Charles Green's Son v. Salas

• Decision Date: 04 June 1887
• Citation: 31 F. 106
• Parties: CHARLES GREEN'S SON and others v. SALAS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

31 F. 106

CHARLES GREEN'S SON and others v. SALAS.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Georgia, Eastern Division.

June 4, 1887

Syllabus by the Court

The original status of an alien is presumed to continue until the contrary be shown.

The naturalization of an alien as a citizen of the United States is strictly a judicial act. The action of the court must be entered of record as its judgment, and, if valid, it is final and closes inquiry.

In the absence of proof of the loss or destruction of a record, the record can be proved only by the record itself, or by an extract therefrom.

The certificate of the clerk of the district court, reciting that the applicant has been duly admitted to citizenship, but failing to show or verify any extract from the record, or minute of the action of the court, is not competent evidence to show naturalization.

The act of congress, April 14, 1802, (2 St. at Large 154,) expressly requires the record of proceedings for naturalization to be recorded; and the rule that the record of the action of the court, in passing on the application, must be produced or accounted for, has not been departed from in a decided case.

Where a court recites its own proceedings, unerring verity is attributed by the law to the record.

The record, if not correctly made up, or if lost or destroyed should be perfected or replaced by appropriate proceedings in the court where the judgment was pronounced.

Naturalization cannot be proved by parol.

In this country expatriation is a fundamental right. The domicile of birth easily reverts, and a very short residence, with the intention to regain the original domicile, is sufficient. A native of a foreign government may resume his original citizenship, under such condition as the government of his birth may require. The fact of expatriation is to be proved by any fact that will convince the judgment.

The authenticity of his order being admitted, the courts of the United States must presume that the Captain General and Governor of Cuba, possessing a high executive and superintending control, acted on this occasion with legitimate authority, and that he had sufficient evidence to satisfy him of Spanish domicile; and the defendant, having asserted such domicile before the Spanish authorities, will not now be heard to deny it.

A court of the United States will not recognize, as a citizen of this government, one foreign born, who deliberately renounces his citizenship here, and who places himself under the dominion of another government, and who for 18 years has held himself out to all men as an alien, even though he may have imposed on the other government to obtain anew his citizenship there.

Charlton & Mackall and Chisholm & Erwin, for complainants.

Denmark & Adams, George A. Mercer, and S. Yates Levy, for defendant.

SPEER J.

A plea to the jurisdiction has been filed, averring that Ramon Salas, the defendant, is not, as alleged in the bill, a Spanish subject, and an alien, but that he is a citizen of the United States of America, and of the state of Georgia where the complainants also reside. The complainants took issue with the averments of the plea, and both parties have been fully heard.

Premising that it is admitted that the defendant Salas, is an alien by birth, and a subject of Spain, his original status is presumed to continue until the contrary be shown. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483. The first inquiry is, was Ramon Salas in fact 'admitted to become' a citizen of the United States in the manner prescribed by law, and has he furnished competent and sufficient proof of his naturalization. Secondly, if his naturalization as an American citizen has been effected legally, has he since then expatriated himself as an American citizen, and 'redintegrated' himself as a Spanish subject?

It may be considered as settled that the naturalization of an alien as a citizen of the United States, is a judicial act, and it follows that, to be effective, it must be done by a court of competent jurisdiction. Chief Justice MARSHALL in Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 406, states the principle in this language:

'The various acts upon the subject submit the decision on the rights of aliens to admission as citizens to courts of record; they are to receive testimony, compare it with the law, and to judge on both law and fact. This judgment is entered on record as the judgment of the court,-- it seems to us, if it be in legal form, to close all inquiry; and, like every other judgment, to be complete evidence of its own validity.'

See, also, In re Coleman, 15 Blatchf. 420.

