition 
 for naturalization, and admitted the petitioner to citizen- 
 ship, and no steps were taken for a review by the Superior 
 Court of the state, which alone could authoritatively con- 
 strue the local law on which the jurisdiction depended, a 
 federal district court will not cancel the certificate so issued 
 in a proceeding by the government, such court having con- 
 current and not revisory jurisdiction. 
 
 U. S. V. Anderson, 169 Fed., 201. (District Court, D. 
 
 Idaho, C. D. April i, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Comity, state and federal courts. 
 
 Where a state court decides, under a construction of the 
 state laws, that it has jurisdiction of a petition for nat- 
 uralization, and admits the petitioner to citizenship, on a 
 proceeding to cancel the certificate of naturalization for 
 alleged want of jurisdiction of the state court, a federal 
 district court of concurrent jurisdiction will, on considera- 
 tions of comity, reach a conclusion in harmony with that 
 of the state court respecting the construction of the state 
 laws. 
 
 U. S. V. Anderson, 169 Fed. 201. (District Court, 
 D. Idaho, C. D. April i, 1909.) 
 
56 COURTS. 
 
 Jurisdiction vests when the petition for naturalization is Med 
 and notice posted. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the court over the petition for nat- 
 uralization of an alien resident within the judicial district 
 of such court vests at the time the petition is filed and 
 notice given by the clerk of the final hearing thereon ; and 
 the court does not become divested of such jurisdiction 
 by reason of the removal of the residence of the petitioner 
 from the judicial district of such court. 
 
 In re Burke, no N. Y. Supp., 36, 144 N. Y. St. Rep., 
 
 58 Misc. Rep., 3. (Supreme Court, Special term. Kings 
 
 County. February, 1908.) 
 
 Jurisdiction — Exercise of. 
 
 Citizenship in the United States is not a right but a priv- 
 ilege, and can only be granted by the courts in accordance 
 with the laws enacted by Congress. 
 
 In re Buntaro Kumagai, 163 Fed., 922. (Dstrict 
 
 Court, W. D. Washington, N. D. September 3, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Every state has, in general, the right to prescribe the 
 terms upon which it will admit aliens to citizenship, and 
 compliance with those terms is a condition precedent to 
 the power of the court to enter its decree. 
 
 In re Trum, 199 Fed., 361. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Jurisdiction to naturalize aliens is conferred by statute 
 and must be exercised in a special and summary manner; 
 
COURTS. 57 
 
 and a judgment in a naturalization proceeding can only be 
 supported by a record which shows the existence of facts 
 necessary to confer jurisdiction. 
 
 Ex parte Lange, 197 Fed., 769. (District Court, 
 E. D. Missouri, E. D. July 22, 1912.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The state courts may, with the consent of the legislature, 
 exercise the jurisdiction to naturalize conferred by Act 
 Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1909, p. 478), but the jurisdiction must be exercised 
 in conformity with the federal statute, not only as to mat- 
 ters that enter directly into 'the subject of naturalization, 
 but as well in matters of legislation by Congress that are 
 fairly incidental to the exercise of 'the power given by the 
 Constitution to deal with the subject. 
 
 Inhabitants of Hampden County v. Morris, 93 N. E., 
 579, 207 Mass., 167. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- 
 chusetts. January 2, 191 1.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 In authorizing state courts to act in naturalization pro- 
 ceedings the United States government selects such courts 
 and the clerks thereof as government agencies through 
 whom said government is discharging a function of sov- 
 ereignty; and, while Congress has power to confer author- 
 ity upon state courts which they may constitutionally ex- 
 ercise when authorized to do so, it cannot make the acts in 
 that regard a part of their duties as state courts ; and the 
 power conferred and the duties imposed under the naturali- 
 
58 COURTS. 
 
 zation act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), are not ex-oMcio powers and 
 duties belonging to and devolving upon the state office as 
 such. 
 
 Eldridge v. Salt Lake County, ic6 Pac, 939. (Su- 
 preme Court of Utah. January 17, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Evidentiary facts must he proved — Recording. 
 
 Jurisdiction of the subject matter of naturalization vsras 
 conferred under Act of Congress of April 14, 1802, c. 28, 
 Sees. I, 3, 2 Stat. 153, 155 (Rev. St. U. S., Sec. 2165, U. S. 
 Comp St., 1901, p. 1329), and the requisite evidentiary facts 
 in a naturalization proceeding must be proved to the sat- 
 isfaction of the court, but need not be recorded; hence, it 
 is not necessary that the record show one year's residence 
 in the state in which the petition is filed. 
 
 City of Rockland v. Inhabitants of Hurricane Isle, 
 76 Atl., 286. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. No- 
 vember 27, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Declaration of intention less than two years old — 
 Mandatory provisions. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 2, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), requires that an 
 alien "shall make and file" his petition for naturalization 
 "not less than two years nor more than seven years" after 
 he has made such declaration of intention. This provision 
 is mandatory, and the court has no jurisdiction of a petition 
 for naturalization filed less than two years after the making 
 
COURTS. 59 
 
 of the declaration of intention, although the hearing there- 
 on is not until after the expiration of the two years. 
 U. S. V. Van Den Molen, 163 Fed., 650. (District 
 Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D. August 10, 1908.) 
 
 Same — "Judicial District." 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 3, 34 Stat. 596 (U. 
 
 5. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), provides that the natural- 
 ization jurisdiction of all courts herein specified, state, ter- 
 ritorial and federal, shall extend only to aliens resident within 
 the respective judicial districts of such courts. Art. 4, Sec. 
 
 6, Const. Wash., confers jurisdiction upor the Superior Courts 
 of that state within their judicial districts, and by Rem. and 
 Ball. Codes, Sec. 9050, Klickat and Clarke counties, which are 
 in the same judicial district, are presided over by the same 
 judge. Held, that while sitting in Clarke county the Superior 
 Court had jurisdiction to naturalize an alien resident of 
 Klickat county, in the same judicial district. 
 
 U. S. V. Stoller, 180 Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) U. S. v. Shurr, 
 Infra, distinguished. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 3, 34 Stat. 596 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), providing that the 
 naturalization jurisdiction of all courts herein specified, state, 
 territorial and federal, shall extend only to aliens resident 
 within the respective judicial districts of such courts, the Cir- 
 cuit Court for the county of Muskegan, Michigan, is without 
 jurisdiction to naturalize an alien who, both at the time of 
 
6o COURTS. 
 
 filing his petition and at the final hearing thereon, was a resi- 
 dent of Allegan county, Michigan. 
 
 U. S. V. Wayer, 163 Fed., 650. (District Court, W. D. 
 Michigan, S. D. August 7, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 3, 34 Stat. 596 (U. 
 S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), provides that the natural- 
 ization jurisdiction of all courts herein specified, state, terri- 
 torial and federal, shall extend only to aliens resident within 
 the respective judicial districts of such courts. Under this 
 provision the naturalization jurisdiction of a court extends only 
 to aliens resident within its territorial jurisdiction, and the 
 Circuit Court of Michigan, which has jurisdiction only in the 
 county in which it sits, cannot admit an alien to citizenship 
 who resides in another county, although such county is a part 
 of the same judicial circuit over which the judge presides. 
 U. S. V. Schurr, et al, 163 Fed., 648. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Michigan, S. D. August 4, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Under the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 
 3, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), pro- 
 viding that the naturalization jurisdiction of all courts herein 
 specified shall exterid only to aliens resident within the respec- 
 tive judicial districts of such courts, the jurisdiction of district 
 courts of the state of Kansas to naturalize aliens as citizens 
 of the United States extends only to alien residents of the par- 
 ticular county in which the court is at the time sitting; 
 hence, where an alien residing in one county of the judicial 
 
COURTS. 6l 
 
 district of the court files a petition for naturalization in an- 
 other county of the same judicial district, it must be denied 
 for want of jurisdiction. 
 
 U. S. V. Johnson, i8i Fed., 429. (Circuit Court, D. 
 Kansas, First Division. December 18, 1908.) 
 
 Same — Removal of alien from judicial district after -filing a 
 petition for naturalisation. 
 
 A naturalization proceeding is like unto a civil action, the 
 first step of which is the petition provided for by the act of 
 June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 2, 34 Stat. 597 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), and a change of residence of 
 the petitioner from the judicial district in which the petition 
 was filed and before the final hearing thereon' would not affect 
 the jurisdiction of the court, even if section 3 of the act, pro- 
 viding that, "the naturalization jurisdiction of all courts here- 
 in specified, state, territorial and federal, shall extend only to 
 aliens resident within the respective judicial districts of such 
 courts," refers to a judicial district which is but a part of 
 the territory throughout which the court in question has juris- 
 diction. 
 
 U. S. V. Breen, 120 N. Y. Supp., 304. (Supreme Court, 
 
 Appellate Division, Second Department. December 30, 
 
 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the court over the petition for natural- 
 ization of an alien resident within the judicial district of such 
 court vests at the time the petition is filed and notice given by 
 the clerk of the final hearing thereon; and the court does not 
 
62 COURTS. 
 
 become divested of such jurisdiction by reason of the removal 
 of the residence of the petitioner from the judicial district of 
 such court. 
 
 In re Burke, no N. Y. Supp., 36, 144 N. Y. St. Rep., 
 
 58 Misc. Rep., 3. (Supreme Court, Special term, Kings 
 
 County. February, 1908.) 
 
 Records — Validity. 
 
 A record of naturalization need not show jurisdiction, or 
 that all the legal prerequisites have been complied with, nor 
 show the requisite previous declaration of intention to become 
 a citizen, in order to import validity. 
 
 In re Symanowsski, 168 Fed. 978. (Circuit Court, 
 
 N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 29, 1909.) 
 
 Power to correct or purge naturalization records. 
 
 The power of the court to correct or purge its records may 
 be exercised in the case of the naturalization of an alien as 
 well as in any other case in which the court has jurisdiction 
 to act. 
 
 In re Macoluso's Naturalization, 85 Atl., 149. (Su- 
 preme Court of Pennsylvania. July 2, 1912.) 
 
 Certified copy of record prima facie evidence of existence of 
 original. 
 
 A certified copy of a record, by a public officer authorized 
 to make it, not only vouches for its own correctness, but 
 proves prima facie the original to have been in existence when 
 
COURTS. 63 
 
 it was made, an officer's certificate being accorded the sanctity 
 of a deposition. 
 
 U. S. V. Brelin, 166 Fed., 104. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1908.) 
 
 Records — Evidence of naturalization. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 Where no record of naturalization can be produced, evidence 
 that a person having the requisite qualifications to become a 
 citizen did in fact vote and hold office is sufficient to warrant 
 the inference that he had been duly naturalized. (Boyd v. 
 Nebraska, 143 U. S., 135, 12 Sup. Ct., 375, 36 L. Ed., 103, 
 followed.) 
 
 Conover v. Old, yy Atl., 1070. (Supreme Court of 
 New Jersey. Argued June term, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Secondary evidence of naturalization. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 Before proof outside the record of naturalization can be 
 resorted to, some excuse must appear for the substitution of 
 secondary evidence for the documentary proof. 
 
 Conover v. Old, yy Atl., 1070. (Supreme Court of 
 New Jersey. Argued June term., 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 The extreme youth of the respondent at the time of his 
 father's naturalization, the fact that they lived together but 
 little and were at one time alienated from each other, that 
 the father's naturalization was in a distant state and at an 
 unknown place, and that there were other children who might 
 
64 COURTS. 
 
 have the custody of the father's certificate of naturalization, 
 are sufficient to excuse the production of documentary proof 
 of the fact of naturalization. 
 
 Conover v. Old, "jy Atl, 1070. (Supreme Court of 
 New Jersey. Argued June term, 1910.) 
 
 Forged certificate of naturalisation, surrender of. 
 
 A court has power to prevent the continued fraudulent use 
 of its seal by requiring the surrender of a certificate of natural- 
 ization which was a forgery and not authorized by a judgment 
 or decree of the court. 
 
 In re Macoluso's Naturalization, 85 Atl., 149. (Su- 
 preme Court of Pennsylvania. July 2, 1912.) 
 
 Acts in naturalisation proceedings are political, not judicial. 
 
 The admission of aliens to citizenship is not a judicial, but 
 a political act, is not necessarily a business of the courts, and 
 may be lodged by Congress in an executive department of 
 the government, but the courts having been vested with the 
 power to grant citizenship on proof to the satisfaction of the 
 court, the exercise of that power is discretionary and not sub- 
 ject to review. 
 
 U. S. V. Dolla, 177 Fed., loi. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Fifth Circuit. March i, 1910.) 
 
 Function, judicial. 
 
 The function of the court in a naturalization proceeding is 
 judicial. 
 
 In re Bodek, 63 Fed., 815. (Circuit Court, E. D. Penn- 
 sylvania. October 11, 1894.) 
 
COURTS. 65 
 
 Proceedings to be liberally construed. 
 
 In the exercise of naturalization jurisdiction the courts act 
 judicially, and their proceedings are liberally construed, every 
 intendment being in their favor. 
 
 In re Symanowsski, 168 Fed., 978. (Circuit Court, N. 
 
 D. Illinois, E. D. March 29, 1909.) 
 
66 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 Nature of, not judicial. 
 
 The filing of a declaration of intention is not a judicial 
 proceeding, nor is a declaration of intention a judicial in- 
 strument, and it cannot be amended nunc pro tunc. 
 
 In re Stack, 200 Fed., 330. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
 Must be in conformity with law. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 
 An alien applying under the present law for citizenship, 
 must, irrespective of age, at least two years prior to his 
 admission, declare his intention to become a citizen and 
 renounce allegiance to any foreign prince, etc., generally, 
 and particularly to the one of whom he may at the time 
 of application be a subject, or a country of which he may 
 be a citizen. A declaration of such nature is not sufficient 
 unless it is by the alien himself in conformity with the 
 law at the time it is made. 
 
 In re Poirot, 168 Fed., 456. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 1909.) 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 5/ 
 
 Does not naturalise. 
 
 A declaration of intention is in no sense a complete and 
 binding act, and carries no full rights of citizenship before 
 naturalization. 
 
 In re Polsson, 159 Fed., 283. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 California. February 27, 1908.) 
 
 Same, 
 
 An alien who has never been naturalized as a citizen 
 of the United States, is not a citizen by reason of having 
 made declaration of his intention to become such. 
 
 Wallenburg v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 159, Fed., 2'i7. 
 
 (Circuit Court, D. Nebraska. February 14, 1908.) 
 
 Does not require renunciation of allegiance. 
 
 Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), 
 providing that aliens shall make declaration of their in- 
 tention to become citizens of the United States two years 
 at least before applying for naturalization, does not require 
 a renunciation of allegiance to the foreign sovereign, or 
 the actual declaration of allegiance to the United States, at 
 the time the declaration of intention is made. 
 
 In re Symanowsski, 168 Fed. 978. (Circuit Court, 
 
 N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 29, 1909.) 
 
 Absence of declaration from record of naturalization does not 
 import invalidity. 
 
 A record of naturalization need not show jurisdiction, 
 or that all the legal prerequisites have been complied with, 
 
68 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 nor show the requisite previous declaration of intention to 
 become a citizen, in order to import validity. 
 
 In re Symanowsski, i68 Fed., 978. (Circuit Court, 
 N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 29, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Where an alien twenty-five years of age was naturalized 
 April I, 1902, by a court of competent jurisdiction, and his 
 certificate of naturalization recited that he had made his 
 declaration if intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States according to law, it should be accepted as a finding 
 that all other requirements of the law necessary to sustain 
 his application were complied with, and therefore the cer- 
 tificate of naturalization cannot be canceled on the ground 
 that he did not make a declaration of intention two years 
 before his admission to citizenship, the judgment of the 
 court having been based upon a consideration of all the 
 facts. 
 
 U. S. v. Nechman, 183 Fed., 788. (District Court, 
 
 E. D. Michigan. May 12, 1910.) 
 
 Abandonment. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a United States 
 citizen made by an alien prior to returning to his native 
 country, where he intended to remain and where he re- 
 sumed his allegiance and asserted his right to citizenship, 
 is thereby abandoned and will not support a petition for 
 naturalization filed after his return to the United States. 
 In re Cameron, 165 Fed., 112. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, S. D. October 28, 1908.) 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 69 
 
 Age of declaration — Less than two years old. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 2, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), requires that 
 an alien "shall make and file" his petition for naturalization 
 "not less than two years nor more than seven years" after 
 he has made such declaration of intention. This provision 
 is mandatory, and the court has no jurisdiction of a peti- 
 tion for naturalization filed less than two years after the 
 making of the declaration of intention, although the hearing 
 thereon is not until after the expiration of the two years. 
 U. S. V. Van Der Molen, 163 Fed., 650. (District 
 
 Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D. August 10, 1908.) 
 
 Age of declaration made prior to the enactment Act June 
 2p, 1906. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 
 subd. 2, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 528), 
 which provides that petitions for naturalization shall be 
 made and filed not more than seven years after the date 
 of the declaration of intention, does not apply to aliens 
 who declared their intention prior to the enactment of that 
 statute. 
 
 Linger v. Balfour, 149 S. W., 795. (Court of Civil 
 
 Appeals of Texas. March 30, 1912.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A petition for naturalization made in the year 1907 under 
 the provisions of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, 
 c- 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), 
 
70 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 supported by a declaration of intention made under the pro- 
 visions of the Act of Congress of April 4, 1802, c. 28, z 
 Stat. 153, 155 (Rev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 2165 [U. S. Comp. 
 St. 1901, p. 1329]), is not invalid because such declaration 
 of intention was more than seven years old at the time of 
 filing the petition. 
 
