The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-24
THE CHEF OF POLICE.

THE CHEF OF POLICE.
eoo~~>,-~>ce...~>o~~~>oS~o~>~~e
Decision Of tho Commissioners OF Police I'm
the Case OF George w. MatseI-The Conn
plaint against the Chief Dismissod.
OPINION OF HON. JAMBs n. SMITH, JR., RECORDER.
On the 18th day of December last Theodore Stuyve-
bant, Esq., made affidavit, in which he stated, upon
Information and belief that George W. Mstse the Chief
Of Police was alien born, and subject Of the Queen
Of Great Britain and that the said Matse has not taken
any to snitle him to citizenship. Upon this
afidavt, charge preferred against Mr. Matseu Of
noneitizsnship Tho specifications under this charge
are in the following language
That George W. Mstse1 the acting Chief of Police of
the city of New York, is an alien born.
That he Is subject Of the Queen Of England.
That he has taken steps whatever to become cit
0en o the United States BY means whereof this depo
Chief Ct Police, Ia guilty OF conduct unbeooming
policemen, and should therefore be removed from his
position.
The answer to the charge and specifications is Not
guilty.
Tho case has been tedious, and protracted from
numerous causes, to unusual length and has been
prosecuted with pertinaciy and aby rarely exceeded
In any court. There il q great Of testimony to
obtain which required considerable industry and ndefa
tgable perseverance,, such is rarely presented in d
CATION. Like all cases Of partisan character it has
gendered bitter feelings been and DISCUSSED
with great AcrimOny on both sldes and the Commission
we'll that Whatever decision they make in
the matter will certainly fail to meet with general ap.
provai Their duty, however is plain one-they have
only to look at the evidence and Apply to the evidence
Che law 90 they understand it, and based upon that pro-
nounce their decision.
The Commissioners deeipg the cas- one of i'm
And 1t being exceedingly novel in its CHARACTER have
given to careful attention. and it is to regretted that
We are not unanimous in all views upon the questions
involved.
Upon the question the brthpa,e Of the respond
ent there is conflict of testimony Several reputable
witnesses sty that the parents of the respondent fire.
quenty stated that their George WAS in this
country There s sufficient evidence ueon this poct to
M NAV be- upon that pon sSe hsd
to besve that this ntry the place of his
birth: But The question Is as the decision
birthplace.
Another question is, has the respondent taken any
to entitle him to the rights Of citizenship
Upon this point evidence is offered The only main
ing Questions to Be considered are was the 'ondents
ente his infant children to the rights Of citizenship
ther arriving ct their majority
which were operative in 1927, alien before he could
become naturazed required to declare, upon oath
jurdction three years before admission to
etdzenship, his intention to become citizen, &C. The
rst section of the act Of 1902 declares the Court
admitting such alien 'sha be satisfied thar he has
sided within the United States FIVE years, &C." But thu
manner in which the Court shall be satisfied is not
pointed out But the section excludes the oath of the
applicant testimony to prove the residence The
ond seccn Of the act of 1902 requires in addition to
declaration &c. that all aliens who arrive in the United
States after the passage Of the act 80 sha in order
to become citizens Of the United States make registry
and obtain certificates FROM court of record, and
that Huoh report shall contain ths name place. age
nAtn and allegiance Of such alien together with the
country from which they migrated and the place of their
tntenced settlement It requires the names ofchdren
der 70 be reported by their or guardians and
the clerk Is required to record the his Office
The act OF 1916 requires the applicant for citizenship
exhibit TO the Court at the time of his application
and the certificate Of the declaration of intention ap
phc.tion for czsnsbip BY aliens arriving after the 18th
length without which the applicant not entitled to
citzensbip This section was not repealed until May,
perfected his naturalization. The evidence introduced
by the respondent to sustain this allegation, that his
that George sstss reported hmss IL Mayor
Court office ID March, 1919"
The declaration Of intention to become citizen. This
declaration was made In the Marine Court the 18th
day Of May, 1925.
The affidavit Of Susan MatselI as to residence, &c.,
taken in the Marine Court the Is h day of May 1927
The eecla George Matsen to support the con-
sttuton, and renunci&taon of allegiance to Great B-
tain sworn to in the Marine Court the 18th day Of
The respondent claims that these papers that the
preliminary steps for the naturalization Of his father
were taken and claims tina. the record required by The
act Of Congress under the law of 1902 amended by
the law OF 1915 and 1884, made and duly recorded in
vol Of the nsturazati records Of the Marine Court
page 1 This record is not produced but In rea Ion
to 1t the following extraordinary facts appeared I'm
vol naturalization records upon the page which
ssus the oath Of Susan Natse and the oath and
ciation Of allegiance Of George Nat.ei, there is re-
ference in these words; Recorded vol s, naturAza
ton record, ia" Upon reference to page ia in vol
B. appears that leaf has been taken out The whole
book upon is peec except the loss of that
leaf The second page l73 and alec the page
act Of 1909 as amended in 1916 and s In the index
to volume is the name of Matsef George NJ p 174n
The name Matsef has evidently been altered from Mat
PEN Over the figures TIA Blot with has been made
evidently, from the appearance by design That the
CORDS have besn mutated and and fearful fraud
perpsrated by person. is too papable admit Of
any doubt There Is no evidence to show who perpe
trated this fraud If the re,ord perfect record it
Imperfect one to destroy IT. On the other hand it Is
claimed mat the violence and extyaordnay contuct of
the principal actor in the prosecution, the unparalleled
zeal he has dspayed his singular conduct and exhio
tops the feeogs he has exh 5ited the labor fatigue
and untrng industry he has mani in the
reasonably point to him or his agency ia the destruction
would have been of avail With this state of facts be-
Sore .ebave to decide upon those rules OF evidence
toned being at least the safest guides lead out
OF the abyrinth in which the power of persons has
Ss
ton of record record which is pointed out BY
ference in the book containing the last requisite
eztis the party to the rights Of citizenship The other
,ords in that book being perfect records would not
be a sir presumption to arrive at, that the clerk had
made IL properecord Were there any obstacles In the
wsy Of accomplishing it2 Was it act of su ,ent i'm
pcance to require the applicant to be careful in taxing
a the necessary steps to perfect his citizenship The
sw ,equred certsn acts to be done by the applicant,
certain papers to be presented. Is it not the legal pre-
the Court acted In the premises according
to the Of the satutep II does not the
that the record perfect recordS Or
We called upon to presume that record out Of the
entire volume The only imperfect recordS the fair
lsgs presumption Ia In fav Of the validity Of public
record that has besn destroyed without any evidence
cor scpg the party in whose favor the record pre-
sumed to be with It's destruction, bound by the
we'll titled rules evdece to attribute its destruction
10 ADVERSE parties We cannot certainly presume party
would destroy his evidence matters of great In
hei est to himset.
There vas nothing different ia this case to be per-
e. rrned The proceedings familiar to the courts.
The statute pointed cut what the record must contain
opd the preceding and subsequent records in each
pume show that entries properly made, and ia
strict compliance With the statute there has been
i'd the presump ion Of law s that al the preliminary