United States v. Frederick

Decision Date24 June 1943
Docket NumberCriminal No. 8534.
Citation50 F. Supp. 769
PartiesUNITED STATES v. FREDERICK.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Douglas W. McGregor, U. S. Atty., and Miles L. Moss and W. F. Leigh, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.

C. F. Tucker and J. A. Copeland, both of Houston, Tex., for defendant.

KENNERLY, District Judge.

This case arises under the Nationality Code contained in the Nationality Act of 1940, Sections 501 to 907, 8 U.S.C.A. The portion of the Act which is pertinent is part of Section 746, 8 U.S.C.A., reading as follows:

"(a) It is hereby made a felony for any alien or other person, whether an applicant for naturalization or citizenship, or otherwise, and whether an employee of the Government of the United States or not —

* * * * *

"(18) Knowingly to falsely represent himself to be a citizen of the United States without having been naturalized or admitted to citizenship, or without otherwise being a citizen of the United States."

Defendant is charged in Count One of the indictment with having knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States "in applying for a poll tax," etc., and in Count Two of the indictment with having knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States "in applying for a ballot to vote," etc.

The indictment, which is not well worded, was not attacked either by demurrer, motion to quash, or motion for bill of particulars, but defendant has pleaded not guilty thereto.

It is undisputed that defendant was on the dates charged in the indictment (December 27, 1941, and July 25, 1942), and is now, an alien.

1. The indictment in the Second Count charges that defendant knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States before an Election Judge of Precinct No. One of Harris County, Texas, in applying for a ballot to vote.1 Presumably a voting precinct of Harris County, Texas, of which there are more than a hundred, is meant. The evidence shows that Voting Precinct No. One is located in the heart of the City of Houston, Texas, and there is no evidence whatever that defendant made any representations to the Election Judge of that precinct or that he applied to him for a ballot to vote at any time. There is evidence, admitted over defendant's objections, that defendant offered to vote, obtained a ballot to vote, but did not in fact vote in the Democratic Primary Election held July 25, 1942, in Voting Precinct No. 81 in Harris County, Texas, which is ten or fifteen miles from Voting Precinct No. One.

Had the Government been content to charge defendant in the language of the Statute, with knowingly and falsely representing himself to be a citizen of the United States, without pointing out the occasion, time, and place, when, and the person to whom he so represented himself, defendant would have been entitled to require the filing of a bill of particulars setting forth such matters. Having alleged that defendant made such representations before an Election Judge of Precinct No. One in Harris County, Texas, defendant may not be found guilty under such count upon proof that such representations were made before the Election Judge of Precinct No. 81, an entirely different person, in an entirely different precinct. While the cases on the point are numerous and in much conflict, I think the weight of authority sustains this view. Defendant is found not guilty under Count Two of the indictment.

2. The indictment in the First Count charges that defendant knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States before a Deputy Collector and Assessor of Taxes of Harris County, Texas, in applying for a poll tax, etc.2

The evidence shows that on December 27, 1941, defendant presented himself before a Deputy Collector and Assessor of Taxes of Harris County, Texas, for the purpose of paying, and he paid, his poll tax, amounting to One and 50/100 Dollars ($1.50). And that there was issued to him a poll tax receipt, reading as follows:

                            "Precinct — Page ---- Line ---- Poll Tax Receipt     No. 9817
                             Number          State of Texas, County of Harris
                              81                              Date 12-27-1941
                                        Duplicate
                                         1941
                                        Received of Paul Frederick
                                        Address   Rt. 5 — Box 1136
                                                   Years
                                        Age ........  42 Occupation     Tool Maker
                            Length    | State ......  11 Birthplace     Germany
                              of     

The evidence is convincing, and I find that defendant, in applying for such poll tax, when he paid such poll tax and obtained such poll tax receipt, and in order to obtain same, knowingly and falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States.

Under the Laws of Texas, only citizens of the United States who have paid a poll tax may vote. Aliens may not vote. Articles 2954, 2955, and 3004, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas. Armed with the poll tax receipt which was issued to him, defendant, although he was not a citizen, could probably have voted — but illegally — in various elections in Texas during the year 1942. Had he not represented to the Deputy Collector and Assessor that he was a citizen of the United States, there would have been issued to him a poll tax receipt showing him to have been an alien, and with the word "Alien" printed in red ink thereon....

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. Martinez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • September 15, 1947
    ...in by way of creation."4 There can be no doubt of the right of Congress to regulate the conduct of aliens. See United States v. Frederick, D. C., 50 F.Supp. 769, at page 772; United States v. Tandaric, 7 Cir., 152 F.2d 3; Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 289, 24 S.Ct. 719, 48 L.Ed. Even if......
  • Mengel Co. v. Glenn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • August 9, 1943
    ... ...         "* * * * * * ...         "The undersigned (the bondholder) states that in making this delivery and in executing this power of attorney the undersigned has relied on ... Lich v. United States Rubber Co., D.C.N.J., 39 F. Supp. 675, and the cases therein cited; Willcuts v. Milton Dairy ... ...
  • United States v. Franklin, 10188.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 2, 1951
    ...225 U.S. 460, 468, 32 S.Ct. 734, 56 L.Ed. 1165; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585-591, 33 S.Ct. 607, 57 L.Ed. 978." In United States v. Frederick, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 769-772, affirmed 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 488, we find: "that Congress may exclude aliens from the United States, prescribe the condit......
  • United States v. Anzalone, Crim. A. No. 13150.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 25, 1951
    ...v. Achtner, 2 Cir., 1944, 144 F.2d 49, 52; United States v. Martinez, D.C.M.D.Pa. 1947, 73 F.Supp. 403, 407; United States v. Frederick, D.C.S.D.Tex.1943, 50 F.Supp. 769, 772. 2 See Hines v. Davidowitz, 1941, 312 U.S. 52, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581, in which the Supreme Court held that the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT