United States v. Olsson

• Decision Date: 11 May 1912
• Docket Number: 1,688.
• Citation: 196 F. 562
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. OLSSON.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

196 F. 562

UNITED STATES v. OLSSON.

No. 1,688.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Southern Division.

May 11, 1912

W. G McLaren, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., for the United states.

J. W A. Nichols, of Tacoma, Wash., for respondent.

HANFORD District Judge.

This suit is prosecuted by the United States District Attorney for this district, pursuant to the fifteenth section of the Naturalization Law of June 29, 1906, c. 3592 (34 U.S.Stat 596; U.S. Compiled Statutes Supp. 1907, p. 419; F.S.A. Supp 1909, p. 365; Pierce's Fed. Code, Sec. 8292), to obtain a decree setting aside and canceling a certificate of naturalization alleged to have been fraudulently obtained by the respondent. The grounds for the suit, as set forth in the government's petition, are that the respondent on the 10th day of January, 1910, obtained an order from the superior court of Pierce county, Wash., admitting him to become a citizen of the United States of America; that a certificate of citizenship was issued out of said court and delivered to him; that since said date he has claimed and now claims to be a citizen of the United States; that for the purpose of obtaining said certificate of citizenship the respondent intentionally represented to the court on the hearing of his application that:

'He was attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.'

Those averments and the jurisdictional facts set forth in the petition are admitted by the respondent's answer. He makes an issue, however, by denying the charge contained in the petition that the representations which he made to the court respecting his attitude toward the Constitution and government of the United States were and are contrary to the truth.

On the trial of the case the respondent appeared in person and by an attorney, and after the introduction of evidence on the part of the government tending to prove that he is now, and was at and previous to the time of being admitted to be a citizen of the United States, opposed to the form of government of this country and to the principles of the Constitution, he offered rebutting evidence and gave testimony in his own behalf, which in the opinion of the court materially aided the government's case. Answering direct interrogatories propounded by his own attorney, he denied that he is an anarchist, denied that he is opposed to organized government, and denied that he is in favor of overthrowing this government by force or violence, but omitted to make any declaration affirming his loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, and on the contrary, when tested by crossexamination, his answers to all questions respecting his attachment to the Constitution of the United States were evasive. He admitted that he is a socialist and frequenter of assemblages of socialists in which he participates as a speaker advocating a propaganda for radical changes in the institutions of the country. He claimed to have a clear understanding of the Constitution of the United States and knew that by one of its articles deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is forbidden, and yet the evidence introduced in his behalf proved that the party with which he is affiliated, and whose principles he advocates, has for its main object the complete elimination of property rights in this country. He expressed himself as being willing for people to retain their money, but insisting that all the land, buildings, and industrial institutions should become the common property of all the people, which object is to be attained,...