United States of America v. Solomon Louis Ginsberg
| Citation | 243 U.S. 472,61 L.Ed. 853,37 S.Ct. 422 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 401,401 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SOLOMON LOUIS GINSBERG |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
The certificate in question is as follows:
The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hereby certifies that a record on an appeal now pending before it discloses the following:
The United States of America brought a suit in the district court of the United States for the western district of Missouri to cancel a certificate of citizenship issued December 18, 1912, to Solomon Louis Ginsberg, a native of Russia. The suit was brought under the provision of § 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 601, chap. 3592, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 4347), authorizing '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 canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud, or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured.' On final hearing the trial court dismissed the bill. The government appealed.
The grounds for cancelation averred in the bill were: (a) The certificate of citizenship was illegally procured in that there was a violation of the provision of § 9 of the Act of June 29, 1906, 'that every final hearing upon such petition (for naturalization) shall be had in open court before a judge or judges thereof,' the hearing in question having been before a judge in chambers, and not in open court. (b) The certificate of citizenship was illegally procured because, though the averments of Ginsberg's petition and the verifying affidavits of his witnesses were in due form and sufficient on their face, yet the undisputed facts disclosed at the hearing of the petition showed he was not qualified to be admitted to citizenship; and the petition was also a fraud upon the law.
At the trial of the suit below there was no conflict in the evidence as to time, place, and circumstances of the hearing of the petition for naturalization nor as to Ginsberg's qualifications for citizenship, and the disclosures thereof to the judge who awarded the certificate. Sworn statements of these matters by Ginsberg and the two men who acted as his witnesses were made part of the bill of complaint, and, with the court records, of which judicial notice was taken, constituted the sole evidence upon which the trial court refused to cancel the certificate and dismissed the bill. This evidence showed the following:
The petition for naturalization was heard by a United States district judge assigned for service at Kansas City in the western district of Missouri, not the regular judge of that district. The petition was first brought up at a night session of the court December 16, 1912, and the hearing thereof was postponed by the court, with direction to Ginsberg and his witnesses to appear at the judge's chambers some time after 8 o'clock A. M. December 18, 1912. The judge's chambers were separate from but contiguous to the court room. According to direction they appeared at the chambers about half past 8 o'clock in the morning, the hearing was then had, and the certificate of citizenship was awarded. As shown by the court records for the previous day, court had adjourned until a later hour on the 18th than that at which the petition was heard. The petition for naturalization was filed June 7, 1912. The proofs at the hearing of it showed that Ginsberg had not resided continuously within the United States five years, nor within the state of Missouri one year, immediately preceding the date of his application, as
required by § 4, pp. 2 and 4 of the Act of June 29, 1906. Ginsberg was a native subject of Russia. He finished his school studies in England in 1890. He then went to Brazil and engaged in missionary work. In 1893 he identified himself with a foreign mission board in that country, with which he served continuously thereafter. At the end of each seven years of service he was allowed a vacation of about fourteen months, and, having married in Brazil, in 1893, a native of the state of Missouri, he was accustomed to spend his vacations with his wife's relatives in the latter place, following which, to use his expression, 'he would return to his home in Brazil.' When he declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, in 1904, it was his intention to sever his connection with the mission board and remain in this country; but the condition of his work in Brazil made it necessary for him to resume his residence there. In the five years preceding June 7, 1912, when his petition for naturalization was filed, he had been 'actually and physically resident within the United States' but fifty-eight days; that is, from the 10th of the preceding April. When he filed his petition for naturalization and testified in support thereof he had no intention of claiming continuous residence in the United States, but whenever asked he stated the facts about his actual residence in Brazil as above recited. He said the clerk of the court prepared his petition, the averments of which, if true, were sufficient under the law.
It is further certified that the following questions of law arise from the record and are presented, the decision of which is indispensable to a determination of the case. To the end that this court may properly discharge its duty it desires the instruction of the Supreme Court upon them:
1. Is the final hearing of a petition for naturalization had in open court, as required by § 9 of the Act of June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. at L. 599, chap. 3592, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 4368, if, after the petition is first presented in open court, the hearing thereof is passed to and finally held in the chambers of the judge adjoining the court room, on a subsequent day and at an hour earlier than that to which the court has been regularly adjourned?
2. If, under the above circumstances, the final hearing of the petition was not in open court, as required, may the certificate of citizenship issued on such a hearing and the order pursuant thereto be set aside and canceled in an independent suit brought under § 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906, chap. 3592, on the ground that it was illegally procured or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asrat v. Barr
...2011) (quoting INS v. Pangilinan , 486 U.S. 875, 884, 108 S.Ct. 2210, 100 L.Ed.2d 882 (1988) ); see also United States v. Ginsberg , 243 U.S. 472, 475, 37 S.Ct. 422, 61 L.Ed. 853 (1917) ("No alien has the slightest right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with.......
-
In re Vasicek
...271 F. 326 In re VASICEK. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern ... M. R ... Bevington, of St. Louis, Mo., for the United States ... DYER, ... 1066, and United States v ... Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 474, 475, 37 Sup.Ct. 422, 61 L.Ed ... ...
-
Schneiderman v. United States
...Ness, 245 U.S. 319, 38 S.Ct. 118, 62 L.Ed. 321), the requirement that the final hearing be had in open court (United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 37 S.Ct. 422, 61 L.Ed. 853), the residence requirement (R.S. § 2170), the general requirement that the applicant be able to speak the Englis......
-
United States v. Osidach, Civ. A. No. 79-4212.
...will in respect of a matter so vital to the public welfare. ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 753, quoting U. S. v. Ginsberg, 243 U.S. 472, 474-475, 37 S.Ct. 422, 425, 61 L.Ed. 853 (1917).13 The constitutionality of § 13 of the DPA goes to the question of the rights of aliens under the immigration la......