 In re Wehrli, 157 Fed., 938. (District Court, E. D. 
 Arkansas, W. D. December 3, 1907.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 In my opinion * * * the true intent of Congress was 
 that aliens declaring their intention to become naturalized 
 after the passage of the act (naturalization act of June 29, 
 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 
 420]), must file their application within seven years after the 
 filing of the declaration of intention, and as to those who filed 
 the declaration of intention before the enactment of the statute 
 they must make their final application within seven years 
 from the enactment of the act. 
 
 Dicta In re Wehrli, 157 Fed., 938. (District Court, 
 
 E. D. Arkansas, W. D. December 3, 1907.) 
 
 Containing name of wrong country and sovereign. 
 
 Aj declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States which sets forth that the declarant is a na- 
 tive of France and intends to renounce allegiance, etc., to 
 the Republic of France, when, in fact, he was a native of 
 Russia and a subject of the Czar of Russia, is void.^ 
 In re Lewkowicz, 169 Fed., 927. (District Court, 
 
 S. D. New York. April 28, 1909.) 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 7I 
 
 Same. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States made under the provisions of the Act of 
 Congress of June 29, 1906, Sec. 4, subd. i, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 
 S96 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 528), which avers the 
 place of birth of the declarant to have been Eisenberg, 
 Germany, and that he intends to forever renounce allegiance 
 particularly to "William II, Emperor of Germany, of which 
 I am a subject," when in fact he was born in Eisenberg, 
 Austria-Hungary, and was at the time of his attempted 
 declaration a subject of the sovereign of that country, is 
 void and not susceptible of amendment; and the hardship 
 resulting to the declarant cannot be relieved against merely 
 because it may appear that the error is clerical, and not 
 his own. 
 
 In re Friedl, 202 Fed., 301. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Wisconsin. January 11, 1913.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States which does not contain the name of the sov- 
 ereign to whom the declarant owes allegiance, or the name 
 of the country of which he is a subject, although the error 
 was that of the clerk before whom the declaration was 
 executed, does not comply with Rev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 2165 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), requiring the declarant to 
 state that it is bona Me his intention to become a citizen 
 of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance 
 and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sov- 
 ereignty, and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, 
 state or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen 
 or subject.^ 
 
 Ex parte Lange, 197 Fed., 769. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Missouri, E. D. July 22, 1912.) 
 
72 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 Failure to renounce allegiance particularly, by name, etc. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States made under Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. 
 Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), which contains a general renun- 
 ciation of allegiance, but fails to renounce allegiance par- 
 ticularly, by name, to the prince, etc., to whom the declar- 
 ant owes allegiance, is vitally defective, and cannot be amended. 
 In re Stack, 200 Fed., 330. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
 Filed in -fictitious or assumed name. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 6, 
 34 Stat. 598 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 532), empowers 
 the court to make a decree changing the name of an alien 
 at the time of his admission to citizenship. The Penal Law 
 (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321, 35 Stat. 1102 [U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1911, p. 1611]), makes it an offense for any one to 
 apply for naturalization in a fictitious or assumed name. 
 Held, that where an alien made declaration of his intention 
 in the name of Isaac Boorvis, and afterwards filed a peti- 
 tion to be made a citizen under his real name of Isaac 
 Brody, he could not be allowed to amend the declaration 
 of intention, but must file a new one in his right name. 
 In re Boorvis, 205 Fed., 401. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. May 5, 1913.) 
 
 Certified copy prima facie evidence of e.vistence of original. 
 
 A certified transcript of a record, showing that the appli- 
 cant had appeared before the clerk of the court and made 
 declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 73 
 
 States and to renounce his existing allegiance, certified the 
 same day to be a full, true and complete transcript of the 
 record as the same then remained in his office, duly attested 
 with the seal of the court, should prevail over the testimony 
 of a deputy clerk seven years later that he had made a 
 thorough search and was unable to find such a record, and 
 that the naturalization records of the court were very poorly 
 kept. 
 
 U. S. V. Brelin, i66 Fed., 104. (Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A certified copy of a record, by a public officer authorized 
 to make it, not only vouches for its own correctness, but 
 proves prima facie the original to have been in existence 
 when it was made, an officer's certificate being accorded 
 the sanctity of a deposition. 
 
 U. S. V. Brelin, 166 Fed., 104. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1908.) 
 
 Removal of naturalisation records from clerk's office not au- 
 thorized. 
 
 The clerk of the United States circuit court has no au- 
 thority to remove the records of the court to a private 
 residence and there take the alien's declaration of intention 
 to become a citizen of the United States. 
 
 In re Langtry, 31 Fed., 879. (Circuit Court, D. Cal- 
 ifornia. July 19, 1887.) 
 
 See also, Santo Scola's Case, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep., 344 
 (1890); Bosa's Application, 6 Kulp, 83 (1890), to the 
 same effect. 
 
74 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 Declaration need not be made in clerk's office. 
 
 The declaration of intention to become a citizen, pro- 
 vided for in Sec. 2165, U. S. Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. 
 St. 1901, p. 1329), need not be made in the office of the 
 clerk of the court in which the same is filed. (Morse, J., 
 dissenting.) 
 
 Andres v. Judge of Circuit Court, 43 N. W., 857, y^ 
 
 Mich., 85, 6 L. R. A., 238. ( Supreme Court of Michigan. 
 
 October 25, 1889.) 
 
 Hawaii, residents of — Repeal. 
 
 The act of June| 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), to provide for a uniform 
 rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United 
 States, in section 26 thereof, repealed all acts or parts of 
 acts inconsistent with, or repugnant to its provisions, in- 
 cluding section 100 of the Organic Act of Hawaii (Act 
 April 30, 1900, c. 339, 31 Stat. 161), providing that for the 
 purposes of naturalization under the laws of the United 
 States, residence in the Hawaiian Islands prior to the tak- 
 ing effect of this act shall be deemed equivalent to residence 
 in the United States and in the territory of Hawaii, and 
 the requirement of a previous declaration of intention to 
 become a citizen of the United States and to renounce 
 former allegiance shall not apply to persons who have re- 
 sided in said islands at least five years prior to the taking 
 effect of this act. 
 
 U. S. V. Rodiek, 162 Fed., 469. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 4, 1908.) 
 
 Declaration made by a minor under 216^ Rev. Stat. U. S., is 
 valid. 
 
 A declaration of intention made by a minor who had 
 reached years of discretion, under 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 75 
 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), is a sufficient basis for a 
 final adjudication under the provisions of the naturalization 
 act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1909, p. 478.) 
 
 In re Shapiro, 186 Fed. 606. (Circuit Court, D. 
 Oregon. April 17, 191 1.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States by an alien who had reached years of dis- 
 cretion, but who had not attained his majority, is valid 
 when made under Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. 
 St. 1901, p. 1329), which requires that an alien shall de- 
 clare his intention at least two years prior to his admission 
 to citizenship, and a declaration so made by an alien 19 
 years old is sufficient. 
 
 U. S. v. George, 164 Fed., 45. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Second Circuit. May 5, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Sec. 2167 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332), 
 providing that an alien who has resided in the United 
 States for three years next preceding his arrival at the age 
 of 21 years, may, under the conditions therein specified, be 
 admitted to citizenship without having previously made a 
 declaration of intention, does not imply that an alien shall 
 in no instance be competent to declare his intention during 
 minority. 
 
 In re Polsson, 159 Fed., 283. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 California. February 27, 1908.) 
 
76 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 Same. 
 
 Under Rev. St. Sec. 2165 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), 
 a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States made by an alien minor of the age of 18 years and 
 upwards is valid, and may be used in support of a petition 
 for naturalization under the naturalization act of June 29, 
 
 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 
 1907, p. 420). 
 
 In re Gross, 160 Fed. 739. (District Court, E. D. 
 New York. February 17, 1908.) 
 
 Same — Ratification. 
 
 Inasmuch as at common law a minor could enter into any 
 contract not expressly prohibited, and if ratified and con- 
 firmed by him at majority it became binding and obligatory 
 and took effect as of the date of its execution, while a dec- 
 laration of intention initiates important rights and obliga- 
 tions, they are admittedly more or less inchoate in char- 
 acter, and a declarant is not required or permitted to rat- 
 ify or confirm his acts until after he has reached majority, 
 there is nothing in the nature of a declaration of intention 
 which on principle a minor should not be competent to 
 make, so long as it appears that he is of sufficient age and 
 understanding to appreciate the act. 
 
 In re Polsson, 159 Fed., 283. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 California. February 27, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States under 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 'J^ 
 
 1901, p. 1329), may be made by a minor just before reach- 
 ing the age of 21 years, and is ratified on filing a petition 
 for naturalization after reaching his majority. 
 
 In re Symanowsski, 168 Fed., 978. (Circuit Court 
 N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 2'9, 1909.) 
 
 Made by a minor under 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S., is void. 
 
 Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), 
 which is general in its terms, and in the absence of Con- 
 gressional enactment excepting minor aliens from its opera- 
 tion would authorize an alien to make a declaration of in- 
 tention during minority, should be construed in connection 
 with Sec. 2167 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 
 1332), which contains an express exception to Sec. 2165, 
 and is in effect a declaration by Congress that no step 
 looking to the acquisition of citizenship shall be taken by 
 an alien prior to the attainment of his majority. 
 
 In re Spitzer, 160 Fed., 137. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 Illinois, E. D. March 18, 1908.) 
 
 Minor son of deceased declarant need not declare intention. 
 
 An alien whose father declared his intention of becoming 
 a citizen of the United States and died prior to September 
 26, 1906, before being naturalized and during the minority 
 of the child, may be naturalized under act of June 29, 1906, 
 Sec. 4, subd. 6, 34 Stat. 596, c. 3592 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1907, p. 422), upon complying with the other provisions 
 of the act, without making a declaration of intention. 
 In re Schmidt, 161 Fed., 231. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. February 5, 1908.) 
 
78 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 Same. 
 
 The provisions of the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, 
 c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 6, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp., 
 1907, p. 422), that when any alien who has declared his 
 intention to become a citizen of the United States dies 
 before he is actually naturalized, the widow and minor 
 children of such alien may, by complying with the other 
 provisions of this act, be naturalized without making any 
 declaration of intention, is a re-enactment of Sec. 2168 Rev. 
 Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332), which was re- 
 pealed by the later statute, and the minor child of an alien 
 who made a declaration of intention under Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. 
 U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), and died prior to the 
 date when the act of June 29, 1906, went into eiifect, may, by 
 complying with the other provisions of the new statute, be 
 naturalized without making any declaration of intention. 
 In re Shearer, 158 Fed., 839. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Pennsylvania. January 20, 1908.) 
 
 Same — Stepchild. 
 
 The declaration of intention of a deceased stepfather 
 inures to the benefit of, and gives an inchoate right to, a 
 minor stepchild of the declarant, entitling him to apply for 
 naturalization in his own behalf upon such declaration of 
 intention under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, cl. 
 6, 34 Stat., 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 480), which 
 provides that, when any alien who has declared his inten- 
 tion to become a citizen of the United States dies before 
 he is actually naturalized, the widow and minor children 
 of such alien may, by complying with the other provisions 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 79 
 
 of this act, be naturalized without making any declaration 
 of intention. 
 
 In re Robertson, 179 Fed., 131. (District Court, 
 M. D. Pennsylvania. February 17, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Time. 
 
 Where an alien declared his intention of becoming a 
 citizen of the United States July 31, 1889, and died March 
 6, 1892, before being naturalized, his minor son, who came 
 to the United States April 25, 1891, when between 9 and 
 10 years of age, may be naturalized pursuant to Sec. 2168 
 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332), as amendetl 
 by the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, %4 Stat. 596 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 480), providing that "when 
 any alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen 
 of the United States dies before he is actually naturalized, 
 the widow and minor children of such alien may, by com- 
 plying with the other provisions of this act, be naturalized 
 without making any declaration of intention" ; and the fact 
 that he did not apply for naturalization until the expiration 
 of six years and five months after reaching majority, and 
 nine years and five months after he became eighteen, when 
 he could first have taken the oaths, would be no bar to his 
 naturalization. 
 
 U. S. v. Poslusny, 179 Fed., 836. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Second Circuit. June 14, 1910.) 
 
 Widozv of deceased United States soldier must declare inten- 
 tion. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 6, 34 Stat. 
 598 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 422), providing that 
 
80 DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 
 
 when any alien who has declared his intention to become 
 a citizen of the United States dies before he is actually- 
 naturalized, the widow and minor children of such alien 
 may, by complying with the other provisions of this Act, 
 be naturalized without making any declaration, does not 
 authorize the naturalization, without previous declaration 
 of intention, of the widow of a deceased alien who had 
 never made declaration of his intention, but who was an 
 honorably discharged soldier, and entitled to admission 
 under Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 
 
 1331)- 
 
 U. S. V. Meyer, 170 Fed., 983. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, S. D. May 27, 1909.) 
 
 Seamen — Certificate of discharge and good conduct. 
 
 Rev. Stat. Sec. 2174 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1334), 
 which provides that every seaman, being a foreigner, who 
 declares his intention of becoming a citizen of the United 
 States in any competent court, and shall have served three 
 years on board of a merchant vessel of the United States 
 subsequent to the date of such declaration, may, on his 
 application to any competent court and the production of 
 his certificate of discharge and good conduct during that 
 time, together with the certificate of his declaration to 
 become a citizen, be admitted as a citizen of the United 
 States, applies to seamen serving on American vessels en- 
 gaged in trade on the Great Lakes ; and where the petitioner 
 for naturalization, a seaman, presents a declaration of in- 
 tention made April 15, 1907, and five certificates of dis- 
 charge made and signed by masters of American vessels 
 and showing service on lake-going steamers for a period 
 subsequent to the date of his declaration of intention aggre- 
 
DECLARATION OF INTENTION. 8l 
 
 gating three years and nineteen days, and good conduct 
 during that time, they are sufficient.^ 
 
 In re Sutherland, 197 Fed., 841. (District Court, 
 N. D. Ohio, E. D. March 28, 1912.) 
 
 ^ The court said : "The declaration as drawn was a complete and 
 intelligible document. It may not have been true — I do no think it 
 was true — ^but such as it was it contained no clerical error, and it is 
 going much tool far to ask any court to correct the error of the 
 applicant or his interpreter, and thus to manufacture an entirely new 
 paper." 
 
 ^Distinguished from Ex Parte Smith, 8 Blackf. (Ind.), 39S, where 
 the declaration of intention omitting the name of the sovereign, being 
 described particularly as "the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland," 
 was held to be a sufficient compliance with the Act of Congress, while 
 in the case at bar the declaration of intention not only omits the name 
 of the sovereign, but also the name of the country whose subject he 
 is by nativity or naturalization. 
 
 ° "Blearing in mind on June 22, 1874, the first revision of the general 
 statutes was adopted by Congress (Revised Statutes 1874), and in that 
 revision Section 29 of the Act of 1872 was taken therefrom and made 
 a part of the title on 'Naturalization' as Section 2174 (R. S., tit. 30, 
 'Naturalization'), by the same revision all other provisions of the 
 Act of 1872 were carried on into the Revised Statutes as part of 
 Title S3, 'Merchant Seamen.' The effect of this revision was to repeal 
 the Act of 1872 as it existed at the date of the Act of 1874. The 
 act of revision (Rev. Stat, Sec. SS96, U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 3750), 
 provided that all acts of Congress passed prior to the first day of 
 December, 1873, 'any portion of which is embraced in any section of 
 said revision, is hereby repealed, and the sections applicable thereto 
 shall be in force in lieu thereof.' As a result of this legislation. 
 Section 2174 became and has since remained a substantive feature 
 of the naturalization laws, and, as no such restriction as that made 
 by the Act of 1874 is to be found in such revision, the section is 
 subject only to such limitation as is to be gathered from its own terms.'' 
 
82 EVIDENCE. 
 
 EVIDENCE. 
 
 Amendment of Record. 
 
 A record of naturalizaton cannot be corrected to show- 
 that the name of the person naturalized was other than that 
 set forth therein in the absence of any entry or memoran- 
 dum among the files of the court or in the office of the 
 clerk by which the record can be corrected ; and a certificate 
 purporting to be a copy of the naturalization record, under 
 the seal of the court and signed by the clerk, filed in sup- 
 port of the application, but which is not sustained by the 
 record, is a nullity and cannot be used to correct the 
 record. 
 
 In re O'Sullivan, 117 S. W., 651. (St. Louis Court of 
 
 Appeals. Missouri. March 23, 1909.) 
 
 Certified copy of declaration of intention prima facie evidence 
 of existence of original. 
 
 A certified transcript of a record, showing that the appli- 
 cant had appeared before the clerk of the court and made 
 declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
 States and to renounce his existing allegiance, certified the 
 same day to be a full, true and complete transcript of the 
 record as the same then remained in his office, duly at- 
 tested with the seal of the court, should prevail over the 
 testimony of a deputy clerk seven years later that he had 
 made a thorough seach and was unable to find such a 
 
EVIDENCE. 83 
 
 record, and that the naturalization records of the court 
 were very poorly kept. 
 
 U. S. V. Brelin, 166 Fed., 104. (Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 4, 1908.). 
 
 Presumption — Rule of evidence. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), is not unconstitutional 
 because it provides that the acquisition of a permanent 
 residence abroad within five years after admission to cit- 
 izenship shall be prima facie evidence of fraud, it being 
 within the power of Congress to establish such a presump- 
 tion as a rule of evidence. 
 
 U. S. v. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 1911.) 
 
 Burden of proof — Arrival. 
 
