In re Bonner

• Citation: 279 F. 789
• Decision Date: 06 February 1922
• Docket Number: 51.
• Parties: In re BONNER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana

279 F. 789

In re BONNER.

No. 51.

United States District Court, D. Montana.

February 6, 1922

John L Slattery, U.S. Atty., and Ronald Higgins and W. H. Meigs Asst. U.S. Attys., all of Helena, Mont., for the United States.

George Bourquin, of Butte, Mont., for Bonner.

BOURQUIN District Judge.

Intermediate Bonner's petition filed for citizenship and hearing upon it, Bonner and another were joined in an information herein charging maintenance of a common nuisance, a building wherein intoxicating liquors were unlawfully kept and sold, of a date subsequent to his petition or application, and they pleaded not guilty. At the hearing aforesaid, Bonner's qualifications for citizenship were proven, save in so far as the charge aforesaid might impeach, and his application was taken under advisement. Later he and his co-defendant changed their pleas to guilty, and were sentenced to fine and imprisonment.

The circumstances developed are that he was proprietor of a 'soft drink' establishment, formerly a saloon; that his codefendant was his employee therein; that at the time charged they had made sales of moonshine whisky, and in and about the building were seized several gallons of said liquor, the property of Bonner. Gauged by penalties, the said offense is the gravest of those denounced by the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305). Naturalization Act, Sec. 4 subd. 4 (Comp. St. Sec. 4352, subd. 4), provides that as a condition precedent:

'It shall be made to appear to * * * 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 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.'

In Bonner's behalf it is now earnestly argued with ability and some plausibility: (1) That he made proof of behavior as a man of good moral character for five years before his application, as the statute provides; (2) that subsequent behavior is not material, and so his violation of the Prohibition Act should not be taken into account; (3) that good moral repute cannot be impeached by specific acts; (4) that his offense is a mere misdemeanor, only malum prohibitum, involves no moral turpitude, only violates a new law that interferes with immemorial appetites, customs, and business, is without dominant public opinion in its support, and which at the time was violated generally and in Butte specially, by innumerable otherwise good and respectable citizens, and with no particular consequences by way of reproach or condemnation. The first, third, and fourth may be conceded arguendo; the second not.

The 'date of his application' is not limited to the day the petition is filed, but includes the day of...