In re Goldberg

• Decision Date: 17 December 1920
• Docket Number: 9010.
• Citation: 269 F. 392
• Parties: In re GOLDBERG.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

269 F. 392

In re GOLDBERG.

No. 9010.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

December 17, 1920

M. R Bevington, Chief Naturalization Examiner, of St. Louis, Mo for the United States.

DYER District Judge.

The question presented by this case is what degree of acquaintance with American institutions and ideals is essential, on the part of a candidate for naturalization, to warrant favorable action upon his petition. To state the question another way, how ignorant may an alien be of American institutions and ideals, and still be admitted to citizenship? Although this question is one of of the gravest any naturalization judge can be called upon to determine there appears to be but one modern authority to be found in the reports, that of In re Meakins (D.C.) 164 F 334, 335, in which Judge Whitson most clearly states:

' * * * While it may not be impossible for one to be attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, who is without definite knowledge of the workings of the government in detail, he must have sufficient general information concerning it as to enable him to give a reason for his faith; and where, as in this case, an applicant does not know how the laws are made, who makes them, nor how they are enforced, he is illy prepared to participate in the selection of the persons who shall perform those duties. He cannot be attached to principles of which he is entirely ignorant. * * * '

The candidate represents in his own behalf that he has resided continuously within the United States for more than five years immediately preceding the date of his petition, that he has at all times behaved as a man of good moral character, that he has been law-abiding, industrious, and that his family life has been all that it should be. But is the boon of citizenship to be granted on a showing of this character? I think not. All the matters presented by the petitioner constitute nothing more than the duty any good citizen owes himself, his country, and his God. As stated by Mr. Justice Van Devanter, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 22, 34 Sup.Ct. 13, 58 L.Ed. 101:

' * * * Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101; Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827. * * * '

And again (231 U.S.on page 23, 34 Sup.Ct. 13, 58 L.Ed. 101):

' * * * In other words, it was contemplated that his admission should be mutually beneficial to the government and himself; the proof in respect of his established residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the Constitution being exacted because of what they promised for the future, rather than for what they told of the past. * * * '

While a candidate for naturalization is to be commended for having acquired material wealth, and for having lived a blameless life, during his period of residence here, nevertheless such a state of affairs does not relieve him in any way of the necessity of possessing a working knowledge of the form and general structure of our government, and of the responsibilities and duties, as well as the privileges of a citizen thereof. Lacking such qualifications, it is impossible for him to swear, either intelligently or conscientiously, that, as required by law, he is 'attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States,' or that he is 'well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. ' Under our form of government, the people, theoretically, at least, make, interpret, and execute the laws. Accordingly, their reasonable intelligence and education are indispensable prerequisites to the preservation and transmission of civil liberty and republican institutions.

The requirements of law cannot be held to have been met on a mere showing of the candidate that he is peaceable, industrious, of good character, and law-abiding. By reference to decisions of the courts announced prior to the Naturalization Act of 1906 (34 Stat.pt. 1, p. 596), and during the period the government did not, as now, exercise supervision of the naturalization of aliens, we find declared in In re Naturalization, 5 Pa.Dist.R. 597, that no person will be naturalized who has not a general familiarity with the federal Constitution and with our method of government, state and national. The act of Congress requires each applicant to take an oath that he is attached to the principles of the Constitution. No applicant will be permitted to so swear unless he knows what these principles are. No person should be naturalized who has not some general comprehension of what the Constitution of the United States is and of the principles which it affirms. In re Bodek (C.C.) 63 F. 813. Also see Rushworth v. Judges, 58 N.J.Law, 97, 32 A. 743, 30 L.R.A. 761; In re Conway, 9 Misc.Rep. 652, 30 N.Y.Supp. 835; In re Lab's Petition, 3 Pa.Dist.R. 728, 5 Pa.Dist.R. 597; In re Kanaka Nian, 6 Utah, 259, 21 P. 993, 4 L.R.A. 726. The applicant's oath to support the Constitution of the United States will not be accepted, if, upon examination, it appears that he does not understand its significance, or is without such knowledge of the Constitution as is essential to the rational assumption of an understanding to support it. In re Bodek, supra.

Any detailed consideration of the question of law involved in this case at once raises the inquiry as to the causes that brought about the enactment of the present naturalization statute, which has in operation proved a most workable and satisfactory rule. The people of this country are indebted for their present naturalization statute, as they are indebted for numerous other beneficent laws that actually protect their interest, to Theodore Roosevelt, then President of the United States, who on December 5, 1905 (Doc. No. 46, 59th Congress, 1st Session), called upon the law-making body to bring to an end the notorious naturalization frauds that had shocked the country for years. In United States v. Janke (D.C.) 183 F. 278, we find this picture of the times, by Judge Amidon:

'In the year 1906 Congress had before it for months the question of the proper regulation of the admission of foreigners to citizenship. The subject had been brought impressively before the country by the discovery that extensive frauds had been committed under the laws then in force. In cases arising at St. Louis (Levin v. U.S., 128 F. 826, 63 C.C.A. 476; Dolan v. U.S., 133 F. 440, 69 C.C.A. 274) it appeared that corrupt politicians, in order to forward their corrupt purposes, had gathered together mobs of foreigners and brought them to the courthouse, grouped according to their nationality-- Huns, Italians, Armenians, and Jews. They were collected in the corridors of the courthouse, and each band placed under the generalship of a policeman, and then marched in blocks before the judges of one of the high courts of that city, and there, under a merely formal ceremony, in which the oath was administered to the entire block, they were admitted as citizens. In some cases the formality of going before the court was omitted, and citizenship papers issued to lists furnished by ward politicians. Upon investigation it was found that many of these people had been in the United States for only a few days. Similar frauds were subsequently discovered in other cities.'

The same court, in United States v. Lenore (D.C.) 207 F. 867, 868, makes the further statement:

'In 1902 fraudulent and illegal practices in the naturalization of aliens were discovered in the city of St. Louis, Mo. Some of these misdoings are recounted in the opinion in Dolan v. United States, 133 F. 440, 69 C.C.A. 274. The prosecutions which resulted in the Eastern district of Missouri led to investigations in other cities, and the discovery of many fraudulent and illegal practices in the issuance of certificates of naturalization. In some cases perjury and subornation of perjury were resorted to for the purpose of deceiving the court and obtaining certificates for aliens who had not resided in the country for the requisite time. In other cases foreigners were marched into the court in large companies, and the oath of allegiance administered to the whole company, although many of them were unable either to speak or understand the language that was used. Two persons made the ordinary witness' oaths for the whole company. Upon this sham and spurious proceeding certificates were issued. In other cases clerks of court issued such certificates without any proceeding in court whatever, and fabricated a judicial record to support the certificates. It was even discovered that some clerks were engaged in a regular brokerage business in certificates of naturalization. This practice went so far that some of these certificates were sold to aliens residing abroad, who had never been in the United States, in order that they might be used for fraudulent purposes, both with respect to foreign countries and this country. The result of these investigations was gathered together in an elaborate report, which was presented to Congress and resulted in the passage of the act of 1906. Congressional Record, vol. 40, part of page 7036; House Documents, col. 44 (Miscellaneous) 59th Congress, 1st Session.'

The legislation adopted, as a result of President Roosevelt's insistence, while containing safeguards not previously found in our...