In re Di Torio
| Decision Date | 02 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 17547.,17547. |
| Citation | 8 F.2d 279 |
| Parties | In re DI TORIO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Jacob I. Grossman, of Chicago, Ill., amicus curiæ.
On May 25, 1925, an order was made admitting the applicant to citizenship. On May 29, 1925, a motion was made by the United States to vacate the order on the ground that applicant's declaration of intention was void. The declaration was made on October 11, 1918, "during the period of 30 days" preceding the congressional election of November, 1918. The motion to vacate is based upon a provision of the Act of May 9, 1918, c. 69, § 1(7), amending the Naturalization Act of 1906, § 4(7). That provision is as follows:
"Provided, that it shall not be lawful to make a declaration of intention before the clerk of any court on election day or during the period of thirty days preceding the day of holding any election in the jurisdiction of the court." Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 4352(7).
It is found imbedded in a section which relates to the naturalization of Filipinos, Porto Ricans, or aliens in the service of the army, navy, marine corps, coast guard, or merchant marine.
The ambiguity of the provision is at once apparent. The word "election" is generic, and includes special and general elections, elections by General Assembly, city council, or other such body, votes on propositions, and any choice between alternatives. The word "election" in some states does, and, in others does not, include primary elections.
There is, perhaps, no word in legal terminology so frequently used as the word "jurisdiction," so capable of use in a general and vague sense, and which is used so often by men learned in the law without due regard to precision in its application. Mr. Justice Miller in opinion of the court in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 732, 20 L. Ed. 666.
In section 6 of the Naturalization Act of 1906, it is provided that "no person shall be naturalized nor shall any certificate of naturalization be issued by any court within thirty days preceding the holding of any general election within its territorial jurisdiction." Comp. St. § 4354.
In the proviso under consideration, the words "general" and "territorial" are omitted. If the proviso is held to cover all elections in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, this court it without power to accept declarations of intention during almost eleven months of the year.
Where the language of a statute is ambiguous, it is proper to consider the conditions with reference to the subject-matter that existed when it was adopted, the occasion and necessity for the law, and the causes which induced its enactment, or, in other words, the mischief sought to be avoided and the remedy intended to be afforded.
The report of the committee of the House of Representatives of the Sixty-Fifth Congress which had this provision before it explains the purpose of the proviso, as follows:
The provision to which reference is made is found in section 6 of the Naturalization Act of 1906. Its history is well known. Opinions of Attorney General for 1910, p. 146; Re Goldberg (D. C.) 269 F. 392. It resulted from investigations by a commission appointed by President Roosevelt in 1905. Wholesale frauds had been committed by political workers in naturalizing large numbers of aliens immediately preceding important general elections. The purpose of the legislation was to prevent a repetition of those frauds.
Aliens, in some states, upon filing the declaration of intention, have the right to vote, to hold property, to take by descent, and to enjoy other privileges. The purpose of the proviso of 1918 appears to have been to prevent frauds in voting in connection with declarations of intention analagous to those which had been committed in connection with the naturalization of aliens. To accomplish the result, however, it was not necessary that the proviso should have been made applicable to states in which the making of the declaration did not give the right to vote. The state of Illinois does not permit aliens who have made the declaration to vote.
The spirit or reason of the law is the life of the law, and will prevail over the letter. The meaning of general terms may be restrained by the spirit or reason of the law and general language may be construed to admit implied exceptions. A thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of the makers. Thus in Church of the Holy Trinity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Mitchell v. Sage Stores Co.
...... defendant cites the noted case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226;. United States v. Aetna Explosives Company, 256 U.S. 402, 41. S.Ct. 513, 65 L.Ed. 1013; Carolene Products Company v. Mahoney, D.C., 294 F. 902; and In re Di Torio,. D.C., 8 F.2d 279. In our opinion these cases are not. controlling here. See case cited under conclusion of law 7. and also Carolene Products Co. v. Wallace, D.C., 27. F.Supp. 110, 112, on the subject of fortification of milk. with new vitamins. . . While. it probably is ......
-
State, Relation of Gammons v. Shafer
...determined by known rules of construction, it is inoperative and void, nor can court supply a meaning not deductible from the act. Re De Torio, 8 F.2d 279. order to be valid a law must be complete at the time of its passage. North v. Board of Education, 145 N.E. 158; Ex parte Gordon, 232 S.......
-
Moore v. Brown
...... enforcement or administration. (a) Unlimited distribution. In re Opinion of the Justices, 154 A. 217; State. ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375. (b) Uncertainty. Uncertainty invalidates any measure. State ex rel. v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375; In re Di Torio, 8 F.2d. 279; State v. Ry. Co., 146 Mo. 155. (5) The proposed. measure, disguised as a constitutional amendment, is merely,. at most, a legislative act void upon a multiplicity of. grounds. (6) Respondent was properly entitled to the. injunctive relief granted by the trial court. Under the. ......
-
State ex rel. Dunker v. Spink Hutterian Brethren
...141 Conn. 288, 106 A.2d 152, 45 A.L.R.2d 1234; Boyce Motor Lines, Inc., v. U. S., 342 U.S. 337, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 L.Ed. 367; In re Di Torio, D.C., 8 F.2d 279; McDougall v. Lueder, 389 Ill. 141, 58 N.E.2d 899, 156 A.L.R. 1059; State ex rel. Cooperative Wool Growers v. Bushfield, 69 S.D. 172, ......
-
The Mischief Rule
...it is better explained in terms of the mischief to be suppressed). 78. Id. at 61. For recognition of this overlap, see In re Di Torio, 8 F.2d 279, 279 (N.D. Ill. 1925). In the Institutes, Coke glosses a statute’s mischief as the “cause of the making of the same.” COKE, supra note 65, at 682......