John Oluf Johannessen v. United States, No. 230
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Pitney |
| Citation | 225 U.S. 227,56 L.Ed. 1066,32 S.Ct. 613 |
| Docket Number | No. 230 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 1912 |
| Parties | JOHN OLUF JOHANNESSEN, Appt., v. UNITED STATES |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Page 228
Messrs. Edward J. McCutchen and Samuel Knight for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from page 228 intentionally omitted]
Page 229
Assistant Attorney General Harr for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 229-232 intentionally omitted]
Page 232
Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:
This was a proceeding under § 15 of the act of June 29, 1906, chap. 3592 (34 Stat. at L. 596, 601, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, pp. 97, 485), instituted by the district attorney of the United States for the northern district of California, to cancel a certificate of citizenship, granted to the appellant by a state court long prior to the passage of the act referred to, on the ground that it had been fraudulently and illegally procured. The case was heard upon demurrer to an amended petition, which demurrer was overruled; and thereupon, no answer being filed, the court proceeded to make a decree setting aside and canceling the certificate. The appellant brings that decree here for review.
The facts, as set forth in the amended petition and admitted by the demurrer, are as follows: Johannessen, the appellant, is a native of Norway, and arrived in the United States for the first time in the month of December, 1888. Less than four years thereafter, and on October 6, 1892, he applied to the superior court of Jefferson county, in the state of Washington, under § 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1329), to be admitted to
Page 233
citizenship, and procured from that court a certificate admitting him to such citizenship. This certificate was based upon the perjured testimony of two witnesses, to the effect that Johannessen had resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for five years at least, then last past. The facts were not discovered by the government until June 29, 1908, when Johannessen made a voluntary statement to the Department of Justice in the form of an affidavit, which is made a part of the amended petition, and wherein he admits that the certificate of citizenship was illegally procured, in that he had not been a resident of the United States for five years at the time it was issued.
The petition contains all necessary averments to show the jurisdiction of the district court over the present action, leaving only the merits in controversy.
The provisions of law in force at the time Johannessen thus applied for and procured admission to citizenship are contained in §§ 2165 and 2170 of the Revised Statutes, which, so far as pertinent, are as follows:
'Sec. 2165. An alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise:
'First. He shall declare on oath, before a circuit or district court of the United States, or a district or supreme court of the territories, or a court of record of any of the states having common-law jurisdiction and a seal and clerk, two years, at least, prior to his admission, that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignity of which the alien may be at the time a citizen or subject.
'Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the
Page 234
courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and, particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.
'Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year 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; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.
* * * * *
'Sec. 2170. No alien shall be admitted to become a citizen who has not, for the continued term of five years next preceding his admission, resided within the United States.'
The act of June 29, 1906, contains a revision of the naturalization laws, together with some additional provisions, among which are the following:
'Sec. 15. That it shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court having jurisdiction to naturalize aliens in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing the suit, for the purpose of setting aside and canceling the certificate of citizenship on the ground of fraud, or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured. In any such proceedings the party holding the certificate of
Page 235
citizenship alleged to have been fraudulently or illegally procured shall have sixty days' personal notice in which to make answer to the petition of the United States; and if the holder of such certificate be absent from the United States or from the district in which he last had his residence, such notice shall be given by publication in the manner provided for the service of summons by publication or upon absentees by the laws of the state or the place where such suit is brought.
* * * * *
'Whenever any certificate of citizenship shall be set aside or canceled, as herein provided, the court in which such judgment or decree is rendered shall make an order canceling such certificate of citizenship, and shall send a certified copy of such order to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization; and in case such certificate was not originally issued by the court making such order, it shall direct the clerk of the court to transmit a copy of such order and judgment to the court out of which such certificate of citizenship shall have been originally issued. And it shall thereupon be the duty of the clerk of the court receiving such certified copy of the order and judgment of the court to enter the same of record, and to cancel such original and to notify the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization of such cancelation.
'The provisions of this section shall apply not only to certificates of citizenship issued under the provisions of this act, but to all certificates of citizenship which may have been issued heretofore by any court exercising jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings under prior laws.'
The principal contentions in the argument for appellant are, that a decree of naturalization is a judgment of a competent court, and subject to all the rules of law regarding judgments as such; that a court of equity could not, prior to June 29, 1906, set aside or annul such a judgment
Page 236
for fraud intrinsic the record, that is, founded upon perjured testimony, or any matter which was actually presented and considered in giving the judgment; and that if the act of June 29, 1906, authorizes the impeachment of the pre-existing judgment of a co-ordinate court for fraud consisting of the introduction of relevant perjured testimony, it is unconstitutional as an exercise of judicial power by the legislature.
It was long ago held in this court, in a case arising upon the early acts of Congress which submitted to courts of record the right of aliens to admission as citizens, that the judgment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Seven Barrels of Wine, in Re
...Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall, 277, text, 321, 18 L.Ed. 356; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L.Ed. 366; Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, text, 242, 32 S.Ct. 613, 56 L.Ed. 1066; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.S. 223, 25 S.Ct. 18, 49 L.Ed. 169. Such enforcement may also violate pro......
-
DiLeo v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 22366-86
...580, 594 (1952). The ex post facto clause is not applicable to legislation imposing civil liabilities. See Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 242 (1912). Applying these principles, the Supreme Court rejected an ex post facto challenge to Connecticut's retrospective application of a......
-
Miller v. Howe Sound Min. Co., Civil Action No. 628.
...I, Section 9, which forbids the enactment of ex post facto laws, applies only to criminal or penal statutes (Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 32 S.Ct. 613, 56 L.Ed. 1066; De Pass v. Bidwell, C.C., 124 F. 615), and the contract clause, by its express terms, applies only to the Sta......
-
Bridges v. Wixon, 788
...In that connection, it must be remembered that although deportation technically is not criminal punishment (Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 242, 32 S.Ct. 613, 617, 56 L.Ed. 1066; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591, 33 S.Ct. 607, 608, 57 L.Ed. 978; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32,......
-
United States v. Kusche, Civil Action No. 2425-PH.
...to Fraud and/or Illegal Procurement Without Distinction: Simon 5/25/09 COD MASS 170 F. 680 7 months absence. Johannessen 5/27/12 US SC 225 U.S. 227, Perjury re absence. 32 S.Ct. 613 Di Giovine 5/7/17 DC WD NY 242 F. 741 18 months absence. De Tolna 6/28/28 DE ED NY 27 F.2d 984 Returned to Au......
-
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy Mascitti v. Grath Coleman v. Grath, Nos. 43
...1137. 19. Ibid. 20. 40 Stat. 1012, 8 U.S.C.A. § 137. 21. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648; Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 242, 32 S.Ct. 613, 617, 56 L.Ed. 1066. 22. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 730, 13 S.Ct. 1016, 1028, 37 L.Ed. 905; Bugajewitz v. ......
-
United States v. Osidach, Civ. A. No. 79-4212.
...S.Ct. 422, 425, 61 L.Ed. 853; Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 17 34 S.Ct. 10, 11, 58 L.Ed. 101 (1913); Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 240 32 S.Ct. 613, 616, 56 L.Ed. 1066 (1912). Cf. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. at 163 63 S.Ct. at 1355 (Douglas, J., concurring). ......
-
Matter of Extradition of McMullen, No. 90 Civ. 5901 (RJW).
...into the United States did not violate ex post facto clause, which "has no application to deportation"); Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 242, 32 S.Ct. 613, 617, 56 L.Ed. 1066 (1912) (law revoking citizenship of persons who had obtained citizenship through fraud or illegal conduc......
-
IMMIGRATION LAW - DENATURALIZED CITIZEN CONVICTED OF SEVERAL HEROIN RELATED CRIMES IS NOT SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION - Okpala v. Whitaker.
...or in other words, ab initio denaturalization, and was subject to deportation. Id. at 969. See also Johanncssen v. United Stales. 225 U.S. 227, 241 (1912) (revoking petitioner's naturalization status). In Johannessen, the petitioner obtained naturalization status based on perjured witness's......