 In filing a petition for naturalization under the provi- 
 sions of the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), the petitioner must comply with 
 section 4 of that act requiring that he shall state in his 
 petition the name of the vessel upon which he came to the 
 United States and the date of his arrival; and where the 
 government proves prima facie that he did not arrive as 
 alleged, the burden of proof is shifted to the petitioner, 
 who must overcome such prima facie case by counterproof 
 or explanation to the satisfaction of the court, and an ex- 
 planation that he arrived under a fictitious name which he 
 does not remember will not be accepted as satisfactory. 
 In re Kestelman, 165 Fed., 265. (Circuit Court, 
 
 E. D. Pennsylvania. November 12, 1908.) 
 
84 EVIDENCE. 
 
 Absence, material only as evidence of intention. 
 
 The provisions of the Act of Congress of June 29, 1906, 
 c. 3592, Sec. 4, par. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1911, p. 531), providing that "it shall be made to appear 
 to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to cit- 
 izenship that immediately preceding the date of his appli- 
 cation he has resided continuously within the United 
 States five years at least," does not mean that an alien 
 seeking citizenship shall not leave the territorial limits of 
 the United States within the period of five years preceding 
 his application, but has reference to a change of domicile 
 within that period, and the temporary absence of an alien 
 in his native country, without any intention of abandoning 
 his residence in the United States, will not defeat his right 
 to naturalization ; and the length of such absence is material 
 only in its bearing on the question of intention. 
 
 U. S. V. Cantini, 199 Fed., 857. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Pennsylvania. October 8, 1912.) 
 
 Statements of consular ofUcers. 
 
 The statements of United States consular officers in a 
 foreign country to the effect that defendant has established 
 a permanent residence abroad, are admissible in evidence 
 in a proceeding to cancel a certificate of naturalization for 
 fraud under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 
 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485). 
 
 U. S. V. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Residence — Age. 
 
 A petitioner for naturalization must prove the particular 
 facts in respect to residence and age which Section 2167 
 
EVIDENCE. 85 
 
 U. S. Revised Statutes (Repealed, 34 Stat., p. 596 [U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420] ) requires to be established. 
 In re Bodek, 63 Fed., 815. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 Pennsylvania. October 11, 1894.) 
 
 Qualifications of petitioner for naturalisation. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 
 While great caution should be exercised in the examina- 
 tion of applicants for citizenship, yet no hard and fast rule 
 can be laid down. Each case must depend largely upon 
 its special facts. The practical test is whether the evidence, 
 considered as a whole, justifies the conclusion that the ap- 
 plicant will make a good citizen. An applicant otherwise 
 entitled to citizenship should not necessarily be denied the 
 right because the evidence shows that he has no accurate 
 knowledge of the Federal Constitution and form of gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 State ex rel. United States v. District Court of 
 
 Seventeenth Dist., et al., 120 N. W., 898. (Supreme 
 . Court of Minnesota. April 23, 1909.) 
 
 Witnesses — Personal knowledge. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 
 subd. 2, 34 Stat. 597 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 421), 
 declares that an alien may be admitted to become a citizen 
 of the United States in the following manner and not 
 otherwise, and requires that a petition for naturalization 
 shall be verified by at least two credible witnesses, who 
 shall state that they have personally known the applicant 
 
86 EVIDENCE. 
 
 to be a resident of the United States for a period of at 
 least five years continuously * * * and that they each 
 have personal knowledge that the petitioner is a person of 
 good moral character and that he is in every way qualified, 
 in their opinion, to be admitted as a citizen of the United 
 States; and where the two verifying witnesses are the 
 uncle and aunt of the petitioner, who came to this country 
 before the petitioner was born, and who never saw or knew 
 him personally until about two years previous to the filing 
 of the petition, although they had learned, through corre- 
 spondence from relatives and from the petitioner, that he 
 had come to the United States and was residing at Phila- 
 delphia, they are unable to truthfully state that they have 
 personally known the applicant to be a resident of the 
 United States for a period of at least five years continu- 
 ously, and he cannot be admitted.^ 
 
 In re Toomey, in N. Y. Supp., 600, and 145 N. Y. 
 
 St. Rep. (Supreme Court, Special Term, Erie County. 
 
 February, 1908.) 
 
 Soldiers — Degree of proof. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), does not affect 
 the provisions of Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. 
 St. 1901, p. 1331), requiring proof of residence and good 
 moral character "as now provided by law," and an alien 
 who is an honorably discharged soldier of the United States 
 may be admitted a citizen thereunder with the degree of 
 proof required by Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. 
 St. 1901, p. 1330).' 
 
 In re Loftus, 165 Fed., ID02. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. December 14, 1908.) 
 
EVIDENCE. 87 
 
 Depositions, ivhen admissible. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 9, 34 Stat. 
 599 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 424), which requires 
 that the hearing on a petition for naturalization shall be 
 in open court, and that the applicant and witnesses shall 
 be examined before the court and in the presence of the 
 court, the court has no authority to receive and consider 
 evidence taken by deposition, except as provided in sec- 
 tion 10, permitting proof by deposition where the applicant 
 has resided in the State for a period of less than five years. 
 U. S. V. Nisbet, 168 Fed., 1005. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Washington, N. D. March 31, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592', Sec. 9, 34 Stat. 599 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 533), which provides that 
 every final hearing upon a petition for naturalization shall 
 be had in open court before a judge or judges thereof, and 
 every final order which may be made upon such petition 
 shall be under the hand of the court and entered in full 
 upon the record kept for that purpose, and upon such final 
 hearing of such petition the applicant and witnesses shall 
 be examined under oath before the court and in the pres- 
 ence of the court, is mandatory, and, except as provided "in 
 section 10, the court is not authorized to receive or con- 
 sider evidence taken by deposition. 
 
 U. S. v. Kolodner, 199 Fed., 809. (District Court, 
 
 M. D. Pennsylvania. October 26, 1912.) 
 
 "District," construed to mean Federal Judicial District. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 10, 34 Stat. 599 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 533), provides that in case 
 
88 EVIDENCE. 
 
 the petitioner has not resided in the State, Territory or 
 district for a period of five years continuously and imme- 
 diately preceding the filing of his petition he may establish 
 by two witnesses, both in his petition and at the hearing, 
 the time of his residence within the State, provided that 
 it has been for more than one year, and the remaining por- 
 tion of his five years' residence within the United States 
 required by law to be established may be proved by the 
 depositions of two or more witnesses who are citizens of 
 the United States, upon notice to the Bureau of Immigra- 
 tion and Naturalization and the United States Attorney 
 for the district in which said witnesses may reside. Held, 
 that the word "district" refers to the territorial jurisdiction 
 of the federal courts, not to the District of Columbia, and 
 where a petitioner for naturalization has not resided five 
 years continuously within the federal judicial district where 
 he applies for naturalization, but has resided therein for 
 one year continuously immediately preceding the date of 
 his application, proof by deposition may be submitted to 
 establish the additional period necessary to make up five 
 years' residence in the United States. 
 
 (Reversed) U. S. v. Kolodner, 199 Fed., 809. (Dis- 
 trict Court, M. D. Pennsylvania. October 26',, 1912.) 
 
 "District," construed to mean District of Columbia. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 3, 34 Stat. 596 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 529), confers jurisdiction 
 to naturalize aliens upon certain federal and state courts, 
 and the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Sec- 
 tion 4, sub-division 2, provides that the applicant must have 
 been a resident of the United States for five years, and of 
 the State, Territory or district in which the application is 
 
EVIDENCE. 89 
 
 made for one year, immediately preceding the date of the 
 petition. Section 9 provides that every final hearing on a 
 petition for naturalization shall be had in open court before 
 the judge, and that the applicant and witnesses shall be 
 examined under oath before the court and in the presence 
 of the court. Section 10 provides that in case the petitioner 
 has not resided in the State, Territory or district for five 
 years, he may establish the time of his residence within the 
 State by two witnesses, both in his petition and at the final 
 hearing, and the remaining portion of the five years' resi- 
 dence required by law to be established may be proved by 
 deposition. Held, that the word "district" used in conjunc- 
 tion with the words "State" and "Territory" in sections 4 
 and 10, refers to the District of Columbia, and not to the 
 judicial district in which the petition is filed, and a peti- 
 tioner who has resided within the State, but not within the 
 judicial district, for a period of five years, cannot establish 
 a part of the requisite period of residence by deposition. 
 
 U. S. V. Kolodner, 204 Fed., 240. (Circuit Court of 
 Appeals, Third Circuit. April 17, 1913.) 
 
 Reversing U. S. v. Kolodner, 199 Fed., 809, supra. 
 
 Soldiers may prove residence by deposition. 
 
 An honorably discharged United States soldier applying 
 for naturalization under Sec. 2'i66 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. 
 Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), need not prove one year's resi- 
 dence in the state in which the petition is filed; and proof 
 of residence in the United States for one year prior to his 
 application may be made by deposition, section 10 of the 
 naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 599 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 482), being broad enough 
 
90 EVIDENCE. 
 
 to allow depositions to be taken outside of the state when- 
 ever it is essential to prove residence beyond the state. 
 In re McNabb, 175 Fed., 511. (District Court, D. 
 Oregon. December 6, 1909.) 
 
 Evidence of Naturalization. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 Where no record of naturalization can be produced, evi- 
 dence that a person having the requisite qualifications ta 
 become a citizen did in fact vote and hold office is suffi- 
 cient to warrant the inference that he had been duly nat- 
 uralized. (Boyd V. Nebraska, 143 U. S., 135, 12 Sup. Ct.,. 
 375, 36 L. Ed., 103, followed.) 
 
 Conover v. Old, yy Atl., 1070. (Supreme Court of 
 New Jersey. Argued June term, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Secondary Evidence. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 Before proof outside the record of naturalization can be 
 resorted to, some excuse must appear for the substitution, 
 of secondary evidence for the documentary proof. 
 
 Conover v. Old, yy Atl., 1070. (Supreme Court of 
 New Jersey. Argued June term, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 The extreme youth of the respondent at the time of his- 
 father's naturalization, the fact that they lived together 
 
EVIDENCE. 91 
 
 but little and were at one time alienated from each other, 
 that the father's naturalization was in a distant state and 
 at an unknown place, and that there were other children 
 who might have the custody of the father's certificate of 
 naturalization, are sufficient to excuse the production of 
 documentary proof of the fact of naturalization. 
 
 Conover v. Old, jy Atl., 1070. (Supreme Court of 
 New Jersey. Argued June term, 1910.) 
 
 ^ "Information gained by correspondence from others, or even from 
 the applicant, does not, in our opinion, meet the plain intent of the 
 statute." 
 
 ^ "The section does not say that the proof of residence and char- 
 acter shall be as provided by lavir, or as now or hereafter provided 
 by law, but as now provided by law. Effect should be given to the 
 word 'now' if possible, and this can be done by treating the law 
 existing in 1862 upon these points as incorporated under Section 2166, 
 notwithstanding the fact that the general naturalization act of 1802, 
 of which they were a part, has been repealed. All the other provisions 
 of the Act of 1906, not being otherwise expressly regulated in the 
 section, will be applicable to honorably discharged soldiers, viz. : the 
 form and contents of the petition, the oath in open court, the public 
 notice of the petition and hearing on a stated day, not less than 
 ninety days after filing, the exclusion of anarchists and polygamists, 
 etc." 
 
92 GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 
 
 GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 
 
 Character defined. 
 
 Character is what a person is, while reputation is what he 
 is supposed to be. "Character consists of the qualities which 
 constitute the individual; reputation the sum of opinions en- 
 tertained concerning him. The former is interior; the latter 
 external. The one is the substance; the other the shadow." 
 U. S. V. Hrasky, 88 N. E., 1031, 240 111., 560. (Su- 
 preme Court of Illinois. April, 1909.) 
 
 What constitutes good moral character. 
 
 An alien whose moral character measures up to the standard 
 of the average person of the community in which he lives is 
 of good moral character within the provisions of the natural- 
 ization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. 
 St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), requiring a finding that the applicant 
 for citizenship shall have behaved as a man of good moral 
 character. 
 
 In re Hopp, 179 Fed., 561. (District Court, E. D. Wis- 
 consin. May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Perjury. 
 
 What constitutes good moral character may vary in some re- 
 spects in different times and places, but a person who commits 
 
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 93 
 
 perjury does not behave as a man of good moral character and 
 is not, therefore, entitled to admission to citizenship. 
 
 In re Spenser, 5 Sawyer (U. S.), 195. (Circuit Court, 
 
 District of Oregon. July 8, 1878.) 
 
 Perjury. 
 
 An alien naturalized in October, 1904, after a residence in 
 the United States of five years, but upon the false statement 
 that he was less than 18 years of age upon arrival, who vol- 
 untarily surrendered his certificate of naturalization in Oc- 
 tober, 1904, and who, presumably because of ignorance of Eng- 
 lish, and the circumstances surrounding the making of a sub- 
 sequent petition for naturalization, failed to set forth therein 
 that he had previously been in possession of a naturalization 
 certificate, will be allowed to make a new petition setting forth 
 the exact facts, for which purpose his record of good moral 
 character would seem to be sufficient. 
 x./ In re Argento, 159 Fed., 498. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 New York. January 28, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Where an alien, in his petition for naturalization, misnamed 
 one of his children and gave her residence as Providence, when 
 in fact she had never been in the United States, but it did not 
 appear that an attempt was made to conceal the identity or 
 parentage of such child when she came to this country, this 
 discrepancy does not amount to evidence of such a lack of 
 good moral character as to justify denial of the petition on 
 that ground alone. 
 
 In re Camaras, 202 Fed., 1019. (District Court, D. 
 
 Rhode Island. February 19, 1913.) 
 
94 GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 
 
 Same. 
 
 A naturalization proceeding is not adversary, but essentially 
 ex parte, and it is the duty of the applicant to make full and 
 true disclosure of his qualifications; and a certificate of natu- 
 ralization granted to an alien who stated in his petition for 
 naturalization that he was unmarried, when he in fact had a 
 wife and children in his native country whom he had deserted, 
 is subject to cancellation on the ground of fraud. 
 
 U. S. V. Albertini, 206 Fed., 133. (District Court, D. 
 
 Montana. May 28, 1913.) 
 
 Willful disregard of law — Perjury. 
 
 An alien who filed a petition for naturalization verified by 
 a saloonkeeper, in which he stated that he was a clerk, and it 
 is shown at the final hearing thereon that he was a bartender 
 in the witness' saloon, and had within the past five years been 
 found guilty of violating the liquor laws of the State of Kan- 
 sas, and was arrested for selling liquor in violation of an in- 
 junction and sentenced to 30 days in jail and to pay a fine 
 of $100, following which conviction he was paroled, and that 
 the parole had terminated, not only exhibited a willful disre- 
 gard of the laws of the State, but of the orders of the court, 
 and is not well disposed to the good order and happiness flow- 
 ing from attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the 
 United States, and is not entitled to naturalization under the 
 act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. 
 St. Supp. 191 1, p. 529), requiring that during the five years 
 prior to the filing of the petition the applicant shall have be- 
 haved as a man of good moral character, attached to the prin- 
 ciples of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order 
 and happiness of the same. 
 
 In re Trum, 199 Fed., 361. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 95 
 
 Violation of law requiring saloon to be closed Sundays. 
 
 An alien who is in the saloon business, and had known for 
 more than two years that the laws of the State required the 
 closing of saloons on Sunday, but nevertheless regularly kept 
 the back door of his saloon open on that day, and who states 
 that although he should take the oath to support the United 
 States Constitution and laws, would continue to do so, is not 
 eligible to naturalization under the provisions of the act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1907, p. 420), which provides that it shall be made to appear 
 to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to citizenship 
 that immediately preceding the date of his application he has 
 resided continuously within the United States five years at 
 least, and within the state one year at least, and that during 
 that time he has behaved as a man of good moral chracter, 
 attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United 
 States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of 
 the same. 
 
 U. S. V. Hrasky, 88 N. E., 1031, 240 111., 560. (Su- 
 preme Court of Illinois. April, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An applicant for citizenship who, in violation of the state 
 Sunday closing act, keeps his saloon open Sundays, does not 
 show a want of the requisite good moral character required 
 by the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 
 5q6 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), where it is shown 
 that the law has never been enforced because of adverse public 
 sentiment, and he is willing to comply with the law if insisted 
 upon by the proper authorities. (U. S. v. Hrasky, supra, 
 distinguished.) 
 
 In re Hopp, 179 Fed., 561. (District Court, E. D. Wis- 
 consin. May 28, 1910.) 
 
96 GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 
 
 False answers to chief naturalisation examiner during inves- 
 tigation. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, Subd. 4, 34 
 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 191 1, p. 531), which pro- 
 vides that it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the 
 court admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately pre- 
 ceding the date of his application he has resided continuously 
 within the United States five years at least, and within the 
 State or Territory where such court is at the time held one 
 year at least, and that during that time he has behaved as a 
 man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the 
 Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the 
 good order and happiness of the same, an alien whose petition 
 for naturalization was denied because he falsely answered in- 
 quiries made by the Chief Naturalization Examiner during 
 an investigation of the application, will be denied naturaliza- 
 tion on a subsequent petition filed within five years after the 
 date of the offense, as he cannot be said to have behaved as 
 a man of good moral character. 
 
 In re Talarico, 197 Fed., 1018. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Pennsylvania. July 6, 1912.) 
 
 Second degree murder. 
 
 An alien who pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree 
 will not be admitted to citizenship, although his conduct before, 
 and for more than five years since, the commission of the crime 
 reveals no cause for censure. 
 
 In re Ross, 188 Fed., 685. (Circuit Court, M. D. Penn- 
 sylvania. July 29, 191 1.) 
 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 A certificate of naturalization which might immediately be 
 obtained anew will not be canceled on the ground that the 
 
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 97 
 
 holder had not for five years immediately preceding the date 
 of his application for citizenship behaved as a man of good 
 moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution 
 of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and 
 happiness of the same, where it is shown that he was con- 
 victed of drunkenness fifteen times during the ten years prior 
 to the five-year period, and once thereafter, but had reformed 
 and remained sober for more than four and one-half years 
 prior to the filing of his petition for naturalization. 
 
