United States v. Butikofer

• Decision Date: 13 January 1916
• Citation: 228 F. 918
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BUTIKOFER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

228 F. 918

UNITED STATES v. BUTIKOFER.

United States District Court, D. Idaho, Eastern Division.

January 13, 1916

John R Smead, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Silver City, Idaho.

Richards Hart & Van Dam, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendant.

DIETRICH District Judge.

This is a proceeding brought under the provisions of section 15 of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 596, c 3592), to cancel a certificate of citizenship held by the defendant. The certificate was issued pursuant to a decree of naturalization entered by the district court of the Third judicial district in the territory of Utah April 11, 1889. The provision referred to authorizes such a proceeding only '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. ' Therefore it devolves upon the government to allege and prove either that the certificate was 'illegally procured,' or that it was obtained by fraud.

By stipulation the cause has been submitted on complaint and answer. The gist of the complaint is that at the time the naturalization proceedings were had defendant lacked approximately two months of having attained his majority. This fact the answer admits. There is no charge that he or his witnesses concealed or misrepresented the facts touching his age, or intended to or did mislead the court, nor is there any averment that the court was without knowledge of the correct date of the applicant's birth. It may very well be that, having full knowledge of the facts, the conclusion was reached as a matter of law that he was qualified. It must be borne in mind that there is no provision of the statutes prescribing an age qualification for citizenship. The view that the right of naturalization extends only to those of the age of 21 years rests upon general principles which the court may have thought to be inapplicable. By section 15 of the Naturalization Act Congress surely did not intend to authorize the overturning of a final decree of naturalization for a mere error of judgment committed by a court having jurisdiction and proceeding in the manner prescribed by law. The exercise by one court of the power to overthrow the judgment of another court having co-ordinate jurisdiction, merely because differing views of the law are entertained, would result in intolerable uncertainty and confusion. In United...