Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Name, age, and place of residence of wife,
Names, ages, and places of residence of

[blocks in formation]

Section 12 of the Act provides that:

"Clerks of courts having and exercising jurisdiction in naturalization matters shall be responsible for all blank certificates of citizenship received by them from time to time from the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and shall account for the same to the said Bureau whenever required so to do by such Bureau. No certificate of citizenship received by any such clerk which may be defaced or injured in such manner as to prevent its use as herein provided shall in any case be destroyed, but such certificate shall be returned to the said Bureau; and in case any such clerk shall fail to return or properly account for any certificate furnished by the said Bureau, as herein provided, he shall be liable to the United States in the sum of fifty dollars, to be recovered in an action of debt, for each and every certificate not properly accounted for or returned."

(h.) Proof of Naturalization.

(i.) The Record.

The judicial record, or a certified copy thereof, is the usual evidence of naturalization. Naturalization can be proved by parol only when the record has been lost or destroyed. Green v. Salas, 31 Fed. 106. In this case the court said that it found nowhere a departure from the

rule that "the record must be produced or accounted for."

This rule applies to a woman who alleges citizenship through the naturalization of her husband. Belcher v. Farren, 26 Pac. 791.

The mere certificate of the clerk of the court, stating that the applicant had been naturalized, is not competent proof. Green v. Salas, supra.

A passport issued by the Department of State is not competent judicial proof of citizenship. In re Gee Hop, 71 Fed. 274.

Where the name of a person is misstated in a certificate of naturalization, the true name may be proved by parol. Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz, 135 Ill. 591.

It was held in In re McCoppin, 5 Sawyer, 630, that an inaccurate statement of facts in the recital of a judgment of naturalization did not impair the judgment where it appeared that the conditions of law had been fulfilled. See, also, In re Coleman, 15 Blatch. 406.

In Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135, the United States Supreme Court held that "where no record of naturalization can be produced, evidence that a person having the requisite qualifications to become a citizen did in fact and for a long time vote and hold office and exercise rights belonging to citizens, is sufficient to warrant a jury in inferring that he had been duly naturalized as a citizen."

In the absence of a record, a jury may be allowed to infer that a person having the requisite qualifications to become a citizen had been fully naturalized. Contzen v. United States, 179 U. S. 191.

Evidence that a man had lived in the United States for forty years, that he had voted for twenty-five years, and that a person of his name had been naturalized, is sufficient to show that he was a naturalized citizen. Ryan vs. Egan, 156 Ill., 224.

Where it appeared that an alien was residing in South Carolina on July 4, 1776; that he fought as a Whig officer during the Revolution; that he acquired and sold real estate; that he was always reputed as a citizen, and that his children born in France while he and his wife were there had always claimed to be American citizens, it was held that he and his children were citizens of the United States. Sasportas v. De La Motta, 10 Rich. Eq. 38; People v. McNally, 59 How. Pr. 500.

Where an alien came to the United States in 1865 and lived here until his death in 1899, having participated in state and national elections, and held at his death a liquor tax certificate which could be issued lawfully only to a citizen, it was held that this was sufficient to show that he had been in fact naturalized and was a citizen at his death. Fay v. Taylor, 63 N. Y. S. 572, 31 Misc. Rep. 32.

Where it is alleged that a record of naturalization has been lost or destroyed, the Department of State leaves it to the courts to hear the evidence of such loss and remedy it. Secretary Bayard, Feb. 2, 1887, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 498.

The proper course for a person seeking to establish his naturalization by other than ordinary proofs is to resort to the judicial branch of the government, which is charged with the duty of naturalizing aliens, and which is invested with appropriate powers for investigating and determining matters of fact which are essential to the decision of the question of acquired citizenship. Secretary Blaine, May 9, 1889, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 498.

Record evidence of naturalization of the fathers (of the applicants for protection) is, of course, the best evidence but it is not the only evidence. If it can be proved "by the testimony of witnesses who know the fact that their fathers were naturalized, such evidence will be received

and considered." Secretary Olney, April 14, 1896; 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 499.

The record may be amended nunc pro tunc. In re Christern, 11 Jones & S. 523.

It has been held that the record of the declaration of intention may be amended to include omissions even after a proceeding to impeach the record has been begun. State v. McDonald, 24 Minn. 48.

The record can not be amended, however, where it does not show that the necessary proceedings were taken under the naturalization law. Matter of Desty, 8 Abb. (N. Y.), N. Cas. 250; Green v. Salas, 31 Fed. 106.

In Gagnon v. United States, 193 U. S. 451, where a judgment of naturalization was entered by way of amendment of the record nunc pro tunc thirty-three years after judgment was alleged to have been rendered, there being no entry or memorandum of any kind of the alleged original decree, it was held that the order was invalid, the power to amend not involving the power to create.

(ii.) Where Records Have Been Lost or Destroyed.

Where a record has been lost or destroyed, or where it can not be produced owing to lapse of time or death of the person naturalized, secondary evidence is admissible to prove naturalization. Strickley v. Hill, 22 Utah, 257; People v. McNally, 59 How. Pr. 500; Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U. S. 773; Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 Ill. 141.

Applications for the issuance of declarations of intention, or certificates of naturalization, in lieu of declarations of intention or certificates of naturalization claimed to have been lost or destroyed, shall be made under oath to the clerk of the court by which any such declarations of intention or certificates of naturalization were originally issued, and shall contain full information in regard to the lost or destroyed papers, and as to the time, place,

and circumstances of such alleged loss or destruction. The clerk shall forward to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization the above-mentioned applications, together with such information as he may have bearing upon the merits thereof, for investigation, and no such paper so applied for shall be issued until the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) reports the results of its investigation as to the merits of the application. Nat. Reg. of Oct. 2, 1906.

In every case in which the clerk of a court issues, in accordance with the preceding rule, a declaration of intention (Form 2203) or a certificate of naturalization (Form 2207), upon proof of the loss or destruction of the original, he shall make an entry on the original declaration, or on the stub of the original certificate of naturalization, as the case may require, showing the issuance of a new paper and the number thereof, and shall immediately thereafter forward to the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization (Division of Naturalization) the duplicate of any such paper so issued. Nat. Reg. of Oct. 2, 1906.

(iii.) Certificate of Naturalization.

Some courts have held that a certificate of naturalization is legal evidence of the naturalization of a person. Vaux v. Nesbit, 1 McCord Ch. 352; People v. Pease, 30 Barb. 588; Brown v. Shilling, 9 Md. 74.

Other courts have held that the certificate in particular cases was insufficient evidence of naturalization. See Miller v. Reinhart, 18 Ga. 239, and cases cited.

In Green v. Salas, 31 Fed. 106, it was held that a mere certificate of the clerk of the court, stating that the applicant had been naturalized, is not competent proof, and can not be aided by parol evidence.

Certified copies of all papers, documents, certificates, and records required to be used, filed, recorded, or kept

« ÎnapoiContinuă »