 U. S. V. Dwyer, 170 Fed., 686. (Circuit Court, D. Mas- 
 sachusetts. May i8j 1909.) 
 
 Use of illegal certificate of naturalization. 
 
 (On motion for leave to file a petition for naturalization.) 
 A man cannot be considered to have behaved as a person of 
 good moral character within the meaning of the Naturalization 
 Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, Subd. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. 
 S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 422), when knowingly and wil- 
 fully making a fraudulent or criminal use of a certificate of 
 naturalization issued to him after learning that he was not 
 entitled to the same ; and he can not claim a return to a proper 
 moral standard and the beginning of the statutory five-year 
 period during which good moral character must be shown un- 
 til such fraudulent or criminal use has entirely ceased. 
 
 In re Di Clerico, 158 Fed., 905. (District Court, E. D. 
 New York. January 28, 1908.) 
 
 Term of good moral character — Act involving moral turpitude. 
 
 (On motion for leave to file a petition for naturalization.) 
 Under the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 
 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), an alien who, 
 in 1905, pleaded guilty to a charge involving moral turpitude 
 
98 GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 
 
 (sentence suspended) and filed an application for naturaliza- 
 tion in 1907, which was denied on the ground that he had not 
 behaved as a man of good moral character during the statu- 
 tory five-year period, should not be permitted to file another 
 application for naturalization until the cause of the denial of 
 his previous petition has been cured or removed by a lapse of 
 five years after his plea of guilty. 
 
 In re Guliano, 156 Fed., 420. (District Court, S. D. 
 New York. October 15, 1907.) 
 
 Petitioner's testimony. 
 
 The good moral character of a petitioner for naturalization 
 must be competently established, and for this purpose the peti- 
 tioner's testimony is of little or no weight. 
 
 In re Bodek, 63 Fed., 815. (Circuit Court, E. D. Penn- 
 sylvania. October 11, 1894.) 
 
 Pardon, effect of — Not retrospective. 
 
 A pardon is prospective and not retrospective in its oper- 
 ation ; and while it absolves the offender from the guilt of his 
 offense and relieves him from the legal disabilities consequent 
 thereon, it does not obliterate or wipe out the fact of the com- 
 mission of the crime, so that it cannot be made to appear on an 
 application to be admitted to citizenship. 
 
 In re Spenser, 5 Sawyer (U. S.), 195. (Circuit Court, 
 
 District of Oregon. July 8, 1878.) 
 
 Judicial discretion. 
 
 In a petition for naturalization the court must determine, 
 taking into account the whole career of the applicant, whether 
 he possesses the necessary qualifications for citizenship, and 
 
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 99 
 
 where it appears that the applicant has not behaved as a man 
 of good moral character while in the United States, the court, 
 in the exercise of a sound discretion, may refuse his petition, 
 notwithstanding his good behavior during the preceding five 
 years. 
 
 In re Ross, i88 Fed., 685. (Circuit Court, M. D. Penn- 
 sylvania. July 29, 191 1.) 
 
lOO JUDGMENTS. 
 
 JUDGMENTS. 
 
 Nature of judgment granting citizenship. 
 
 An order admitting to citizenship, being a judgment with 
 the ordinary attributes of a court of record importing verity, 
 is as conclusive as such judgments. 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, i8o Fed., 137. (District Court, 
 
 D. Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Characteristics of judgment granting citizenship. 
 
 An order of a court of competent jurisdiction admitting 
 an alien to citizenship is a judgment, possessing all the 
 characteristics of an ordinary judgment. 
 
 In re Tinn, 84 Pac, 152. (Supreme Court of Cal- 
 ifornia. March 14, 1906.) 
 
 What constitute judgments — Entitled to record when duly 
 pronounced — Directory provisions of statute. 
 
 The judgment of a court is its pronouncement from the 
 bench, the written fact is but the evidence of what the 
 court has decided, and the requirement that the judge sign 
 it is directory. Judgments duly pronounced, but not en- 
 tered, are entitled to record. 
 
 U. S. V. Stoller, 180 Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) 
 
JUDGMENTS. 101 
 
 Time of taking effect. 
 
 A judgment or decree becomes a finality as to the parties 
 and their privies on failure to initiate proceedings for re- 
 view within the term fixed by law. 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, i8o Fed., 137. (District Court, 
 
 D. Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Record must show existence of jurisdictional facts. 
 
 Jurisdiction to naturalize aliens is conferred by statute 
 and must be exercised in a special and summary manner; 
 and a judgment in a naturalization proceeding can only 
 be supported by a record which shows the existence of facts 
 necessary to confer jurisdiction. 
 
 Ex parte Lange, 197 Fed., 769. (District Court, 
 
 E. D. Missouri, E. D. July 22, 1912.) 
 
 Construction of record. 
 
 Where an alien twenty-five years of age was naturalized 
 April I, 1902, by a court of competent jurisdiction, and 
 his certificate of naturalization recited that he had made 
 his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the 
 United States according to law, it should be accepted as 
 a finding that all other requirements of the law necessary 
 to sustain his application were complied with, and there- 
 fore the certificate of naturalization cannot be canceled on 
 the ground that he did not make a declaration of intention 
 two years before his admission to citizenship, the judgment 
 of the court having been based upon a consideration of all 
 the facts. 
 
 U. S. V. Nechman, 183 Fed., 788. (District Court, 
 
 E. D. Michigan. May 12, 1910.) 
 
102 JUDGMENTS. 
 
 Same — Clerk's omission or inadvertence. 
 
 Every reasonable intendment of construction should be 
 applied to give effect to a record of naturalization as would 
 be allowed to sustain a record in ordinary cases; and an 
 alien who has complied with all the requirements of the 
 Act of Congress of April 14, 1802, c. 28, Sees, i, 3, 2 Stat. 
 I53> 15s (Rev. St. U. S., Sec. 2165 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 
 p. 1329]), should not be deprived of his privileges on account 
 of some immaterial omission or inadvertence of a clerk in 
 making up the record. 
 
 City of Rockland v. Inhabitants if Hurricane Isle, 76 
 Atl., 286. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Novem- 
 ber 27, 1909.) 
 
 Validity — Legal prerequisites — Declaration of intention. 
 
 A record of naturalizaton need not show jurisdiction or 
 that all the legal prerequisites have been complied with, 
 nor show the requisite previous declaration of intention 
 to become a citizen, in order to import validity. 
 
 In re Symanowsski, 168 Fed., 978. (Circuit Court, 
 
 N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 29, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Recording. 
 
 Under the Act of Congress of April 14, 1802, c. 28, Sees. 
 I, 3, 2 Stat. 153, 15s (Rev. St. U. S. Sec. 2165 [U. S. Comp. 
 St. 1901, p. 1329]), the court has power to confer or deny 
 citizenship, depending upon whether or not the essential 
 facts are proved, and, in either event, the judgment is valid 
 and should be recorded. 
 
 City of Rockland v. Inhabitants of Hurricane Isle, 
 76 Atl., 286. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. No- 
 vember 27, 1909.) 
 
JUDGMENTS. IO3 
 
 Not void for non-compliance ivith directory provisions of 
 statute. 
 
 The provisions of the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 
 4, subd. 2, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 
 478), requiring a petition for naturalization to be filed in 
 duplicate, is directory, and the failure to so file the petition 
 does not render nugatory the judgment of the court admit- 
 ting the applicant to citizenship. 
 
 U. S. V. Stoller, 180 Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) 
 
 Res Judicata — Estoppel by. judgment — Judgments procured 
 ex parte not conclusive. 
 
 The foundation of the doctrine of res judicata, or estoppel 
 by judgment, is that both parties have had their day in 
 court, and a certificate of naturalization procured ex parte 
 is not entitled to conclusive eflEect against the public, and 
 is open like other public grants to be revoked if found to 
 have been unlawfully or fraudulently procured. 
 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct., 613, 225 U. S., 
 
 227, 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 12, 
 
 1912. — Decided May 2y, 1912.) 
 
104 MARINES. 
 
 MARINES. 
 
 Posting notice. 
 
 There is no repugnance between the act of July 26, 1894, 
 c. 165, 28 Stat. 124 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332), pro- 
 viding for the naturalization of any alien who has enlisted 
 or may enlist in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, 
 and has served or may hereafter serve five consecutive years 
 in the United States Navy or one enlistment in the United 
 States Marine Corps, and has been or may hereafter be 
 honorably discharged, without any previous declaration of 
 intention of becoming a citizen of the United States upon 
 proof of good moral character and honorable discharge 
 from the United States Navy or Marine Corps, and the act 
 of; June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1909, p. 478), providing for a uniform rule for the 
 naturalization of aliens throughout the United States, and 
 the provision in the latter act requiring notice of a peti- 
 tion for naturalization to be posted for ninety days prior 
 to the final hearing thereon is applicable tO' petitions filed 
 under the act of July 26, 1894. 
 
 U. S. v. Peterson, 182 Fed., 289. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 11, 1910.) 
 
 Term of enlistment — Disability, discharge for before expira- 
 tion of term of enlistment. 
 
 An alien who enlisted in the United States Marine Corps 
 and was honorably discharged therefrom for physical dis- 
 
MARINES. 105 
 
 ability before the expiration of his term of service, is not 
 entitled to naturalization without having previously de- 
 clared his intention of becoming a citizen of the United 
 States, upon proof of good moral character and honorable 
 discharge, under the act of July 26, 1894, c. 165, 28 Stat. 
 124 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332), as amended by the 
 Naval Appropriation Act March 3, 1901, c. 852, 31 Stat. 
 1 132 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1095), providing that any 
 alien of the age of twenty-one years and upwards who has 
 enlisted or may enlist in the United States Navy or Marine 
 Corps, and has served or may hereafter serve five consecutive 
 years in the United States Navy or one enlistment in the 
 United States Marine Corps, and has been or may here- 
 after be honorably discharged, shall be admitted to become 
 a citizen of the United States upon his petition, without 
 any previous declaration of his intention to become such. 
 U. S. V. Plaistow, 189 Fed., 1006. (District Court, 
 W. D. New York. August 2, 1910.) 
 
 Japanese Marine not eligible to naturalisation. 
 
 An alien of the Japanese race is not eligible to naturali- 
 zation under the provisions of the Act of Congress of July 
 26, 1894, 28 Stat. 124, c. 165 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1332). 
 Bessho V. U. S., 178 Feb., 245. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Fourth Circuit. February i, 1910.) 
 
I06 NATURALIZATION. 
 
 NATURALIZATION. 
 
 Naturalisation is a political^ not a judicial act, and may be 
 vested by Congress in an executive department of the 
 government. 
 
 The admission of aliens to citizenship is not a judicial, 
 but a political act, is not necessarily a business of the 
 courts, and may be lodged! by Congress in an executive 
 department of the government, but the courts having been 
 vested with the power to grant citizenship on proof to the 
 satisfaction of the court, the exercise of that power is dis- 
 cretionary and not subject to review. 
 
 U. S. V. Dolla, 177 Fed., loi. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Fifth Circuit. March i, 1910.) 
 
 Uniform rule of naturalization. 
 
 Under Consti. U. S., Art. i. Sec. 8, giving Congress 
 power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and to 
 make all laws necessary and proper for carrying the power 
 into execution. Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the 
 subject of naturalization. 
 
 Inhabitants of Hampden County v. Morris, 93 N. E., 
 579, 207 Mass., 167. (Supreme Judicial Court of Mas- 
 sachusetts. January 2, 191 1.) 
 
NATURALIZATION. IO7 
 
 Same. 
 
 Every state has, in general, the right to prescribe the 
 terms upon which it will admit aliens to citizenship, and 
 compliance with these terms is a condition precedent to the 
 power of the court to enter its decree. 
 
 In re Trum, 199 Fed., 361. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Naturalization is a matter of statute, which is of uniform 
 application, and should have uniform construction through- 
 out all the states. 
 
 In re Rousos, 119 N. Y. Supp., 34. (Supreme Court. 
 
 Special Term. Monroe County. September 28, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The Congress of the United States has exclusive power 
 to provide for naturalization, and is required to establish 
 a uniform rule for all states. Naturalization is therefore a 
 national right and privilege rather than a state right. 
 Dicta in Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson 
 
 County, 48 So., 788. (Supreme Court of Alabama. 
 
 February 2, 1909.) 
 
 Re-naturalisation. 
 
 The naturalization laws of the United States apply only 
 to aliens. 
 
 Dicta In re Alverto, 198 Fed., 688. (District Court, 
 E. D. Pennsylvania. September 24, 1912.) 
 
I08 NATURALIZATION. 
 
 Same — Restoration of records. 
 
 The naturalization laws of the United States apply only 
 to aliens, and not to citizens, hence an alien who has been 
 naturalized by a court of competent jurisdiction, and there- 
 fore ceased to be an alien, but who is unable to prove his 
 citizenship by reason of the loss of his certificate and the 
 destruction of the records of the court in which he was 
 naturalized, is not entitled to re-naturalization in order that he 
 may have evidence of his citizenship, his remedy being by pro- 
 ceeding in that court to restore the record. 
 
 In re Buck, 204 Fed., 701. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Arkansas, E. D. May 6, 1913.) 
 

 Jja^OR NATURALIZATION. 
 
 PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. 
 
 109 
 
 Nature of petition for naturalization — Facts — Evidence. 
 
 An applicant for naturalization is a suitor, who, by his pe- 
 tition, institutes a proceeding in a court of justice for the ju- 
 dicial determination of an asserted right, and such petition 
 must allege the existence of all facts, and the fulfillment of all 
 conditions, upon the existence and fulfillment of which the 
 statutes which confer the right asserted have made it depend- 
 ent, and must be supported by evidence to establish its material 
 allegations. 
 
 In re Bodek, 63 Fed., 815. (Circuit Court, E. D. Penn- 
 sylvania. October 11, 1894.) 
 
 Adjudication of petition for naturalization — Recording judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Petitions must be filed at or before the time of their pres- 
 entation, and the judgment upon them will be formally en- 
 tered, as well in cases where it is adverse as in those in which 
 it is favorable to the petitioner. 
 
 In re Bodek, 63 Fed., 815. (Circuit Court, E. D. Penn- 
 sylvania. October 11, 1894.) 
 
 Filing petition for naturalisation — Duty of Clerk. 
 
 The clerks of federal courts are not subject to instruction by 
 district attorneys, or by the United States itself, as a party to 
 
no PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. 
 
 a judicial proceeding, but it is their duty to file petitions for 
 naturalization which contain all proper allegations, though in 
 their judgment the petitioner is not eligible to naturalization 
 as a citizen of the United States because of race, color, or 
 other disqualification. 
 
 In re Halladjian, et al., 174 Fed., 834. (Circuit Court, 
 D. Massachusetts. December 24, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Act June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 3, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. 
 St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), is mandatory upon clerks of United 
 States courts in requiring them to receive, file and enter ap- 
 plications for citizenship immediately upon receipt thereof. 
 Marvin v. U. S., 45 Ct. CI., 528. 
 
 Receiving and entering petition for naturalization — Basis. 
 
 Cases involving the naturalization of aliens are placed by 
 statute on the same footing as bankruptcy proceedings and 
 chancery and admiralty business, so far as receiving and enter- 
 ing the petitions are involved. 
 
 Marvin v. U. S., 45 Ct. CL, 528. 
 
 Refiling petition for naturalisation. 
 
 Where a petition for naturalization is defective in that one 
 of the verifying witnesses is disqualified because not a citizen 
 of the United States, it would be more orderly for the clerk 
 to refile the petition and give it a new consecutive number 
 upon the records than to permit its amendment by the substi- 
 
PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. Ill 
 
 tution of a competent witness and redating the witnesses' 
 affidavit, but the absence of a fihng endorsement or calciidar 
 entry by the clerk with reference to a petition which is actually 
 filed, and upon which the clerk has acted, is immaterial, if the 
 fact of filing sufficiently appears. 
 
 U. S. V. Erickson, i88 Fed., 747. (District Court, W. 
 D. Michigan. S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
 Motion for leave to file petition for naturalization. 
 
 An alien who is in doubt regarding his right to naturaliza- 
 tion under the provisions of the naturalization act of June 29, 
 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 
 420), may have the matter determined on motion for leave to 
 file a petition for naturalization, upon notice to the United 
 States attorney for the appropriate district. 
 
 In re GuHano, 156 Fed., 420. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. October 15, 1907.) " " 
 
 Chronological filing of petitions for naturalization — materiality. 
 
 The provisions of Sec. 14 of the naturalization act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, 
 p. 478), providing that declarations of intention and petitions 
 for natiiralization shall be bound in chronological order, merely 
 define the duties of the officers having such matters in charge, 
 and if they have so prepared and bound the applications that 
 the provisions of the section cannot be observed it should not 
 affect the right of the applicant, who has complied with all 
 the formalities of law and has shown himself entitled to ad- 
 mission. The privileges given him by statute should not be 
 made subservient to mere matters of form. 
 
 Dicta In re Freeze, 189 Fed., 1022. (District Court, D. 
 
 Oregon. September 4, 191 1.) 
 
112 PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. 
 
 Duplicate filing — Judgments not void for non-compliance with 
 directory provisions of statute. 
 
 The provisions o* the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 
 4, Subd. 2, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), 
 requiring a petition for naturalization to be filed in duplicate, 
 is directory, and the failure to so file the petition does not ren- 
 der nugatory the judgment of the court admitting the applicant 
 to citizenship. 
 
 U. S. V. Stoller, 180 Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) 
 
 Signature to petition for naturalization. 
 
