United States v. Stoller

• Decision Date: 08 July 1910
• Citation: 180 F. 910
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. STOLLER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Washington

180 F. 910

UNITED STATES v. STOLLER.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

July 8, 1910

Joseph B. Lindsley, U.S. Atty.

John Speed Smith, of counsel, for Naturalization Bureau.

WHITSON District Judge.

This is a proceeding by petition to cancel a certificate of naturalization issued to the respondent by the clerk of the superior court of the state of Washington for the county of Clarke. The facts set up and relied upon are:

(a) That the respondent was a resident of Klickitat county at the time his petition was filed.

(b) That the petition was not made and filed in duplicate.

(c) That prior to the issuance of the certificate no order of court admitting respondent had been signed, but subsequently a nunc pro tunc order was signed and entered.

These assignments embrace the errors deemed fatal to the action of the state court.

First. Section 3 of the act of June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 478)), designates the courts that are authorized to naturalize aliens, and the superior courts of this state, being courts of record, are embraced within its provisions. This section also provides:

'That the naturalization jurisdiction of all courts herein specified, state, territorial, and federal, shall extend only to aliens resident within the respective judicial districts of such courts.'

Klickitat and Clarke counties are in the same judicial district, and the courts of those counties are presided over by the same judge. Rem. and Ball. Codes, Sec. 9050. While in United States v. Schurr et al. (D.C.) 163 F. 648, it was held that a petitioner for naturalization must under the language above quoted file his petition in the county of his residence, the holding was based upon constitutional restrictions on jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the state of Michigan. In this state the superior courts are not thus limited. See article 4, Sec. 6, State Const.; 1 Rem. & Ball. Code, p. 73, and cases there noted.

The respondent, then, was within the letter of the law when he filed his petition in the judicial district in which he resided, and he was entitled to select the county of that district which best suited his convenience.

Second. We have seen that the superior court was acting in virtue of the authority conferred by the act of Congress. It is not alleged that the respondent failed to file a petition, but that he failed to make and sign it in duplicate. It will be observed that the language of the statute is very specific:

'That exclusive jurisdiction to naturalize aliens as citizens of the United States is hereby conferred upon the following specified courts,' etc.

By this was meant the power to entertain and decide. The statute repeatedly refers to 'the petition.' See section 4. The second subdivision of this section does require that it be made and filed in duplicate; but, since the power was conferred upon the court and a petition duly verified was filed, the omission to file it in duplicate was nothing more than an irregularity. It did not affect the jurisdiction. The court could and should, of course, have required a literal compliance with the statute, but the view that its action upon the petition was void for the reason that its power was not thus invoked does not comport with the analogies of the law in the construction of statutes. For instance a statute required the consent of the father to a marriage. It was held that a marriage without it was not void. So a statute which required that contracts 'shall be signed by the commissioner' did not render void a contract not thus signed. Again, where a court-martial was to be appointed in June and was not appointed until July, the statute was held to be directory. These illustrations are taken from Sedgwick on Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law (2d Ed.) p. 318 et seq., where numerous other cases to the same effect are cited by the learned author. My conclusion is that the provision requiring the petition to be filed in duplicate is directory; that it might be corrected on appeal if this court could sit as one of revision, but the failure to so file does not render nugatory the act of a court admitting an applicant without it.

Third. Section 9 provides that every final order which shall be made upon a petition shall be under the hand of the court and entered in full upon a record kept for that purpose, while section 18 in part reads as follows:

'That it is hereby made a felony for any clerk or other person to issue or be a party to the issuance of a certificate of citizenship contrary to the provisions of this act, except upon a final order under the hand of a court having jurisdiction to make such order, and upon conviction thereof,' etc.

Whatever may have been in the mind of the framer of this section, it cannot escape notice that it is not made a felony to issue a certificate without the final order under the hand of the court. The offense consists in issuing it contrary to the provisions of the act unless it be upon a final order under the hand of the court. In other words, when the court under its hand orders the clerk to issue a certificate, the clerk is not held responsible if the court falls into an error of law. If he issues the certificate without the order under the hand of the court, and it is not in compliance with the law, then he is guilty of a felony. It can hardly be supposed that the purpose was to prescribe a rule so productive of delay and inconvenience as that contended for and at the same time...