Watkins v. Morgenthau, 2906.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1944
• Docket Number: No. 2906.,2906.
• Citation: 56 F. Supp. 529
• Parties: WATKINS v. MORGENTHAU, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

56 F. Supp. 529

WATKINS v. MORGENTHAU, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

No. 2906.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 20, 1944.

Edward S. Morris and Duane, Morris & Heckscher, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Frank Bradley, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., of Norristown, Pa., and Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

In this civil action for a declaratory judgment the plaintiff seeks to establish her American citizenship. She has moved for summary judgment, basing her motion upon admissions in the pleadings, affidavits of her sister and herself, and copies of certain letters, sworn statements and documents filed with the Department of Justice at the time of the administrative hearing, the authenticity of which are not disputed. No question is raised as to the propriety of the procedure. The following material facts are not controverted:

The plaintiff was born in Japan on April 12, 1896, being the youngest of six children. Her mother, born in the United States in 1859, had gone to Japan with her parents when she was 16 years old and in 1886 had married the plaintiff's father, a citizen and resident of Japan. The plaintiff's mother continued to live in Japan from the date of her marriage until 1900, in a home provided by her husband. In 1900 she left her husband and returned to the United States, bringing her children with her, where she resided continuously until her death in 1935. A document signed by the plaintiff's father dated May 26, 1900, about the time the plaintiff's mother came to America, shows that he agreed to her going and remaining there for 10 years "or such period as may be considered advisable." He also agreed that she should have entire control of the children, and that he would send a monthly sum for their support and that on his death he would provide for them. It is undisputed that the plaintiff's father never followed the family to America and that neither his wife nor children ever received any support or legacy from him. He died in 1928.

The averments of the complaint as to the cause of the separation are not admitted nor is there any competent proof that the plaintiff's parents were divorced or that their separation was in accordance with any formal legal proceedings.

The plaintiff's citizenship depends upon her mother's status at two different points in her life; first, at the time of the plaintiff's birth and second, after the return of the family to America. If her mother's marriage to a Japanese subject and continued residence in Japan thereafter resulted in her expatriation and if, upon her return to America in 1900, she regained American citizenship, then, by virtue of the Act of March 2, 1907, Sec. 5, 34 Stat. 1229, as well as by the American common law of nationality prior to that Act, the plaintiff has become an American citizen.

Whether or under what circumstances, prior to the Act of 1907, an American woman married to a foreigner lost her American citizenship involves the vexed question of expatriation—a question which produced a century of obscure and hopelessly conflicting court decisions, contradictory departmental rulings and fragmentary legislation, all growing from ambivalent national policy in which the impulse to retain the allegience of our own nationals and the desire to invite renunciation of citizenship from aliens were in opposition. An Appellate Court will, no doubt, have the benefit of the briefs which contain a complete and wholly satisfactory analysis of the decisions and rulings and, were I to undertake to review them, I could hardly do better than incorporate the briefs at length in this opinion. I will, therefore, simply state my conclusion that by the law of the United States the marriage of the plaintiff's mother to a citizen of Japan in Tokyo in 1886 taken in connection with her prior residence there and her continuing to reside there for 14 years thereafter resulted in the loss of her American citizenship.

The only ruling by this court upon the question (In re Wright, D.C., 19 F.Supp. 224) suggests the view just stated, although the point actually decided in that case was...