 A petition for naturalization filed under the act of June 29, 
 1906, 34 Stat. 596, c. 3592 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 
 420), supported by a declaration of intention filed during the 
 ninety days between the passage of that act and the date it 
 became effective, must be signed by the applicant in his own 
 handwriting.^ 
 
 In re Martinovsky, 171 Fed., 601. (District Court, W. 
 
 D. Pennsylvania. July 13, 1909.) 
 
 Verification of petition for naturalisation by one witness on 
 one day and by another witness on the following day. 
 
 A petition for naturalization under the provisions of the 
 naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), signed and verified 
 by the petitioner and one witness on one day and by another 
 witness on the following day, is valid, the same having been 
 filed on the day when signed and verified by the second witness 
 and notice duly posted by the clerk. 
 
 In re Freeze, 189 Fed., 1022. (District Court, D. 
 
 Oregon. September 4, 191 1.) 
 
PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. II3 
 
 Veriftcation of petition for naturalisation — Number of wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 While the aiSdavit of verifying witnesses to a petition for 
 naturalization under the provisions of the naturalization act of 
 June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, Subd. 2, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), must show the requisite period 
 of residence of the petitioner, such showing need not be made 
 by the same witnesses as to the entire period, and so long as 
 there are at least two credible witnesses testifying as to each 
 fraction of such period so as to cover the whole, the require- 
 ment of the statute is satisfied. 
 
 In re Godlover, 181 Fed., 731. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 California. September 20, 1910.) 
 
 Soldier's petition for naturalisation does not require veriUca- 
 tion. 
 
 The petition for naturalization of an honorably discharged 
 United States soldier under Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. 
 S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), need not be verified by two wit- 
 nesses, as provided by the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, 
 c- 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), 
 the phrase "as now provided by law," contained in Sec. 2166, 
 having reference to statutes in existence at the time of its 
 enactment. 
 
 In re McNabb, 175 Fed., 511. (District Court, D. Ore- 
 gon. December 6, 1909.) 
 
 ' "It is true that the thirty-first section of the act provides that 
 the act shall take effect and be in force from and after ninety days 
 from the date of its passage, with the proviso that certain sections, 
 not including Section 4, shall go into effect immediately upon the 
 passage of the act ; and it is true that the declaration of the applicant's 
 intention was made within the ninety days from the date of the pas- 
 
114 PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION. 
 
 sage of the act. But the act clearly means what it says, and that the 
 declaration of intention was made before the act should take effect, 
 but subsequent to its passage, is no reason why the provisions of the 
 act should be ignored." 
 
RESIDENCE. IIS 
 
 RESIDENCE. 
 
 Residence abroad — Intention, determined by acts rather than 
 declarations. 
 
 While an alien's residence under Rev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 2170 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), which required an applicant 
 for citizenship to have resided in the United States for the 
 continued term of five years next preceding his admission to 
 citizenship, depends largely upon intention, such intention is to 
 be gathered from his acts rather than from his declarations. 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, 180 Fed., 137. (District Court, D. 
 
 Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Residence abroad after naturalization — How determined — 
 Intention. 
 
 Residence is not determined by defendant's expression of 
 a definite desire to retain his residence in the United States, 
 but by his physical residence in the foreign country, coupled 
 with his intention to remain there for an indefinite period. 
 U. S. V. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Sam,e. 
 
 Where a person's intention to reside abroad is limited to 
 a period itself determined by some definite event, even though 
 the occurrence of that event may be uncertain, he has not 
 
Il6 RESIDENCE. 
 
 the requisite intention to establish a new domicile, and this is 
 particularly true where a person goes abroad to remain until 
 he is restored to health, in which case he has no intention of 
 indefinite residence; but if he does not expect to return at all 
 he will lose his original domicile, even though due to the fact 
 that he cannot live in the country from which he came. 
 U. S. V. Luria, 184 Fed., 643. (District Court, S. D. 
 New York. January 27, 191 1.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 In a proceeding to cancel a certificate of naturalization under 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), a decree is authorized where 
 it is shown that the alien was naturalized August 11, 1899, 
 arrived in South Africa November 23d of the same year, and 
 engaged in business there, where he continued to reside until 
 after March 11, 1910, when a suit was instituted to cancel his 
 certificate of citizenship, it further appearing that he had 
 stated to the United States consul that he did not know when 
 he could return to the United States, that he was not engaged 
 solely as a representative of American trade and commerce, 
 that his residence abroad was not for reasons of health or edu- 
 cation, and that no controlling exigency beyond his power to 
 foresee had prevented him from carrying out a bona Me in- 
 tention of returning to the United States. 
 
 U. S. V. Ellis, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 191 1.) 
 
 Continuous residence. 
 
 Under Rev. Stat., Sec. 2170 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 
 I333)> which required that no alien shall be admitted to become 
 a citizen who has not for a continued term of five years next 
 
RESIDENCE. 117 
 
 preceding his admission resided within the United States, an 
 alien who left the United States and returned to his native 
 country, where his family always lived, resumed his regular 
 occupation and remained there four and one-half years, cannot 
 claim to have been a resident of the United States while so 
 absent. 
 
 U. S. v. Aakervik, i8o Fed., 137. (District Court, D. 
 Oregon. June 20, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, Subd. 4, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 422), which requires 
 that it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court 
 admitting an alien to citizenship that immediately preceding 
 the date of his application he has resided continuously within 
 the United States five years at least, and within the state or 
 territory where such court is at the time held one year at least, 
 the word "continuously" is not to be construed literally, the 
 word "residence" being used in the sense of domicile, and a 
 sailor who has acquired a domicile does not abandon it by 
 going to sea in the course of his employment. 
 
 In re Schneider, 164 Fed., 335. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. October 2, 1908.) 
 
 Continuous residence — Physical absence — Fraud — Illegality. 
 
 The residence in the United States for a period of at least 
 five years, required as a prerequisite to naturalization under 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 422), is broken by the physical 
 absence of the alien from the United States for seven 
 months, during which time he obtained admission to 
 another allegiance; and his certificate of naturalization as 
 
Il8 RESIDENCE. 
 
 a citizen of the United States granted under these condi- 
 tions was fraudulently or illegally procured, and subject to 
 cancellation on either ground. 
 
 U. S. V. Simon, 170 Fed., 680. (Circuit Court, D. 
 Massachusetts. May 25, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Temporary absence, length of material only as evidence 
 of intention. 
 
 The provisions of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906, 
 c. 3592, Sec. 4, par. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1911, p. 531), providing that "it shall be made to appear 
 to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to cit- 
 izenship that immediately preceding the date of his appli- 
 cation he has resided continuously within the United States 
 five years at least," does not mean that an alien seeking 
 citizenship shall not leave the territorial limits of the United 
 States within the period of five years preceding his appli- 
 cation, but has reference to a change of domicile within 
 that period, and the temporary absence of an alien in his 
 native country, without any intention of abandoning his 
 residence in the United States, will not defeat his right to 
 naturalization; and the length of such absence is material 
 only in its bearing on the question of intention. 
 
 U. S. v. Cantini, 199 Fed., 857. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Pennsylvania. October 8, 1912.) 
 
 Five years' residence in the United States — Fraud — Illegality. 
 
 The act of June 2^9, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), which authorizes a 
 suit by the United States to cancel a certificate of naturali- 
 zation on the ground of fraud or that it was illegally pro- 
 cured, is constitutional, and the United States may main- 
 
RESIDENCE. II9 
 
 tain a suit thereunder in a federal court to cancel a certifi- 
 cate issued by a state court under that act or former stat- 
 utes, on the ground of fraud, in that the allegation and 
 evidence that the applicant had resided in the United States 
 five years was untrue. 
 
 U. S. V. Spohrer, 175 Fed., 440. (Circuit Court, D. 
 New Jersey. January 14, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Intention — Protection abroad. 
 
 A certificate of naturalization granted to an alien who 
 had not been a bona fide resident of the United States for 
 five years before his admission to citizenship, and who did 
 not, at the time of naturalization, intend to become a res- 
 ident of the United States, but desired a certificate to secure 
 protection abroad, will be canceled for fraud. 
 
 U. S. V. Mansour, 170 Fed., 671. (District Court, 
 
 S. D. New York. August 18, 1908.) 
 
 Petitioner's testimony as to residence. 
 
 The residence of a petitioner for naturalization must be 
 competently established, and for this purpose the peti- 
 tioner's testimony is of little or no weight. 
 
 In re Bodek, 63 Fed., 815. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Pennsylvania. October 11, 1894.) 
 
 Intention to become a permanent resident. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), is retrospective in so 
 far as it applies to certificates of naturalization granted 
 prior to its passage, but is not therefore void as depriving 
 the person naturalized of vested rights, or subjecting him 
 
I20 RESIDENCE. 
 
 to a penalty, since the Constitution contemplates that only 
 those who intend to become permanent residents shall be 
 naturalized or retain their citizenship, section i of the four- 
 teenth amendment providing that "All persons born or nat- 
 uralized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction 
 thereof are citizens of the United States and of the states 
 wherein they reside." 
 
 U. S. V. Ellis, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 1911.) 
 
 Same — Fraud. 
 
 Where an alien admitted to citizenship under Sec. 2165 
 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329), providing 
 that only those persons possessing the necessary qualifica- 
 tions and intending bona Me to become citizens could be 
 naturalized, did not in good faith intend to become a per- 
 manent citizen, and made his oath with a mental reserva- 
 tion to that effect, he is guilty of fraud in procuring the 
 decree, and the certificate of citizenship may be canceled 
 under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 34 Stat. 601 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 485), authorizing the can- 
 cellation of certificates of naturalization on the ground of 
 fraud. 
 
 U. S. V. Ellis, 185 Fed., 546. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Louisiana, New Orleans Division. March 3, 191 1.) 
 
SAILORS. 121 
 
 SAILORS. 
 
 Residence. 
 
 The knowledge of the witnesses to a petition for natural- 
 ization filed under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 
 subd. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 422), 
 who testify to the residence of the applicant in the state 
 and the United States for the required period, need only be 
 appropriate to the applicant's employment, and where he 
 served for a portion of the time in the United States Navy, 
 their testimony that he resided at a certain place prior to 
 his enlistment and that he returned there at intervals during 
 his service in the navy and after his discharge, meets the 
 requirements of the statute. 
 
 In re Schneider, 164 Fed., 335. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. October 2, 1908.) 
 
 Continuous residence. 
 
 The act of June 2'9, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 4, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 422), which requires 
 that it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the 
 court admitting an alien to citizenship that immediately pre- 
 ceding the date of his application he has resided contin- 
 uously within the United States five years at least, and 
 within the state or territory where such court is at the 
 time held one year at least, the word "continuously" is not 
 to be construed literally, the word "residence" being used 
 in the sense of domicile, and a sailor who has acquired a 
 
122 SAILORS. 
 
 domicile does not abandon it by going to sea in the course 
 of his employment. 
 
 In re Schneider, 164 Fed., 335. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 New York. October 2, 1908.) 
 
 Posting notice. 
 
 There is no repugnance between the act of July 26, 1894, 
 c. 165, 28 Stat. 124 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332), pro- 
 viding for the naturalization of any alien who has enlisted 
 or may enlist in the United States Navy or Marine Corps, 
 and has served or may hereafter serve five consecutive 
 years in the United States Navy or one enlistment in the 
 United States Marine Corps, and has been or may here- 
 after be honorably discharged, without any previous decla- 
 ration of intention of becoming a citizen of the United 
 States upon proof of good moral character and honorable 
 discharge from the United States Navy or Marine Corps, 
 and the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), providing for a uniform rule 
 for the naturalization of aliens throughout the United 
 States, and the provision in the latter act requiring notide 
 of a petition for naturalization to be posted for ninety days 
 prior to the final hearing thereon is applicable to petitions 
 filed under the act of July 26, 1894. 
 
 U. S. V. Peterson, 182 Fed., 289. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 11, 1910.) 
 
 Japanese sailors not eligible to naturalization. 
 
 An alien of the Japanese race is not eligible to naturali- 
 zation under the provisions of the Act of Congress of July 
 26, 1894, 28 Stat. 124, c. 165 (U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 1332). 
 Bessho V. U. S., 178 Fed., 245. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Fourth Circuit. February i, 1910.) 
 
SEAMEN. 123 
 
 SEAMEN. 
 
 Certificate of discharge and good conduct. 
 
 An alien who after declaring his intention to become a 
 citizen of the United States shall have served three years 
 on board a merchant vessel of the United States, coastwise 
 or other, may, on production of his certificate of discharge 
 and good conduct during that time, be admitted to citizen- 
 ship under Rev. Stat. 2174 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1334) ; 
 and such certificate of discharge and good conduct may be 
 made by either a master or shipping commissioner. 
 
 In re Lind, 192 Fed., 209. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 California. December i, 1911.) 
 
 Same — Declaration of Intention. 
 
 Rev. Stat. Sec. 2174 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1334), 
 which provides that every seaman, being a foreigner, who 
 declares his intention of becoming a citizen of the United 
 States in any competent court, and shall have served three 
 years on board of a merchant vessel of the United States 
 subsequent to the date of such declaration, may, on his 
 application to any competent court and the production of 
 his certificate of discharge and good conduct during that 
 time, together with the certificate of his declaration of in- 
 tention to become a citizen, be admitted as a citizen of the 
 United States, applies to seamen serving on American ves- 
 sels engaged in trade on the Great Lakes; and where the 
 
124 SEAMEN. 
 
 petitioner for naturalization, a seaman, presents a declara- 
 tion of intention made April 15, 1907, and five certificates 
 of discharge made and signed by masters of American ves- 
 sels showing service on lake-going steamers for a period 
 subsequent to the date of his declaration of intention aggre- 
 gating three years and nineteen days, and good conduct 
 during that time, they are sufficient.^ 
 
 In re Sutherland, 197 Fed., 841. (District Court, 
 N. D. Ohio, E. D. March 28, 1912.) 
 
 '- "Bearing in mind on June 22, 1874, the first revision of the general 
 statutes was adopted by Congress (Revised Statutes 1874), and in 
 that revision Section 29 of the Act of 1872 was taken therefrom and 
 made a part of the title on 'Naturalization,' as Section 2174 (R. S. 
 tit. 30, 'Naturalization'), by the same revision all other provisions 
 of the Act of 1872 were carried on into the Revised Statutes as part 
 of Title S3, 'Merchant Seamen.' The effect of this revision was to 
 repeal the Act of 1872 as it existed at the date of the Act of 1874. 
 The act of revision (Rev. Stat., Sec. 5596 [U. S. Comp. St., 1901, p. 
 3750]), provided that all acts of Congress passed prior to the first day 
 of December, 1873, 'any portion of which is embraced in any section 
 of said revision, is hereby repealed, and the sections applicable thereto 
 shall be in force in lieu thereof.' As a result of this legislation. 
 Section 2174 became and has since remained a substantive feature of 
 the naturalization laws, and, as no such restriction as that made by 
 the act of 1874 is to be found in such revision, the section is subject 
 only to such limitation as is to be gathered from its own terms." 
 
SOLDIERS. 125 
 
 SOLDIERS. 
 
 Verification of petition for naturalisation. 
 
 The petition for naturalization of an honorably discharged 
 United States soldier under Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), need not be verified by two 
 witnesses, as provided by the naturalization act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, 
 p. 478), the phrase "as now provided by law," contained in 
 Sec. 2fi66, having reference to statutes in existence at the 
 time of its enactment. 
 
 In re McNabb, 175 Fed., 511. (District Court, D. 
 
 Oregon. December 6, 1909.) 
 
 Degree of proof. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), does not affect 
 the provisions of Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. 
 St. Supp. 1901, p. 1331), requiring proof of residence and 
 good moral character "as now provided by law," and an 
 alien who is an honorably discharged soldier of the United 
 States may be admitted a citizen thereunder with the degree 
 of proof required by Sec. 2165 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. 
 St. 1901, p. 1330).^ 
 
 In re Loftus, 165 Fed., 1002. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. December 14, 1908.) 
 
126 SOLDIERS. 
 
 Need not prove one year's residence in state — Depositions. 
 
 An honorably discharged United States soldier applying 
 for naturalization under Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. 
 Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), need not prove one year's resi- 
 dence in the state in which the petition is filed; and proof 
 of residence in the United States for one year prior to his 
 application may be made by deposition, Sec. 10 of the nat- 
 uralization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 599 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 482), being broad enough to allow 
 depositions to be taken outside of the state whenever it is 
 essential to prove residence beyond the state. 
 
 In re McNabb, 175 Fed. 511. (District Court, D. 
 
 Oregon. December 6, 1909.) 
 
 A Japanese soldier is not eligible to naturalization. 
 
 Under the provisions of 2169 Rev. Stat., as amended in 
 187s (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), a member of the 
 Japanese race is ineligible to naturalization as a citizen of 
 the United States ; and the fact that he enlisted as a soldier 
 in the regular army of the United States and was honorably 
 discharged therefrom would not entitle him to the benefits 
 of Rev. Stat. 2166 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), pro- 
 viding for the naturalization of honorably discharged mem- 
 bers of the United States Army. 
 
 In re Buntaro Kumagai, 163 Fed., 922. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Washington, N. D. September 3, 1908.) 
 
 Widow of soldier must make declaration of intention. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 6, 34 Stat. 
 598 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 422), providing that 
 when any alien who has declared his intention to become a 
 citizen of the United States dies before he is actually nat- 
 
SOLDIERS. 127 
 
 uralized the widow and minor children of such alien may, 
 by complying with the other provisions of this act, be nat- 
 uralized without making any declaration, does not authorize 
 the naturalization, without previous declaration of inten- 
 tion, of the widow of a deceased alien who had never made 
 declaration of his intention, but who was an honorably dis- 
 charged soldier and entitled to admission under Sec. 2166 
 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331). 
 
