Yunghauss v. United States
| Decision Date | 08 October 1914 |
| Docket Number | 291. |
| Citation | 218 F. 168 |
| Parties | YUNGHAUSS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William Blau and Moses Cohen, both of New York City, for appellant.
John E. Walker, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City.
Before COXE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
The question presented is an interesting one and is not free from doubt, but we are inclined to the opinion that the construction of the law adopted by the District Judges gives effect both to the provisions of the act of 1906 and to the law as it existed prior thereto, without interfering improperly with the rights of applicants for citizenship. It puts all aliens upon a par as to the time in which their declaration is to be made. A declaration made prior to the act of 1906 is valid, no matter how long prior thereto it may have been made, but after the date of the passage of that act the person who made the declaration has no superior rights to one who declares thereafter. In both cases action must be taken within seven years. It seems to us that this is what Congress intended. In effect the act says to the alien who has made his declaration prior to 1906:
'Your declaration is in all respects valid, but if you wish to become a citizen you cannot delay your application for a period of over seven years from the passage of the act.'
The cases sustaining this view are In re Wehrli (D.C.) 157 F. 938, In re Goldstein (D.C.) 211 F. 163. The opposing view is clearly stated by Judge Orr in Eichhorst v. Lindsey (D.C.) 209 F. 708, and by Judge Maxey in Re Anderson (D.C.) 214 F. 662.
We think the decision of the District Court should be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tutun v. United States Neuberger v. Same
...United States v. Baisara, 180 F. 694, 103 C. C. A 660; United States v. Fokschauer, 184 F. 990, 106 C. C. A. 668; Yunghauss v. United States, 218 F. 168, 134 C. C. A. 67; United States v. Meyer, 241 F. 305, 154 C. C. A. 185, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 704; United States v. Vogel (C. C. A.) 262 F. 262......
-
United States v. Mulvey
...... been made of the testimony and proceedings there had. United States v. Cohen, 179 F. 834, 103 C.C.A. 28,. 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 829; United States v. Poslusny, 179. F. 836, 103 C.C.A. 324; United States v. Balsara,. 180 F. 694, 103 C.C.A. 660; Yunghauss v. United. States, 218 F. 168, 134 C.C.A. 67. . . The. Court of Appeals in the Third Circuit has evidently placed. the same construction on section 15 of the act as that which. we place upon it. For upon facts very similar to those in the. case at bar, and which have already been ......
-
In re Conis
...to naturalization statutes as well as to other statutes (In re Wehrli D. C. 157 F. 938; In re Yunghauss D. C. 210 F. 545; Yunghauss v. U. S. C. C. A. 218 F. 168; United States v. Morena, 245 U. S. 392, 38 S. Ct. 151, 62 L. Ed. 359), despite the fact that doubts with respect to such statutes......
-
In re Lee
...236 F. 987 In re LEE. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.October 30, 1916 . TUTTLE,. ...In. the words of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second. Circuit, in the case of Yunghauss v. United States,. 218 F. 168, 134 C.C.A. 67:. . . . 'A. declaration made prior to ......