The courts of New York have had ample experience with questions of naturalization, and In re an Alien, 7 Hill, 137, a supreme court of that state announces:

'The application must be supported by legal proof of the facts on which it rests. The proceedings are strictly judicial. The alien who applies for admission asserts a compliance on his part with the prescribed conditions, and he must furnish the requisite proof of what he so alleges, or he establishes no right.'

The Acorn, 2 Abb. 444.

Of naturalization, then, there must be, as in other judicial matters, that judgment which is 'the end of the law,' which Mr. Justice Blackstone declares is 'the decision or sentence of the law announced by a court, or other competent tribunal, upon the matter contained in the record,' (3 Bl.Comm. 395;) and which my Lord Coke pronounces the 'very voyce of law and right. ' Now, how is this judgment shown? In the nature of things, it must be a matter of record.

A court speaks by its dockets, minutes, or records. Where there is no record there is no judgment. Plant v. Gunn, 2 Woods, 378.

The defendant, to show his admission to citizenship, relies upon the certificate of the clerk of the district court of South Carolina, which is as follows:

'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT.

'To all Whom these Presents may Come, Greeting: Whereas at a federal district court, held at Charleston, under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, on the fourteenth day of January, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, and the eighty-first year of the sovereignty and independence of the said states, Ramon Salas, late of Sabadell, Spain, aged thirty-six years, came into the said court, and made application to be made a citizen of these our said states; and having complied with all the conditions and requisites of the acts of congress in such case made and provided, for establishing a uniform mode of naturalization; and the oath to support the constitution of the United States of America, and to renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, being administered unto him in open court before the Honorable A. G. MAGRATH, U.S. judge of said district,-- the said Ramon Salas is by virtue thereof, and the premises, declared and enrolled a citizen of the said states.

'In testimony whereof I have affixed the seal of the said court to these presents, at Charleston, in the district aforesaid, on the day and year above written. H. Y. GRAY, U.S. Dist. Clerk, S.C.D.

'January 14, 1857.'

Also on a book purporting to be a register of the names of aliens admitted to citizenship by the 'federal courts' in South Carolina, on which the applicant's name appears. This was called 'The Book of Aliens.' The minutes of the court were placed in evidence, and from them it appears that the district court of the United States for the district of South Carolina was not in session on the fourteenth day of January, 1857, the date of the alleged admission of Mr. Salas. There is no application, oath, or other record relating to this transaction; but the defendant testifies, subject to objection to evidence by parol, that he took an oath or oaths, how many he does not remember, or before whom taken. From the minutes, it appears that it was the practice of the district court of South Carolina, in cases of admission to citizenship, to pass an order, which was recorded by the clerk. The 'Book of Aliens' contained names of aliens admitted in the federal courts; in the state courts; under treaties; and also a class of persons who were admitted as denizens. It does not appear to be a naturalization docket of the district court.

It is a matter of interest and importance to determine whether these records, if they are entitled to that designation, have such weight as evidence that it will be fairly inferable from them that there was judicial action upon this application for citizenship. In other words, was there a judgment admitting Ramon Salas to American citizenship? In the absence of proof of the loss or destruction of a record,-- and there is no pertinent proof on that subject here,-- the method of proving that record is by the production of the record itself, or an extract from it. The certificate of the clerk in evidence is neither such record, nor such extract. It is a recital of what the clerk thinks has been done. Now, the verity and importance which is attributable to the certificate of the clerk is not because he is the clerk, but because he has access to the records, is their custodian, and is presumed to faithfully transcribe and to truly certify extracts therefrom.

The case of Miller v. Reinhart, 18 Ga. 239, is precisely in point. This was a question of naturalization, where the certificate was:

'STATE OF GEORGIA, CHATHAM COUNTY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

'In the Superior Court of Chatham County.

'To all Whom these Presents may Come, Greeting: I, John F. Guilmartin, clerk of said court, do hereby certify and make known that at a superior court held at Savannah, in and for the county aforesaid, before the Honorable WILLIAM

...