 U. S. V. Meyer, 170 Fed., 983. (District Court, 
 E. D. Washington, S. D. May 27, 1909.) 
 
 Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. not repealed. 
 
 Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), 
 providing for the naturalization of honorably discharged 
 United States soldiers without a previous declaration of in- 
 tention, was not repealed by Act of June 29, 1906', c. 3592, 
 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420). 
 
 U. S. V. Meyer, 170 Fed., 983. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, S. D. May 27, 1909.) 
 
 ^ "The section does not say that the proof of residence and character 
 shall be as provided by law, or as now or hereafter provided ,by law, 
 but as now provided by law. Effect should be given to the word 
 'now' if possible, and this can be done by treating the law existing 
 in 1862 upon these points as incorporated under Section 2166, not- 
 withstanding the fact that the general naturalization act of 1802, of 
 which they were a part, has been repealed. All the other provisions 
 of the Act of igo6, not being otherwise expressly regulated in the 
 section, will be applicable to honorably discharged soldiers, viz. : the 
 form and contents of the petition, the oath in open court, the public 
 notice of the petition and hearing on a stated day, not less than ninety 
 days after filing, the exclusion of anarchists and polygamists, etc." 
 
128 STATUTES. 
 
 STATUTES. 
 
 Constitutionality. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 
 596, 601, is not unconstitutional as an exercise of judicial 
 power by the legislature; nor is it, because retrospective, an 
 assumption of judicial powers by the legislature. 
 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct, 613, 225 
 
 U. S., 227, 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 
 
 22, 1912. Decided May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Construction. 
 
 While the naturalization laws should be liberally construed 
 to enable those aliens who are entitled to citizenship to acquire 
 it, the prerequisites prescribed by law in plain and unambigu- 
 ous language cannot be dispensed with. 
 
 Ex parte Lange, 197 Fed., 769. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Missouri, E. D. July 22, 1912.) 
 
 Same — Statutes in the nature of a franchise. 
 
 A statute which grants a right or privilege in the nature of 
 a franchise, where any ambiguity arises, that construction 
 should be indulged which is most favorable to the person or 
 class for whose benefit the grant was made. 
 
 In re Polsson, 159 Fed., 283. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 California. February 27, 1908.) 
 
STATUTES. 129 
 
 Same — Uniformity. 
 
 Naturalization is a matter of statute, which is of uniform 
 application, and should have uniform construction throughout 
 all the states. 
 
 In re Rousos, 119 N. Y. Supa,, 34. (Supreme Court, 
 
 Special term, Monroe County. September 28, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Words and phrases, popular sense, technical meaning. 
 
 In construing statutes words and phrases are to be assumed 
 to have been used in their popular sense, if they have not ac- 
 quired a technical meaning. 
 
 In re Ellis, 179 Fed., 1002. (District Court, D. Ore- 
 gon. July II, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Naturalization statutes, not in derogation of common 
 right. 
 
 The right of aliens to acquire citizenship is statutory, and 
 not in derogation of common right, hence the statutes are not 
 to be strictly construed against the United States and in favor 
 of the one seeking citizenship. 
 
 U. S. ex rel. De Rienzo v. Rodgers, U. S. Com'r of 
 
 Immigration, et al., 185 Fed., 334. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Third Circuit. April 12, 191 1.) 
 
 Naturalization is not a right but a privilege. 
 
 Citizenship in the United States is not a right but a privi- 
 lege, and can only be granted by the courts in accordance 
 with the laws enacted by Congress. 
 
 In re Buntaro Kumagai, 163 Fed., 922. (District 
 
 Court, W. D. Washington, N. D. September 3, 1908.) 
 
130 STATUTES. 
 
 The naturalization laws apply only to aliens. 
 
 The naturalization laws of the United States apply only to 
 aliens. 
 
 Dicta In re Alverto, 198 Fed., 688. (District Court, 
 E. D. Pa. September 24, 1912.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The naturalization laws of the United States apply only to 
 aliens, and not to citizens, hence an alien who has been natu- 
 ralized by a court of competent jurisdiction, and therefore 
 ceased to be an alien, but who is unable to prove his citizen- 
 ship by reason of the loss of his certificate and the destruction 
 of the records of the court in which he was naturalized, is not 
 entitled to renaturalization in order that he may have evi- 
 dence of his citizenship, his remedy being by proceeding in 
 that court to restore the record. 
 
 In re Buck, 204 Fed., 701. (District Court, E. D. Ar- 
 kansas, E. D. May 6, igi^y™""''-'*'-'"- ■•-»-"■—"-'"— ~ 
 
 Directory provisions, judgments not void for non-compliance 
 with. 
 
 The provisions of the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 
 Subd. 2, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), 
 requiring a petition for naturalization to be filed in duplicate, 
 is directory, and the failure to so file the petition does not ren- 
 der nugatory the judgment of the court admitting the appli- 
 cant to citizenship. 
 
 U. S. V. StoUer, 180 Fed., 910. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, E. D. July 8, 1910.) 
 
STATUTES. 131 
 
 Naturalization laws are not ex post facto. 
 
 An alien has no moral nor constitutional right to retain 
 the privilege of citizenship if, by false evidence or the like, 
 an imposition has been practiced on the court, and an act 
 providing for the cancellation of certificates of naturaliza- 
 tion imposes no punishment upon an alien who has pre- 
 viously procured a certificate of citizenship by fraud or 
 other illegal conduct but simply deprives him of his ill- 
 gotten privileges, and is not an ex post facto law within the 
 prohibition of Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution. 
 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct, 613, 225 U. S., 
 
 227, 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 22, 
 
 1912. Decided May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Retrospective provisions of the naturalization laws. 
 
 The prohibition of ex post facto laws contained in Art. I, 
 Sec. 9 of the United States Constitution is confined to laws 
 respecting criminal punishments, and has no relation to the 
 retrospective provisions of the naturalization act of June 29, 
 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596, 601. 
 
 Johannessen v. United States, 32 S. Ct, 613, 225 U. S., 
 
 227, 56 L. Ed., 1066. (No. 230. Submitted April 22, 
 
 1912. Decided May 27, 1912.) 
 
 Repeal by implication. 
 
 A statute which is repugnant or inconsistent with a later 
 act of Congress is repealed by implication, although not men- 
 tioned therein. 
 
 U. S. V. Balsara, 180 Fed., 694. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit. July i, 1910.) 
 
132 STATUTES. 
 
 Repeal — Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. 
 
 Sec. 2166 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), 
 providing for the naturalization of honorably discharged 
 United States soldiers without a previous declaration of in- 
 tention, was not repealed by act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 
 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420). 
 
 U. S. V. Meyer, 170 Fed., 983. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Washington, S. D. May 27, 1909.) 
 
 Same — Sec. 2i6p Rev. Stat. U. S. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 
 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), did not repeal by impli- 
 cation Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 
 P- 1333) > limiting United States citizenship by naturalization 
 to "aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African 
 nativity, and to persons of African descent." 
 
 U. S. v. Balsara, 180 Fed., 694. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit. July i, 1910,) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Sec. 2169 U. S. Revised Statutes was not repealed by the 
 act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1909, p. 478), and is applicable to Sec. 30 of that act. 
 In re Alverto, 198 Fed., 688. (District Court, E. D. Pa. 
 
 September 24, 1912.) 
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. 133 
 
 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. 
 
 Duty to prosecute cancellation proceedings. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 15, 
 34 Stat. 601 (U. S. Comp. Supp. 1907, p. 427), imposes upon 
 the United States attorney, and not upon the Bureau of 
 Immigration and Naturalization, or its representatives, the 
 duty of prosecuting proceedings to cancel certificates of 
 naturalization. 
 
 U. S. V. Anderson, 169 Fed., 201. (District Court, 
 
 D.- Idaho, C. D. April i, 1909.) 
 
 Duty to state objections and support by argument. 
 
 Inasmuch as the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 
 3592, Sec. II, 34 Stat. 599 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 
 482), provides that the United States shall have the right 
 to appear in naturalization proceedings for the purpose of 
 cross-examining the petitioner and the witnesses produced 
 in support of his petition concerning any matter touching 
 or in any way affecting his right to admission to citizen- 
 ship, and may call witnesses, produce evidence, and be 
 heard in opposition to the granting of any petition for nat- 
 uralization, the court will ordinarily admit the petitioner to 
 citizenship in the absence of declared opposition by the 
 United States; hence, it is the duty of the United States 
 
134 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. 
 
 attorney to state his objections and to support the same by 
 argument. 
 
 In re Mudarri, 176 Fed., 465. (Circuit Court, D. 
 Massachusetts. January 8, 1910.) 
 
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 1 35 
 
 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Knowledge of principles of Constitution. 
 
 The court will not admit an alien to citizenship without 
 being satisfied that he has at least some comprehension 
 of what the Constitution is, and of the principles which it 
 affirms. 
 
 In re Bodek, 63 Fed., 815. (Circuit Court, E. D. 
 
 Pennsylvania. October 11, 1894.) 
 
 Attachment to principles of Constitution. 
 
 An alien who is law-abiding, industrious and of good 
 moral character is entitled to naturalization, notwithstand- 
 ing his inability to undergo an examination on Constitu- 
 tional law, where by his daily walk he has illustrated and 
 emphasized his attachment to the principles of the Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 In re Rodriguez, 81 Fed., 337. (District Court, W. 
 
 D. Texas. May 3, 1897.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An applicant for citizenship, who, in violation of the state 
 Sunday closing act, keeps his saloon open Sundays, does 
 not show a want of the requisite good moral character re- 
 quired by the naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 
 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), where 
 
136 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
 
 it is shown that the law has never been enforced because 
 of adverse pubHc sentiment, and he is willing to comply 
 with the law if insisted upon by the proper authorities. 
 (U. S. V. Hrasky, infra, distinguished.) 
 
 In re Hopp, 179 Fed., 651. (District Court, E. D. 
 Wisconsin. May 28, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An alien who is in the saloon business, and had known 
 for more than two years that the laws of the state required 
 the closing of saloons on Sunday, but nevertheless regularly 
 kept the back door of his saloon open on that day, and who 
 states that although he should take the oath to support the 
 United States Constitution and laws, would continue to do 
 so, is not eligible to naturalization under the provisions of 
 the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592', Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), which provides that it shall 
 be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting 
 any alien to citizenship that immediately preceding the date 
 of his application he has resided continuously within the 
 United States five years at least, and within the state one 
 year at least, and that during that time he has behaved as 
 a man of good moral character, attached to the principles 
 of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed 
 to the good order and happiness of the same. 
 
 U. S. V. Hrasky, 88 N. E. 1031, 240 III., 560. (Su- 
 preme Court of Illinois. April, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An alien who filed a petition for naturalization, ver- 
 ified by a saloon keeper, in which he stated that he was a 
 clerk, and it is shown at the final hearing thereon that he 
 
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 137 
 
 was a bartender in the witness' saloon, and had within the 
 past five years been found guilty of violating the liquor 
 laws of the State of Kansas, and was arrested for selling 
 liquor in violation of an injunction and sentenced to 30 
 days in jail and to pay a fine of $100, following which con- 
 viction he was paroled, and that the parole had terminated, 
 not only exhibited a willful disregard of the laws of the 
 state, but of the orders of the court, and is not well disposed 
 to the good order and happiness flowing from attachment 
 to the principles if the, Constitution of the United States, 
 and is not entitled to naturalization under the act of June 
 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1911, p. 529), requiring that during the five years prior to 
 the filing of the petition the applicant shall have behaved 
 as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles 
 of the Constitution and well disposed to the good order 
 and happiness of the same. 
 
 In re Trum, 199 Fed., 361. (District Court, W. D. 
 Missouri, W. D. October 2, 1912.) 
 
 Sam e — So cialism . 
 
 Attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the 
 United States cannot be presumed from the fact that the 
 applicant is an industrious, law-abiding man, and a person 
 who believes in the doctrines of socialism, the principles 
 of which are directly at war with and antagonistical to the 
 principles of the Constitution, notably property rights, can- 
 not be said to be "well disposed to the good order and hap- 
 piness" of the United States and attached to the principles 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 In re Sauer, 81 Fed., 355. (District Court of Texas, 
 
 Uvalde County. September Term, 1891.) 
 
138 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Same. 
 
 An alien who, for the purpose of securing naturalization 
 as a citizen of the United States under the act of June 29, 
 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 
 420), intentionally represented to the court at the final 
 hearing of the application that "he was attached to the 
 principles of the Constitution of the United States and well 
 disposed to the good order and happiness of the same," on 
 a suit to cancel his certificate of naturalization brought by 
 the United States upon the ground of fraud, in that such 
 representations were untrue, admitted that he advocates 
 the common ownership of all land, buildings and industrial 
 institutions, to be accomplished by use of the power of the 
 ballot, and that when that object shall have been attained 
 the political government of the country will be entirely ab- 
 rogated, as there will be no use for it, and that such beliefs 
 were entertained by him at and previous to his admission 
 to citizenship. Held, that the certificate of naturalization 
 was procured through fraud, and that the United States 
 is entitled to its cancellation.^ 
 
 U. S. V. Olsson, 196 Fed., 562. (District Court, W. 
 
 D. Washington, S. D. May 11, 1912.) 
 
 Knowledge of and attachment to principles of Constitution. 
 
 A petitioner for naturalization who is unaware of the 
 existence of the Constitution of the United States, the rea- 
 son for its adoption, the organization of the government, 
 or of the methods provided for the enactment and enforce- 
 ment of the laws, and the rights, prerogatives and duties 
 of citizenship, and who, instead of taking advantage of time 
 given him to devote to a study of the subjects, takes direct 
 issue with the court and stoutly asserts that he is qualified, 
 
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 139 
 
 notwithstanding the court's finding to the contrary, is not 
 entitled to admission to citizenship.'' 
 
 In re Meakins, 164 Fed., 334. (District Court, E. D. 
 Washington, E. D. September 4, 1908.) 
 
 Knowledge of the U. S. Constitution and form of government 
 — Materiality. 
 
 (Syllabus by the court.) 
 While great caution should be exercised in the examina- 
 tion of applicants for citizenship, yet no hard and fast rule 
 can be laid down. Each case must depend largely upon 
 its special facts. The practical test is whether the evidence, 
 considered as a whole, justifies the conclusion that the ap- 
 plicant will make a good citizen. An applicant otherwise 
 entitled to citizenship should not necessarily be denied the 
 right because the evidence shows that he has no accurate 
 knowledge of the federal Constitution and form of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 State ex rel. United States v. District Court of Seven- 
 teenth Dist., el3 al., 120 N. W., 898, 107 Minn., 444. 
 (Supreme Court of Minnesota. April 23, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A Syrian who came to the United States eleven years 
 before and was a Christian, but could not read or write 
 English, spoke and understood English very imperfectly, 
 did not understand the questions relating to the manner 
 and method of government in America, or the responsi- 
 bilities of a citizen, and answered affirmatively the ques- 
 tions whether he was a polygamist or a disbeliever in or- 
 ganized government, and who desired to be naturalized so 
 
140 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
 
 as to bring his wife and children into the United States, 
 was not qualified to be admitted a citizen of the United 
 States, irrespective of whether he was a free white person 
 within the provisions of the Act Cong. March 26, 1790, c. 
 3, I Stat., 103, as amended by the Act July 14, 1870, c. 
 254, 16 Stat., 254. 
 
 Ex Parte Shahid, 205 Fed., 812. (District Court, E. 
 D. South Carolina. June 24, 1913.) 
 
 ^ "The people of this country ordained the Constitution of the 
 United States, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
 domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the 
 general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and 
 their posterity, and thereby established a national government, to 
 endure permanently. The notion that citizens of this country may 
 absolve themselves from allegiance to the Constitution of the United 
 States, otherwise than by expatriation, ii a dangerous heresy. The 
 nation generously and cordially admits to its citizenship aliens having 
 the qualifications prescribed by law, but recognizing the principle of. 
 natural law, called the law of self-preservation, it restricts the privi- 
 lege of becoming naturalized to those whose sentiments are compatible 
 with genuine allegiance to the existing government as defined by the 
 oath which they are required to take. Those who believe in and 
 propagate crude theories hostile to the Constitution are barred." 
 
 ' "He cannot be attached to principles of which he is entirely 
 ignorant. His disposition, manifested in open court, also shows that 
 he is not well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the 
 country. He appears in an attitude of defiance, as one who is entitled 
 to demand admission, regardless of qualifications." 
 
UNITED STATES NATURALIZATION EXAMINER. 141 
 
 UNITED STATES NATURALIZATION EXAMINER. 
 
 False answers by petitioner during investigation. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, Subd. 4, 34 
 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 531), which pro- 
 vides that it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the 
 court admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately pre- 
 ceding the date of his application he has resided continuously 
 within the United States five years at least, and within the 
 State or Territory where such court is at the time held one 
 year at least, and that during that time he has behaved as a 
 man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the 
 Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the 
 good order and happiness of the same, an alien whose petition 
 for naturalization was denied because he falsely answered in- 
 quiries made by the Chief Naturalization Examiner during 
 an investigation of the application, will be denied naturaliza- 
 tion on a subsequent petition filed within five years after the 
 date of the offense, as he cannot be said to have behaved as 
 a man of good moral character. 
 
 In re Talarico, 197 Fed., 1018. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Pennsylvania. July 6, 1912.) 
 
142 WHITE PERSONS. 
 
 WHITE PERSONS. 
 
 Armenians are white persons. 
 
 An Armenian, born in Asiatic Turkey, is a "free white per- 
 son" within the meaning of Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. 
 Comp. St. iQoi, p. 1333), and as such eligible to naturalization. 
 In re Halladjian, et al., 174 Fed., 834. (Circuit Court, 
 
 D. Massachusetts. December 24, 1909.) 
 
 Chinese, half breeds, are not white persons. 
 
