In re Kestelman

• Decision Date: 12 November 1908
• Citation: 165 F. 265
• Parties: In re KESTELMAN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

165 F. 265

In re KESTELMAN.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

November 12, 1908

William S. Gregg, Special U.S. Atty.

DALLAS Circuit Judge (orally).

Cases of this character are very difficult of decision by a single judge, where the evidence is, as I may say it is in this case, somewhat perplexing.

The applicant has complied with the requirements of the act (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3592, Sec. 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U.S. Comp. St Supp. 1907, p. 421)). He produces two witnesses who swear positively that they have known him in this country for five years, and he states in his petition the name of the vessel in which he claims to have made the voyage to this country. So far as these features of the case are concerned, I need say no more. Prima facie they entitle him to citizenship. But the Congress of the United States, the court is bound to assume, in requiring that the petitioner shall state the vessel in which he arrived and its time of arrival, meant to attach to the statement of those circumstances some material importance.

I suppose that the Congress perceived that it would be idle for the government of the United States to contest any application for citizenship upon the ground that the statement in the petition as to length of residence in this country was erroneous, unless provision were made for details of such statement, and, if need be, for proof of some of the elements going to make up the evidence as to length of residence.

This applicant has proved by the oath of two witnesses that they have known him here for upwards of five years. The testimony of the first witness examined in court, though he was positive, was unsatisfactory to me, because it does seem to me that a witness, upon being asked, 'How do you fix that as five years, and not as four?' should be able to give some reason. Still, while the evidence of that witness is not entirely satisfactory, there is nothing to justify a charge of an intention to swear falsely. The other witness was more satisfactory, because he did state a circumstance which appeals to the reason as one supporting his general statement that he had known the applicant for more than five years in this country. They may both be mistaken, however, and if, in point of fact, the applicant arrived in this country in the year 1904, they must be mistaken. The government has taken that position, and relies on the act of Congress which provides that the...