United States v. Wezel, 201.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 201.,201. |
| Citation | 49 F. Supp. 16 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WEZEL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Howard L. Doyle, U. S. Atty., of Springfield, Ill., and Michael Shore, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Peoria, Ill., for plaintiff.
John E. Dougherty and Wayne Mathis, both of Peoria, Ill., for defendant.
Findings of Fact.
This cause arises upon the complaint filed on August 8, 1942, and the affidavit attached thereto, filed as of the same date, and the amended affidavit, filed on December 2, 1942, and the answer of the defendant, filed as of February 10, 1943.
In said complaint it is alleged that William Henry Wezel was prior to the 28th day of January, 1935, a native and citizen of Germany, and that said defendant entered the United States on the 8th day of October, 1927, and now resides in Peoria, Illinois; that on the 12th day of September, 1934, the said defendant filed his petition for naturalization, and that said defendant, at that time, alleged under oath among other things, as follows:
Thereafter, on the 28th day of January, 1935, the said defendant took the following oath of allegiance in open court as required by law:
That on the same date to wit, the 28th day of January, A.D. 1935, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Northern Division, located at Peoria, Illinois, said court relying upon the good faith of the representations made by the defendant, entered its order admitting said defendant to citizenship in the United States, and the certificate of naturalization was issued. Said complaint further alleges that all the representations, as aforesaid, were false and fraudulent. All of said allegations, with the exception of the false accusations have been admitted by the defendant.
The court finds that the defendant is now a resident of the city of Peoria, Illinois, and that the court has jurisdiction to determine the material facts at issue.
The court is quite cognizant of the seriousness of the charge and the result of the determination of this issue. It is especially serious not only to the defendant and to the members of his family, but the result of this determination is quite serious to the many thousand immigrants now true Americans, who have obtained their citizenship by honest and well-meaning intentions, and who have remained true and loyal citizens of this country. It is equally serious to the entire citizenship of this land. No court should set aside or hold for naught a certificate of citizenship properly obtained unless the evidence is clear and convincing, and no court should hesitate if the evidence produced conforms to such standard. This is neither a criminal, quasi criminal or civil action, but, on the contrary, is an action in equity. The court is of the belief that the defendant is entitled to that rule of law which requires that a man shall be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before he should be so found.
There is no dispute in this cause that the defendant arrived as an immigrant from Germany, coming first to Canada, and then to the United States; that he traveled from California to the city of Peoria, and there obtained employment on a farm, and was later employed as a laborer by the Caterpillar Tractor Company in East Peoria, Illinois, and has been so employed by such Company for several years last past; that he educated himself to the reasonable use of the English language, and almost completed a course at Wabash College; that he has attended school at Bradley Polytechnic Institute, Peoria, Illinois; that he was married at the time of his naturalization, and has obtained promotions from his employers from the time of his employment at the Caterpillar Tractor Company to the present time. These statements are made in fairness to the defendant, but are not controlling in the determination of the issues before this court.
In the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, shortly prior to the time, and subsequent to his receiving his naturalization certificate, defendant was a student at Wabash College, and while he was such a student he wrote different theses eulogizing the German form of government, and further stated, "He thought he could go back to Germany and get a good job because he was a Nazi and had papers showing he belonged to the Nazi party in 1922." He had heated debates with his Professors about the Nazi system of Government in which defendant Wezel constantly proclaimed the superiority of such Government; that he had constantly stated before these Professors, "That he was delighted and enthusiastic and satisfied with the progress of Hitler and Nazi Germany"; that he was emotional and fervid in his support of Hitler; that during these times he had stated, "I have worn the Brown shirt and I am proud of it." At a lecture about the year 1935 at the College, at which he was required to attend, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bregler, Civ. A. No. 3197
...after an alien has become a citizen of the United States may be pertinent and taken into consideration by the Court. United States v. Wezel, D.C.S.D.Ill., 49 F.Supp. 16. The case of Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L. Ed. 1796, when carefully considered is read......
-
Klapprott v. United States
...v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 27, 28, 34 S.Ct. 10, 15, 58 L.Ed. 101; Sourino v. United States, 5 Cir., 86 F.2d 309; United States v. Wezel, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 16, 17. 6 Cf. Wallace v. United States, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 240, 1 Rule 60. Relief From Judgment or Order. * * * '(b) Mistakes; Inadverte......
-
Klapprott v. United States, 9382.
...Sourino v. United States, 5 Cir., 1936, 86 F.2d 309, certiorari denied 1937, 300 U.S. 661, 57 S.Ct. 491, 81 L.Ed. 869; United States v. Wezel, D.C.Ill.1943, 49 F.Supp. 16. 8 The ground of reversal was that the evidence was insufficient to support the allegations that there existed a conspir......
-
United States v. Wolter, Civil Action No. 2467.
...D.C., 47 F.Supp. 765; United States v. Kuhn, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 407; United States v. Schuchhardt, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 567; United States v. Wezel, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 16; United States v. Meyer, D.C., 48 F.Supp. 926; United States v. Murray, D.C., 48 F.Supp. To my mind, the Government has proved b......