 An alien whose father was an Englishman and whose 
 mother was one-half Chinese and one-half Japanese is not a 
 free white person within the meaning of Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. 
 U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), and therefore not en- 
 titled to naturalization. 
 
 In re Knight, 171 Fed., 299. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 New York. July 13, 1909.) 
 
 Filipinos are not white persons — Navy. 
 
 A citizen of the Philippine Islands, three-fourths brown 
 and one-fourth white, who has served seven years contin- 
 uously as an enlisted man in the United States Navy and 
 been honorably discharged under his first enlistment, is not 
 eligible to naturalization under the provisions of the Act of 
 Congress of July 26, 1894 (28 Stat. 124, c. 165 [U. S. Comp. 
 
WHITE PERSONS. 143 
 
 St. 1901, p. 1332]), being debarred by Sec. 2169, Revised 
 Statutes, as amended in 1875 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333). 
 In re Alverto, 198 Fed., 188. (District Court, E. D. 
 Pa. September 24, 1912.) 
 
 Indians are not white persons. 
 
 Under Rev. St. 2169 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), pro- 
 viding that a free white person or an alien of African nativity 
 or of African descent may be admitted to citizenship, an In- 
 dian born in British Columbia will not be admitted to citizen- 
 ship by naturalization in the United States. 
 In re Burton, i Alaska, iii (1900). 
 
 Japanese are not white persons. 
 
 A native of Japan is not a "white person" or an "alien of 
 African nativity or of African descent" within the meaning of 
 Rev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 2169 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), 
 and therefore not entitled to become a citizen of the United 
 States by naturalization. 
 
 In re Yamashita, 70 Pac, 482, 30 Wash., 234, 59 L. 
 
 R. A., 671. (Supreme Court of Washington. October 
 
 22, 1902.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A native of Japan, of the Mongolian race, not being a "white 
 person" within the meaning of Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. 
 (Comp. St. U. S. 1901, p. 1333), is not entitled to naturaliza- 
 tion. 
 
 In re Saito, 62 Fed., 126. (Circuit Court, D. Mas- 
 sachusetts. June 24, 1894.) 
 
144 WHITE PERSONS. 
 
 Same — Marines — Sailors. 
 
 An alien of the Japanese race is not eligible to naturalization 
 under the provisions of the Act of Congress of July 26, 1894 
 (28 Stat. 124, c. 165 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1332]). 
 Bessho V. U. S., 178 Fed., 245. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Fourth Circuit. February i, 1910.)' 
 
 Same — Soldiers. 
 
 Under the provisions of Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat., as amended 
 in 187s (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), a member of the 
 Japanese race is ineligible to naturalization as a citizen of the 
 United States ; and the fact that he enlisted as a soldier in the 
 regular army of the United States and was honorably dis- 
 charged therefrom would not entitle him to the benefits of 
 Rev. Stat. 2166 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1331), providing 
 for the naturalization of honorably discharged members of 
 the United States Army. 
 
 In re Buntaro Kumagai, 163 Fed., 922. (District 
 
 Court, W. D. Washington, N. D. September 3, 1908.) 
 
 Japanese, half breeds, are not zvhite persons. 
 
 An alien born at a place in Japan, under the dominion of 
 Germany, of which country he is a subject, whose father is a 
 German, but whose mother is a Japanese woman, is not eli- 
 gible to naturalization under the laws enacted by Congress 
 authorizing only those aliens to become naturalized citizens of 
 the United States who are white persons, or Africans, or of 
 African descent. 
 
 In re Young, 195 Fed., 645. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Washington, N. D. April 24, 1912.) 
 
WHITE PERSONS. 145 
 
 Same. 
 
 An alien whose father was a German subject, but whose 
 mother was a Japanese woman, is not a "white" person within 
 the meaning of Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 
 1901, p. 1333), and therefore not eligible to naturalization. 
 In re Young (rehearing), 198 Fed., 715. (District 
 
 Court, W. D. Washington, N. D. August 15, 1912.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The right to be naturalized as a citizen of the United States 
 depends on parentage and blood, and not upon nationality or 
 status; hence, a German subject, born of a German father, 
 but whose mother was a Japanese woman, is not eligible to 
 naturalization under the laws enacted by Congress authorizing 
 only those aliens to become naturalized citizens of the United 
 States who are white persons or Africans, or of African 
 descent. 
 
 In re Young, 195 Fed., 645. (District Court, W. D. 
 
 Washington, N. D. April 24, 1912.) 
 
 Mexicans are white persons — Ethnology. 
 
 A native Mexican is eligible to naturalization as a citizen 
 of the United States, without regard to his status viewed 
 solely from the standpoint of the ethnologist. 
 
 In re Rodriguez, 81 Fed., 337. (District Court, W, D. 
 
 Texas. May 3, 1897.) 
 
 Parsee are white persons. 
 
 A Parsee, from the neighborhood of Bombay, India, is a 
 "white person" within the meaning of Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat 
 
146 WHITE PERSONS. 
 
 U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), and as such is eligible 
 to naturalization as a citizen of the United States, Sec. 2169 
 being applicable to and excluding from citizenship by natu- 
 ralization aliens of the yellow, red and brown races, as distinct 
 from the white or Caucasian race. 
 
 U. S. V. Balsara, 180 Fed., 694. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit. July i, 1910.) 
 
 Syrians are white persons. 
 
 A Syrian who is a native of Palestine, and a Maronite, is a 
 white person within the meaning of Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), and as such is entitled to 
 naturalization as a citizen of the United States, the word 
 "white" being used in its popular sense as referring to mem- 
 bers of the white or Caucasian race. 
 
 In re Ellis, 179 Fed., 1002. (District Court, D. Ore- 
 gon. July II, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), 
 which limits the privilege of United States citizenship by 
 naturalization to "free white persons," etc., refers to race 
 rather than color; and a Syrian who comes within the classi- 
 fication of the white or Caucasian race is eligible to naturali- 
 zation. 
 
 In re Najour, 174 Fed., 735. (Circuit Court, N. D. 
 
 Georgia. December i, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An alien of the Syrian race is to be classed as of the Cau- 
 casian or white race, and as such is eligible to naturalization 
 
WHITE PERSONS. 147 
 
 under Rev. Stat. U. S. 2169 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333), 
 limiting the application of the naturalization laws to aliens who 
 are free white persons, etc. 
 
 In re Mudarri, 176 Fed., 465. (Circuit Court, D. Mas- 
 sachusetts. January 8, 1910.) 
 
 Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. not repealed. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), did not repeal by 
 implication Sec. 2169 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 
 p. 1333), limiting United States citizenship by naturalization 
 to "aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African 
 nativity, and to persons of African descent." 
 
 U. S. V. Balsara, 180 Fed., 694. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit. July i, 1910.) 
 
148 WIFE. 
 
 WIFE. 
 
 Wife of alien husband not eligible to naturalization. 
 
 The wife of an alien, although resident in the United 
 States and otherwise qualified, cannot become a citizen of 
 the United States by naturalization. 
 
 In re Rionda, 164 Fed., 368. (District Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. June 16, 1908.) 
 
 Same — Expatriation. 
 
 Inasmuch as an American woman who marries a for- 
 eigner takes the nationality of her husband under the ex- 
 patriation act of March 2, 1907, c. 2534, 34 Stat. 1228 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 438), the alien wife of an alien 
 man cannot, on her own petition, become a citizen of the 
 United States by naturalization. 
 
 U. S. V. Cohen, 179 Fed., 834. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Second Circuit. June 14, 1910.) 
 
 Expatriation — Witness on husband's petition — Disqualifica- 
 tion. 
 
 An American woman who marries a foreigner thereby 
 takes the nationality of her husband under the express 
 terms of the act of March 2, 1907, c. 2534, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 
 1228 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 381), relating to the 
 
WIFE. 149 
 
 expatriation of citizens, and she is therefore incompetent 
 to act as a witness on a petition for naturalization filed by 
 her husband under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 
 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), which 
 requires such witnesses to be citizens of the United States. 
 In re Mortorana, 159 Fed., loio. (District Court, 
 E. D. Pennsylvania. March 26, 1908.) 
 
 Citizenship by Birth not lost by Marriage to an Alien. 
 
 A woman who is a citizen of the United States by birth 
 does not lose that citizenship by marriage to an alien, at 
 least so long as she continues to reside in the United States. 
 Wallenburg v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 149 Fed., 217. 
 
 (Circuit Court, D. Nebraska. February 14, 1908.) 
 
 Naturalization by Marriage. 
 
 A wife who becomes a citizen of the United States upon 
 the naturalization of her husband has the right to take and 
 hold real estate. 
 
 Criswell v. Noble, et al., 113 N. Y. Supp., 954, 147 
 N. Y. St. Rep., 61 Misc. Rep., 483. (Supreme Court, 
 Special Term, Niagara County. December 19, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An alien female who lawfully entered the United States 
 for a lawful purpose and afterwards married a citizen of 
 the United States, became a United States citizen by virtue 
 of such marriage under the provisions of Rev. Stat. U. S., 
 Sec. 1994 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1268). 
 
 Sprung V. Morton; Bloom v. Morton (two cases), 
 182 Fed., 330. (District Court, E. D. Virginia. De- 
 cember 31, 1909.) 
 
150 WIFE. 
 
 Same. 
 
 When the husband of an alien woman becomes nat- 
 uralized, she, as well as her infant son, dwelling in the 
 United States, likewise become citizens. 
 
 U. S. ex rel. Fisher v. Rodgers, U. S. Immigration 
 
 Com'r, et al, 144 Feb., 711. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Pennsylvania. April 5, 1906.) 
 
 Same — Residence — Immigration. 
 
 It was not the intention of Congress in enacting Sec. 
 1994 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1268), pro- 
 viding that "any woman who is now, or may hereafter be, 
 married to a citizen of the United States, and who might 
 herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen," 
 to confer citizenship upon aliens excluded by the immigra- 
 tion laws from admission to the United States. 
 
 In re Rustigian, 165 Fed., 980. (Circuit Court, D. 
 
 Rhode Island. December 22, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 An alien woman who marries a United States citizen and 
 thereby herself becomes a citizen under Rev. Stat. 1994 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1268), cannot be refused admission 
 to the United States under the immigration laws, although 
 she had never been in this country and would be inadmis- 
 sible if an alien. 
 
 In re Nicola (two cases), 184 Fed., 322. (Circuit 
 
 Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 16, 191 1.) 
 
WIFE. 151 
 
 Same. 
 
 Where a woman subject of the Turkish Empire married 
 a citizen of the United States, she thereby herself became 
 a citizen, entitled to admission to the United States as 
 such, regardless of the fact that upon reaching the United 
 States she was suffering from a disease which would ex- 
 clude her as an alien. 
 
 Nicola V. Williams, 173 Fed., 626. (District Court, 
 
 S. D. New York. October 29, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Under the law of Holland and of the United States the 
 citizenship of the wife follows that of the husband, hence 
 a woman subject of Holland who married an alien in New 
 York became a citizen of the United States by virtue of 
 his subsequent naturalization; and the fact that she left 
 her husband prior to his admission to citizenship and went 
 back to Holland with a paramour with whom she had been 
 living would not affect her right to enter the United States 
 as a citizen. 
 
 Gendering v. Williams, 173 Fed., 626. (District 
 
 Court, S. D. New York. October 29, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The acquirement of United States citizenship by the 
 husband of a woman resident abroad and not entitled to 
 admission to the United States under the immigration laws 
 because of a contagious disease, would not render her ad- 
 missible as a citizen. Sec. 1994 Rev. Stat. U. S. (U. S. 
 Comp. St. 1901, p. 1268), providing that any woman mar- 
 ried to a citizen of the United States who might herself 
 
152 WIFE. 
 
 be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen, having 
 reference to a woman within the United States who in her 
 own capacity would be entitled to naturalization. 
 
 In re Rustigian, 165 Fed., 980. (Circuit Court. D. 
 Rhode Island. December 22, 1908.) 
 
WITNESSES. 153 
 
 WITNESSES. 
 
 Witnesses must be United States citizens. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 
 (U. S. Comp. St. 1907, p. 420), provides that a petition for 
 naturalization filed thereunder shall be verified by the affi- 
 davits of at least two credible witnesses, who are citizens 
 of the United States, stating certain facts relating to the 
 petitioner, and a petition not so verified by at least two 
 persons who are citizens is not merely voidable, but void, 
 and cannot be amended.^ 
 
 U. S. V. Martorana, 171 Fed., 397. (Circuit Court of 
 
 Appeals, Third Circuit, May 25, 1909.) 
 
 In re Martorana, 159 Fed., loio, reversed. (Post, p. 
 
 162.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A petition for naturalization not verified by the affidavits 
 of two citizens of the United States must be dismissed, but 
 without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a 
 new petition properly verified. 
 
 In re Wolf, 188 Fed., 519. (Circuit Court, M. D. 
 
 Tennessee, Nashville Division. April 13, 1911.) 
 
 Wife of Petitioner — Incompetency. 
 
 An American woman who marries a foreigner thereby 
 takes the nationality of her husband under the express 
 
154 WITNESSES. 
 
 terms of the act of March 2, 1907, c. 2534, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 
 1228 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 381), relating to the 
 expatriation of citizens, and she is therefore incompetent 
 to act as a witness on a petition for naturalization filed by 
 her husband under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 
 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), which 
 requires such witnesses to be citizens of the United States. 
 In re M'artorana, 159 Fed., loio. (District Court, 
 E. D. Pennsylvania. March 26, 1908.) 
 
 Witnesses must be competent — Five years' acquaintance — Il- 
 legal naturalisation. 
 
 A petition for naturalization verified by two witnesses, 
 one-of whom admitted at the final hearing thereon that he 
 had not known the petitioner for five years antedating the 
 date of filing the petition, and the other witness, who was 
 a naturalized citizen, admitted that he had surrendered his 
 certificate of naturalization for cancellation because pro- 
 cured in violation of law, is not verified as required by 
 Sub-division 2 of Paragraph 2 of Section 4 of the naturali- 
 zation act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 596, c. 3592 [U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 421]), and is not sufficient. 
 
 In re Aprea, 158 Fed., 703. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 
 N. Y. February 26, 1908.) 
 
 Illegal naturalisation — Disqualification. 
 
 A witness to a petition for naturalization who admitted 
 at the final hearing thereon that his citizenship had been 
 unlawfully obtained under the laws of the United States, 
 and that he had surrendered the same for cancellation, is 
 
WITNESSES. 1 55 
 
 disqualified from acting as a witness in a naturalization 
 proceeding. 
 
 In re Aprea, 158 Fed., 703. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 N. Y. February 26, 1908.) 
 
 Five years' acquaintance prior to date of petition. 
 
 A witness to a petition for naturalization who admitted 
 at the final hearing thereon that he had not known the 
 petitioner for five years continuously immediately preceding 
 the date of filing the petition, is not a qualified witness. 
 In re Aprea, 158 Fed., 703. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 
 N. Y. February 26, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, par. 3, subd. 2, Sec. 4, 34 
 Stat. 597 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 421), requires that 
 the vouchers to a petition for naturalization must be able 
 to state that "they have personally known the applicant to 
 be a resident of the United States for a period of at least 
 five years continuously * * * immediately preceding 
 the date of the filing of his petition," hence, a voucher who 
 had not known the petitioner for a period of five years con- 
 tinuously immediately preceding the filing of the petition 
 is disqualified, even though he had known the petitioner 
 for five years prior to the final hearing on the petition. 
 In re Welsh, et al., 159 Fed., 1014. (Circuit Court, 
 
 E. D. Pennsylvania. March 26, 1908.) 
 
 Same — Substitute witnesses. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, par. 3, subd. 2, 
 Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 597 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 421), 
 
156 WITNESSES. 
 
 which requires that "it shall be made to appear to the satisfac- 
 tion of the court admitting any alien to citizenship that imme- 
 diately preceding the date of the application he has resided 
 continuously within the United States five years," etc., a 
 substitute witness on a petition for naturalization who had 
 not known the petitioner five years continuously imme- 
 diately preceding the date of the filing of the petition is dis- 
 qualified as a witness at the final hearing, even though the 
 petition was verified by qualified witnesses and the sub- 
 stitute witness had known the petitioner for five years 
 prior to the date of final hearing thereon. 
 
 In re Welsh, et al., 159 Fed., 1014. (Circuit Court, 
 E. D. Pennsylvania. March 26, 1908.) 
 
 Number of witnesses. 
 
 While the affidavit of verifying witnesses to a petition for 
 naturalization under the provisions of the naturalization act 
 of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 2, 34 Stat. 597 (U. S. 
 Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), must show the requisite 
 period of residence of the petitioner, such showing need 
 not be made by the same witnesses as to the entire period, 
 and so long as there are at least two credible witnesses 
 testifying as to each fraction of such period so as to cover 
 the whole, the requirement of the Statute is satisfied. 
 In re Godlover, 181 Fed., 731. (Circuit Court, N. D, 
 
 California. September 20, 1910.) 
 
 Competent ^mtness substituted for one disqualified. 
 
 Where a petition for naturalization is defective in that 
 one of the verifying witnesses is disqualified because not 
 a citizen of the United States, it would be more orderly for 
 
WITNESSES. 157 
 
 the clerk to refile the petition and give it a new consecutive 
 number upon the records than to permit its amendment by 
 the substitution of a competent witness and redating the 
 witnesses' affidavit, but the absence of a filing indorsement 
 or calendar entry by the clerk with reference to a petition 
 which is actually filed, and upon which the clerk has acted, 
 is immaterial, if the fact of filing sufficiently appears. 
 U. S. V. Erickson, 188 Fed., 747. (District Court, 
 W. D. Michigan, S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 A certificate of naturalization should not be canceled as 
 having been illegally obtained where one of the verifying 
 witnesses to the petition for naturalization was found to be 
 disqualified because not a citizen of the United States and 
 his name erased from the witnesses' affidavit and the name 
 of a competent witness substituted and the affidavit redated 
 as of the date of verification by the new witness, although 
 no duplicate of the amended affidavit was forwarded to 
 the Department of Commerce and Labor. 
 
