United States v. Mansour

• Decision Date: 18 August 1908
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MANSOUR.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

170 F. 671

UNITED STATES v. MANSOUR.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

August 18, 1908

On May 4, 1901, the defendant received a certificate of naturalization from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. He obtained it without a 'first paper,' on the ground that he had first come to this country when under 18. The court record, therefore consists only of the depositions of applicant and witness taken on the 3d of May, and the oath of allegiance and order of admission taken and entered on the day following. None of the court officers concerned in the application has any recollection of the applicant or his witness.

The present petition or complaint asserts in substance two reasons for revoking or canceling this grant of naturalization: (1) That Mansour himself never took or subscribed the oath of renunciation and allegiance, but procured another to personate him throughout the proceedings in violation of fundamental rules of honesty in any legal proceeding, as well as of Rev. St. Sec. 2165 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1329); and (2) that Mansour had not on the 4th of May, 1901, resided within the United States for the continued term of five years, as required by Rev. St. Sec. 2170 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 1333).

Upon these two issues much testimony has been taken, for the most part in open court, and from witnesses who have not impressed the court as either accurate or desirous of telling the truth. It is established, or asserted and not denied, that Mansour is a Levantine Hebrew, born in Syria in 1875, and one of a numerous family of brothers, who, severally or jointly have during the times under investigation sojourned and transacted business in Manchester, England, Cairo, Hayti, New York, and perhaps Marseilles. Before his naturalization this Mansour went frequently to Hayti, and on the day he received his certificate he left the United States, and at least as early as 1902 became a resident of Port-au-Prince, Hayti there remaining until 1906, when he was compelled to leave by governmental interference with his business, and under circumstances which he conceives entitle him to redress through diplomatic channels. On leaving Hayti he came to New York, and presented a claim against the Haytian Republic to the Secretary of State, whereof the foundation, of course, is his American citizenship. This suit is really a proceeding to test Mansour's right to have his demand championed (if just) by the United States, and has been pressed by the agents of Hayti, who have very obviously furnished the information and witnesses on which the complainant relies. This finding is made on request of defendant, although I do not deem it material. According to defendant's own story, he came to New York at the age of 15, in 1890, on a ship he does not remember, and under an Italian name he has also forgotten, the name being that written in a passage ticket bought from a broker. He then spoke Arabic, classic or 'high' Hebrew ('the Hebrew of the Bible'), a little Italian and a little French, but he spoke, read, or wrote no English at all. From 1890 to 1901 he lodged in the Hebrew quarter of the East Side of this city, and peddled such articles as he could carry over his arm (e.g., tablecloths), confining his operations to the quarter in which he lodged, 'selling only to Jewish people.' It was there and among these people he learned English, and by 1901 he spoke (so he testifies) as he did at the trial. But the Yiddish jargon he never learned. His absences from New York during these 11 years were confessedly frequent. He first declared that he remained in New York until 1895 or 1896, and then, on the formation of the Haytian firm of Isaac Mansour Freres, began to go to Hayti for two or three months in each year, so continuing until 1901, when on the day of his admission to citizenship he left the country; later in his evidence, however, Mansour declared that he went to Hayti every year after 1890. The business of Isaac Mansour Freres seems to have been considerable, 'a bright business' in defendant's phrase, yet, when in New York, this rather important merchant walked Hester, Essex, and Chrystie streets peddling (inter alia) tablecloths at $2.50 each, from a supply carried over his arm.

To call this story difficult of belief is a moderate statement. A cloud of witnesses have been produced to show where Mansour lodged, and what he traded in, during these 11 years. It would be useless to digest their evidence in detail, but from it I draw the following inferences:

(a) These witnesses knew nothing of Mansour's English and Haytian connections; (b) they did not know him at all well; (c) their dates do not wholly agree with Mansour's, nor with each other's, and the lack of agreement is so great as to impeach their accuracy; and (d) what knowledge of defendant they had seems to end about 1899-- this last observation, however does not apply to the three Tonkins and one Kraemer, to whom reference will be made later.

From this evidence I find that Mansour did spend much of his time in New York between 1890 and 1899, and in 1901 spoke and wrote English. It is further obvious from his appearance and demeanor in court that he is a man of intelligence and shrewdness, writing French more readily than English, and speaking such English as was never learned on the East Side of New York. His accent, intonation, and choice of words are all those of one who learned French first and then English from Englishmen, rather than from any Americans, not to speak of those who practice the dialect of the Bowery, with foreign-born tongues.

Taking the personation charge: The complainant avers that, when Mansour desired a naturalization certificate, he hired one Sersock to make the application in his name, answer the necessary questions, and write the name Mansour as required and hired also one Araman to represent himself as Joseph T. Dina, a business associate of Mansours, and as Dina serve as witness and write Dina's name at the foot of the usual deposition. Sersock and Araman have been produced, and they swear to this story. In 1901 Araman was 18 years old, and so ignorant that he says he copied the name Joseph T. Dina from his cuff, being unable to trust his own ability to write from memory. Sersock's age has not been testified to, but from his appearance in 1908 he was less than 18 in 1901; while his story of the occurrences in Brooklyn on May 3 and 4, 1901, cannot be accurate in all its details. Neither of these confessed criminals testified with any appearance of sincerity, and I remain of the opinion expressed at the hearing, that, while their tale might be true, it was not true because they testified to it. It is, moreover, in the light of the findings above made, nearly incredible. No matter how infirm Mansour's residence may have been, nor how improper his motives for wishing to go through the form of naturalization, he did not need the assistance of two boys of 18 to personate a man of 26, nor the help of lads of intelligence far less than his own, whose writing was worse than his rapid and vigorous French script. The prosecution feels this, and has introduced the testimony of distinguished handwriting experts, to show that the round, unformed schoolboy American hand, in which defendant's name is signed to the court records, is that of Sersock. And other experts have testified for the defense. What these gentlemen have expressed their opinions about, however, is really this: Given specimens of Sersock's and Mansour's handwriting of 1907-08, which does the 1901 court record most resemble? On this question I think the prosecution has much the best of it, but the opportunities for error are so great, in view of the lapse of time, and the youth of Sersock in 1901, that I am not willing to...