United States v. Janke

• Decision Date: 20 October 1910
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. JANKE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota

183 F. 277

UNITED STATES v. JANKE et al.

United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Western Division.

October 20, 1910

P. H Rourke, U.S. Atty.

Edward Engerud, for defendants.

AMIDON District Judge.

The indictment in this case charges the defendants with the crime of perjury. They were witnesses in the district court of Logan county in support of the petition of Mathilda Schultz to be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and signed and swore to affidavits embodying facts essential to her admission to citizenship. These affidavits were false. The evidence shows that at the time the proceeding was instituted Mathilda Schultz had been dead for more than four years. Herman Hardt, clerk of the court, was the guardian of her minor child. Previous to her death she had filed upon a government homestead. Hardt became apprehensive that the child would lose title to the homestead, because the mother at the time of her death was neither a citizen nor had declared her intention to become such. He therefore determined to carry through the court of which he was clerk a proceeding which should result in a judgment admitting Mathilda Schultz to citizenship, and thus he thought the minor child would be given a status which would entitle him to prove up on the homestead.

This case is a striking illustration of how impossible it is to secure good government even under wise laws, if men who are charged with their administration are false to their trust. In the year 1906 Congress had before it for months the question of the proper regulation of the admission of foreigners to citizenship. The subject had been brought impressively before the country by the discovery that extensive frauds had been committed under the laws then in force. In cases arising at St. Louis (Levin v. U.S., 128 F. 826, 63 C.C.A. 476; Dolan v. U.S., 133 F 440, 69 C.C.A. 274) it appeared that corrupt politicians, in order to forward their corrupt purposes, had gathered together mobs of foreigners and brought them to the courthouse, grouped according to their nationality, Huns Italians, Armenians, and Jews. They were collected in the corridors of the courthouse, and each band placed under the generalship of a policeman, and then marched in blocks before the judges of one of the high courts of that city, and there, under a merely formal ceremony, in which the oath was administered to the entire block, they were admitted as citizens. In some cases the formality of going before the court was omitted, and citizenship papers issued to lists furnished by ward politicians. Upon investigation it was found that many of those people had been in the United States for only a few days. Similar frauds were subsequently discovered in other cities. As the result of these disclosures an extensive inquiry was entered upon by the government, which resulted in the passage of the law under which these defendants are now upon trial. The whole method of admitting aliens to citizenship was changed. The cardinal feature of the proceeding under the present law is that it shall be, as to each person applying to be admitted, a solemn and carefully carried out judicial proceeding. The party applying to be admitted is required to file a petition in writing in court, and to support that petition by the affidavit of at least two witnesses, disclosing that he has resided continuously in the United States at least five years immediately preceding the time of the filing of the petition, and has also resided in the state in which the application is made at least one year. The petition and affidavits must also show that the party is such a person as would be entitled to citizenship. A copy of the petition and of the affidavits supporting it must also be filed in the department at Washington. Then notice is given, as in the case of a judicial proceeding, setting forth that the application has been made, and that the hearing will be had before a court of record at a time specified. Now, what is to be done in court when that proceeding is taken up? Let me read to you the section of the law:

'That...