Schulz Naturalization Case
| Decision Date | 13 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | 4372 |
| Citation | 384 Pa. 558,121 A.2d 164 |
| Parties | Petition for Naturalization for Franz Albert SCHULZ. Franz Albert Schulz, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 4, 1956
Appeal, No. 3, Jan. T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Misc. No. 3915, in re Petition for Naturalization for Franz Albert Schulz. Order reversed.
Proceeding upon petition for naturalization. Before WINDLE, P.J. and HARVEY, J.
Order entered denying petition. Petitioner appealed.
For these reasons, we reverse the order of the court below. The record is remanded to the court below to enter an order in accordance with this opinion.
Fred T. Cadmus, III, with him C. Richard Morton and Cadmus & Morton, for appellant.
No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.
Before STERN, C.J., STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO AND ARNOLD, JJ.
This appeal is from a denial by the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County of appellant's petition for naturalization. The question presented is whether the appellant applied for an exemption, and was relieved thereby from service in the armed forces of the United States on the ground that he was an alien. The trial court ruled that he had and, therefore, was ineligible to become a United States Citizen.
Appellant, a German national, has resided continuously in the United States since 1930. On March 2, 1942, appellant was examined by a Selective Service Local Board and, on the basis of War Department instructions excluding all enemy aliens from service, was placed in class 4-C, the class for unacceptable aliens. On August 12, 1942, petitioner furnished information from which an "Alien's Personal History and Statement" form (DSS 304) was completed. Section 41 of this form, allegedly signed by appellant, reads as follows:
On the basis of this statement, appellant's 4-C classification was continued. In 1944, appellant's case was reviewed by the Selective Service Board. It was reported by the Board's interviewer that appellant was unwilling to enter the United Stated Army. No forms were signed by appellant at this time and the 4-C classification was continued. At no time did appellant complete an "Application of Alien for Relief from Training and Service in the Armed Forces". It is doubtful whether or not he would have been permitted to do so had he wished. Cf. Petition of Zumsteg, 122 F.Supp. 670, 672.
In 1953, appellant filed a petition for naturalization. A hearing was held before an examiner who recommended that the petition be denied. The examiner concluded that petitioner was ineligible for citizenship by virtue of Section 315 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 242, 8 U.S.C.A. 1426, which provides:
Following a trial, at which testimony was produced by both sides, but before disposition of the matter, the examiner withdrew the unfavorable recommendation and substituted a favorable recommendation. This was caused by the conclusion of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization that the phrase "I do object to service in the land or naval forces of the United States" by an enemy alien, did not constitute an application for exemption within the meaning of Section 315 of the Act. Notwithstanding the favorable recommendation, the trial court concluded: "... that petitioner did apply for exemption from service ... on the ground that he was an alien, and was relieved from such service on such ground and that therefore he is ineligible to become a citizen."
The Federal Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 4, provides that: "The Congress shall have power ... to establish a uniform rule of naturalization ...". Section 310 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 239, 8 U.S.C.A. 1421, confers upon specified Federal courts and all courts of record of the States and Territories, the jurisdiction to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States. "... All [Federal and State courts] are, for the purposes of the naturalization acts, federal courts, ... one set of courts is not foreign to the other ...".: United States v. Aakervik, 180 F. 137, 141. State Courts, therefore, must apply the Federal law. The Federal acts on naturalization are to be uniformly enforced in view of the express requirement that the rule of naturalization shall be uniform: In re Tomarchio, 269 F. 400; In re Martinez, 73 F.Supp. 101. In Clarke's Case, 301 Pa. 321, 152 A. 92, this Court stated (p. 325): "... such cases arise under the Constitution and the laws of the United States ...". However, "... the state court does not act solely as a federal agency, but exercises judicial functions ...". (p. 325) Thus the courts of common pleas of this state have jurisdiction to naturalize and while they can exercise independent discretion, such jurisdiction should be exercised in conformity with Federal law.
We also held in Clarke's Case, supra, that where a court of record of this state refuses an application for naturalization, an appeal in the nature of a certiorari is of right. This Court will examine the record in its broadest sense to determine the fundamental questions involved and, in so deciding, apply Federal law.
The District Court, Southern District of New York, in the Petition of Zumsteg, 122 F.Supp. 670, had before it the precise question here presented: Whether an affirmative answer to Question 41 in the "Alien's Personal History and Statement" is equivalent to an application for exemption from military service. That court held that it did not, stating (p. 672): "...
This decision, though not controlling in this appeal, is persuasive. Its conclusion is further buttressed by the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to withdraw its objection to petitioner's naturalization on the ground "... that further evidence would be required to show that an affirmative application was made."
PER CURIAM, March 13, 1956:
The foregoing opinion was prepared by the late Justice ALLEN M. STEARNE before his death on February 28, 1956. It is now adopted and filed as the opinion of the Court.
In August, 1942, when this country was at war with Nazi Germany when American soldiers and sailors were being killed on land and sea, when Nazi airplanes were bombing helpless civilian populations of countries allied with America, when Nazi submarines were sinking ships bearing the flag of the United States, when, in short, the very existence of the United States was being threatened and the entire nation was on a war footing, Franz Albert Schulz, the petitioner in this case, being of draft age, walked into the office of the Selective Service Local Board in Paoli, Chester County, and declared: "I do object to service in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Schulz
...121 A.2d 164 ... 384 Pa. 558 ... Petition for Naturalization for Franz Albert SCHULZ ... Franz Albert Schulz, Appellant ... Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... March 13, 1956 ... [384 Pa. 559] ... On the basis of this statement, appellant's 4-C classification was continued. In 1944, appellant's case was reviewed by the Selective Service Board. It was reported by the Board's interviewer that appellant was unwilling to enter the United States ... ...
-
In re Naturalization of Cuozzo, 11841.
... ... The statutory provision which governs the case reads as follows: ... "* * * any alien who applies or has applied for exemption or discharge from training or service in the Armed Forces or in the ... ...