 U. S. V. Erickson, 188 Fed., 747. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Michigan, S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
 Posting of names. 
 
 No allegation having been made that the clerk of the 
 court did not post the names of the verifying witnesses 
 to a petition for naturalization for 90 days prior to the hear- 
 ing thereon, they are presumed to have been so posted. 
 
 U. S. V. Erickson, 188 Fed., 747. (District Court, 
 W. D. Michigan, S. D. September 28, 1910.) 
 
158 WITNESSES. 
 
 Same — Names of substitute witnesses need not be posted. 
 
 The two witnesses required to be produced by an alien 
 in support of his petition for naturalization under the act 
 of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. 
 St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), need not be the persons who veri- 
 fied the petiton, nor need they be the persons whose names 
 were posted in accordance with section 5 of the act, and 
 upon a reasonable showing that the petitioner is unable to 
 secure their attendance other witnesses may be summoned, 
 and their names need not be posted for ninety days prior 
 to the hearing on the petition. 
 
 In re Schatz, 161 Fed., 237. (Circuit Court, D. 
 
 Oregon. April 7, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Where a petition for naturalization is verified by the 
 affidavits of two credible witnesses who are citizens of the 
 United States, etc., as required by the act of June 29, 1906, 
 c- 3592', Sees. 4, 5, 34 Stat. 596, 598 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 
 1909, pp. 478, 480), which further provides that at the final 
 hearing on the petition the testimony of at least two cred- 
 ible witnesses, citizens of the United States, shall be re- 
 quired, and that immediately after the petition is filed the 
 clerk shall post a notice thereof, and of the date, as nearly 
 as may be, for the final hearing, and the names of the wit- 
 nesses whom the applicant expects to summon in his behalf, 
 but in case such witnesses cannot be produced upon the 
 final hearing other witnesses may be summoned, the wit- 
 nesses at the final hearing are not required to be the same 
 witnesses who verified the petition or whose names appear 
 on the posted notice, and in case one or more of such wit- 
 nesses cannot be produced, other witnesses may be sum- 
 
WITNESSES. 159 
 
 moned and testify at the final hearing whose names have 
 not been posted for ninety days. 
 
 U. S. V. Doyle, 175 Fed., 687. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Seventh Circuit. April 19, 1910.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Where one of the verifying witnesses to a petition for 
 naturalization filed under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 
 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), cannot 
 be produced at the final hearing on the petition, a substi- 
 tute witness may testify without postponing the hearing 
 until his name can be posted for ninety days. 
 
 In re Neugebauer, 172 Fed., 943. (District Court, 
 
 W. D. Pennsylvania. October 11, 1909.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 The act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, Subd. 2, Par. 2, 
 and Sec. 5, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478), 
 requires that a petition for naturalization shall be verified by 
 the affidavits of at least two credible witnesses, who are citizens 
 of the United States, respecting the qualification of the appli- 
 cant, and provides that the clerk of the court shall, immediately 
 after filing the petition, give notice thereof by posting in a pub- 
 lic and conspicuous place in his office, or in the building in 
 which his office is situated, under an appropriate heading, the 
 name, nativity and residence of the alien, the date and place of 
 his arrival in the United States, and the date, as nearly as 
 may be, for the final hearing of his petition, and the names of 
 the witnesses whom the applicant expects to summon in his 
 behalf; and the clerk shall, if the application requests it, issue 
 a subpoena for the witnesses so named by the said applicant 
 to appear upon the day set for the final hearing, and in case 
 
l6o WITNESSES. 
 
 such witnesses cannot be produced upon the final hearing other 
 witnesses may be summoned. Held, that where one or more of 
 the witnesses whose names have been posted cannot be pro- 
 duced on the final hearing of the petition, other witnesses may 
 be summoned and testify without further posting. 
 
 U. S. V. Ojala, 182 Fed., 51. (Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Eighth Circuit. October 11, 1910.) 
 
 Same — Names of substitute zvitnesses must be posted ninety 
 days. 
 
 Where an alien cannot produce one of the verifying wit- 
 nesses to his petition for naturalization at the final hearing 
 thereon, he may, under Sec. 5, act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, 
 34 Stat. 598 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 423), summon 
 another witness in his place, but the name of such substitute 
 witness must be posted for 90 days prior to the final hearing 
 on the petition, as required by Sec. 6 of that act. 
 
 In re O'Dea, 158 Fed., 703. (Circuit Court, S. D. New 
 
 York. Febriiary 25, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sees. 4-6, 34 Stat. 
 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), the posting of the 
 names of witnesses to a petition for naturalization is a condi- 
 tiqp precedent to the qualification of the witnesses to testify 
 at the final hearing thereon; and where one of such witnesses 
 fails to qualify, or cannot be produced, a substitute witness 
 cannot testify unless his name has been posted for the requi- 
 site 90 days. 
 
 U. S. V. Daly, 32 App. D. C, 525. (Court of Appeals, 
 
 District of Columbia. February 2, 1909.) 
 
WITNESSES. l6l 
 
 Same — Competent zvitness substituted for one disqualified. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, par. 3, subd. 2, 
 Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. 1907, p. 420), which re- 
 quires that the witnesses to a petition for naturalization 
 must be able to state that "they have personally known the 
 applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period 
 of at least five years continuously * * * immediately 
 preceding the date of the filing of his petition," a petition 
 verified by witnesses who had not known the petitioner for 
 five years continuously immediately preceding the filing of 
 the petition may be amended by the substitution of wit- 
 nesses who have known him for the required period, and 
 the posting of their names, as required by law, before the 
 final hearing. 
 
 In re Welsh, et al., 159 Fed., 1014. (Circuit Court, 
 
 E. D. Pennsylvania. March 26, 1908.) 
 
 Same. 
 
 Under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, subd. 4 and 
 subd. 2, par. 3, and Sees. 5, 6, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. 
 Supp. 1907, p. 420), requiring that a petition for naturalization 
 shall be verified by the affidavits of at least two credible wit- 
 nesses, who are citizens of the United States, stating certain 
 facts relating to the applicant, that the names of the witnesses 
 whom the applicant expects to summon shall be posted ninety 
 days before the final hearing on the petition, and if such wit- 
 nesses cannot be produced at the final hearing other witnesses 
 may be summoned, a petition verified by a person who is not 
 a citizen, an honest mistake having been made as to the com^ 
 petency of the disqualified witness, may be amended by al- 
 lowing the applicant to have the petition verified by a witness 
 who is qualified and the reposting of the petition so amended 
 
l62 WITNESSES. 
 
 for ninety days as required by Section 6 of the act, after which 
 it can be finally heard. 
 
 In re Martorana, 159 Fed., loio. (District Court, E. D. 
 
 Pennsylvania. March 26, 1908.) Reversed in U. S. v. 
 
 Martorana, 171 Fed., 397 (C. C. A.), supra. 
 
 Personal knowledge, character, residence. 
 
 The naturalization act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 
 subd. 2, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), 
 declares that an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of 
 the United States in the following manner and not otherwise, 
 and requires that a petition for naturalization shall be verified 
 by at least two credible witnesses who shall state that they 
 have personally known the applicant to be a resident of the 
 United States for a period of at least five years continuously 
 * * * and that they each have personal knowledge that 
 the petitioner is a person of good moral character and that 
 he is in every way qualified, in their opinion, to be admitted as 
 a citizen of the United States; and where the two verifying 
 witnesses are the uncle and aunt of the petitioner, who came 
 to this country before the petitioner was born, and who never 
 saw or knew him personally until about two years previous to 
 the filing of the petition, although they had learned, through 
 correspondence from relatives and from the petitioner, that 
 he had come to the United States and was residing at Phila- 
 delphia, they are unable to truthfully state that they have per- 
 sonally known the applicant to be a resident of the United 
 States for a period of at least five years continuously, and he 
 cannot be admitted.^ 
 
 In re Toomey, iii N. Y. Supp., 600 and 145 N. Y. St. 
 Rep. (Supreme Court, Special term, Erie County. Feb- 
 ruary, 1908.) 
 
WITNESSES. 163 
 
 Same — Navy. 
 
 The knowledge of witnesses to a petition for naturali- 
 zation filed under the act of June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 
 subd. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 420), 
 who testify to the residence of the applicant in the state and 
 the United States for the required period, need only be 
 appropriate to the applicant's employment, and where he 
 served for a portion of the time in the United States Navy, 
 their testimony that he resided at a certain place prior to 
 his enlistment and that he returned there at intervals during 
 his service in the navy and after his discharge, meets the 
 requirements of the statute. 
 
 In re Schneider, 164 Fed., 335. (Circuit Court, S. D. 
 
 New York. October 2, 1908.) 
 
 ^ "Admission to citizenship is wholly a subject of statutory law or 
 treaty stipulation. Aside from affirmative legislation or treaty pro- 
 vision by the State or nation whose protection and privileges are 
 sought by a foreigner, there is no inherent right in him to enjoy such 
 protection or privileges and no obligation on its part to permit him 
 to do so. Of necessity every state or nation must determine for itself 
 w<ho shall enjoy the rights of membership in the body politic of which 
 it consists, and before a right to such enjoyment can be acquired by 
 an alien all the prescribed conditions must be fully satisfied." 
 
 ' "Information gained by correspondence from others, or even from 
 the applicant, does not, in our opinion, meet the plain intent of the 
 statute." 
 
TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. l6$ 
 
 TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. 
 
 A 
 Alexander v. U. S., 53. 
 Alverto, In re, 107, 130, 132, 143. 
 Andres v. (Arnold) Judge of Circuit Court, 74. 
 Aprea, In re, 43, 154, 155 (2). 
 Argento, In re, 93. 
 
 B 
 
 Barron County v. Beckwith, 47. 
 
 Bessho V. U. S., 105, 122, 144. 
 
 Beyer, In re, 48. 
 
 Bloom V. Morton, 149. 
 
 Bodek, In re, 64, 85, 98, 109 (2), 119, 135. 
 
 Boorvis, In re, 5, 72. 
 
 Bosa's Application, 51, 73. 
 
 Buck, In re, 108, 130. 
 
 Buntaro Kumagai, In re, 56, 126, 129, 144. 
 
 Burke, In re, 56, 62. 
 
 Burton, In re, 143. 
 
 C 
 Camaras, In re, 40, 93. 
 Cameron, In re, 68. 
 
 City and County of San Francisco v. Mulkrevy, et al., 47. 
 City of Rockland v. Inhabitants of Hurricane Isle, 27, 58, 
 102 (2). 
 
1 66 TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. 
 
 Cohen v. U. S., 7, 22, 23. 
 
 Conover v. Old, 40, 63 (2), 64, 90 (2), 91. 
 
 Criswell v. Noble, 149. 
 
 D 
 
 Di Clerico, In re, 97. 
 
 Di Rienzo v. Rodgers, 41 (D. C.)- 
 
 Di Rienzo v. Rodgers, 42, 129 (C. C. A.). 
 
 Eldridge v. Salt Lake County, 45, 49 (2), 58. 
 Ellis, In re, 129, 146. 
 
 Fisher v. Rodgers, et al., 42, 150. 
 Franklin County v. Barnes, 47. 
 Freeze, In re, iii, 112. 
 Friedl, In re, 4, 71. 
 
 G 
 
 Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 107. 
 Gendering v. Williams, 151. 
 Giuliano, In re, 98, iii. 
 Godlover, In re, 113, 156. 
 Gross, In re, i, 76. 
 
 H 
 
 Halladjian, et al., In re, 50, no, 142. 
 
 Hollo, In re, 37. 
 
 Hopp, In re, 92, 95, 136. 
 
TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. 1 67 
 
 I 
 
 Inhabitants of Hampden County v. Morris, 48, 57, 106. 
 
 J 
 Johannessen v. U. S., 11, 13, 14, 26, 103, 128, 131 (2). 
 
 K 
 Kestelman, In re, 83. 
 Knight, In re, 142. 
 
 Langtry, In re, 51, 73. 
 Lacy V. Brandhorst, 10, 19. 
 Lange, Ex parte, 57, 71, loi, 128. 
 Lewkowicz, In re, 4, 70. 
 Liberman, In re, 36. 
 Lind, In re, 123. 
 Linger v. Balfour, 69. 
 Loftus, In re, 86, 125. 
 
 Mc 
 McNabb, In re, 90, 113, 125, 126. 
 
 M 
 
 Macoluso's Naturalization, In re, 16, 22, 24, 29, 62, 64. 
 
 Martorana, In re, 149, 154, 162. 
 
 Marvin v. U. S., 51, no (2). 
 
 Martinovsky, In re, 112. 
 
 Meakins, In re, 139. 
 
 Mudarri, In re, 134, 147. 
 
l68 TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. 
 
 N 
 Najour, In re, 146. 
 Neugebaur, In re, 159. 
 Newman v. Libby, 46. 
 Nicola, In re, 150. 
 Nicola V. Williams, 151. 
 
 O 
 
 O'Dea, In re, 160. 
 O'Sullivan, In re, 3, 5, 82. 
 
 P 
 
 Page, In re, 38. 
 
 Perkins, In re, 6. 
 
 Poirot, In re, 66. 
 
 Polsson, In re, 67, 75, 76, 128. 
 
 R 
 
 Rionda, In re, 148. 
 Robertson, In re, 79. 
 Rodriguez, In re, 135, 145. 
 Ross, In re, 96, 99. 
 Rousos, In re, i, 107, 129. 
 Rustigian, In re, 150, 152. 
 
 S 
 Saito, In re, 143. 
 Sauer, In re, 137. 
 Santo Scola's Case (Cited), 51, 73. 
 Schatz, In re, 158. 
 Schmidt, In re, "jy. 
 Schneider, In re, 117, 121, 122, 163. 
 
TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. 1 69 
 
 Shahid, Ex parte, 140. 
 
 Shapiro, In re, 75. 
 
 Shearer, In re, 78. 
 
 Spenser, In re, 93, 98. 
 
 Spitzer, In re, 7^. 
 
 Sprung V. Morton, 149. 
 
 Stack, In re, 4, 5, 66, 72. 
 
 State ex rel. U. S. v. District Court of Seventeenth District, 
 
 et al., 39, 85, 139. 
 State ex rel. Lacy, et al. v. Brandhorst, 10, 19. 
 State of Washington ex rel. Newman v. Libby, 46. 
 Sutherland, In re, 81, 124. 
 Symanowsski, In re, 2, 62, 65, 67, 68, y^, 102. 
 
 Talarico, In re, 96, 141. 
 
 Tinn, In re, 17 (2), 21, 22, 25, 39, 100. 
 
 Toomey, In re, 86, 162. 
 
 Trum, In re, 56, 94, 107, 137. 
 
 U 
 
 U. S. V. Aakervik, 15, 28, 29, 30, 32, 100, loi, 115, 117. 
 V. Albertini, 27, 29, 94. 
 V. Anderson, 10, 17, 35, 55 (2), 133. 
 V. Balsara, 131, 132, 146, 147. 
 V. Breen, 8, 61. 
 
 V. Brelin, 50 (2), 63, 73 (2), 83. 
 V. Cantini, 84, 118. 
 V. Cohen, 148. 
 V. Daly, 160. 
 
 V. District Court of Seventeenth District, et al., 39, 
 85. 139- 
 
170 TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. 
 
 U. S. V. Dolla, 8, 9, 64, 106. 
 V. Doyle, 159. 
 V. Dwyer, 33, 97. 
 
 V. Ellis, 13, 24, 28, 31, 34, 116, 120 (2). 
 V. Erickson, 32 (2), 51, 52, iii, 157 (3). 
 V. George, 75. 
 V. Hrasky, 9, 92, 95, 136. 
 V. Johnson, 61. 
 V. Kolodner, 87, 88 (D. C). 
 V. Kolodner, 89 (C. C. A.). 
 
 V. Luria, 12, 14, 15 (2), 21, 25, 27, 83, 84, 115, 116. 
 V. Mansour, 11, 14, 31, 119. 
 V. Mansour, 15. 
 V. Martorana, 153. 
 V, Meyer, 18, 80, 127 (2), 132. 
 V. Nechman, 26, 54, 68, loi. 
 V. Nisbet, 18, 87. 
 V. Ojala, 160. 
 V. Olsson, 30, 138. 
 V. Peterson, 104, 122. 
 V. Plaistow, 19, 105. 
 V. Poslusny, 79. 
 V. Rodgers, et al., 42, 150. 
 V. Rodgers, et al., 41 (D. C). 
 V. Rodgers, et al., 42, 129 (C. C. A.). 
 V. Rodiek, 74. 
 V. Rose, 20, 21, 23. 
 V. Schurr, et al., 60. 
 V. Simon, 12, 16, 34, 118. 
 V. Spohrer, 12, 33, 35, 43, 119. 
 V. StoUer, 6, 26, 28, 59, 100, 103, 112, 130. 
 V. Van Der Molen, 59, 69. 
 V. Wayer, 60. 
 V. Williams (two cases), 151. 
 
TABLE OF CASES DIGESTED. I7I 
 
 W 
 
 Wagner, In re, 19. 
 
 Wallenburg v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 67, 149. 
 
 Wehrli, In re, 70 (2). 
 
 Welsh, In re, et al., 155, 156, 161. 
 
 Wolf, In re, 55, 153. 
 
 Y 
 Yamashita, In re, 143. 
 Young, In re, 144, 145. 
 Young, In re, 145 (Rehearing). 
 
 Z 
 
 Zartarian v. Billings, 42.