The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-11-25


| reference 70 that tenth section
Judge Nelson-Ihs was during the war OF 1912.
from enlisng on board OF our vessels and this was
retaliatory act Now has that ever been operative
| Mr. Stoughton-Practically IL certainly Is not In
lorce. venture 70 say that our commercial marine
II manned 70 considerable extent to-day BY aliens.
Judge Nelson-SO supposed. That is the reason
want 70 know whether any regulations were made
| Mr.. Stought0n-we will try ana learn
Juage Neison-i suppose the Navy Department
District Attorney Courtney-I have teegraphed
for them.
Mr.. stoughson repeated that the act had been re-
garded AZ oDs0ete except AS to the declaration in
regard to the five years residence but that did not
contemplate the use or the abuse of certificates OF
failed To show that the act OF naturalization clothed
the person purp0rtng 10 DO haturalIxed with the
30 show the facts required by the act Of 1915 to be
set out In the judicial record and would not entlte
the person holding 1t to any rights Of citizenship.
He argued that there averment in the
Indictment bringing the offence within the purview
OF the act as to an attempt to procure employmen
on board American vessels. The truth was that
questions often tried by mob, and the public
officer, getting excited, attempted TO try the indct
ment. The present one oil those cases. The in
dictDent had been got up by the mob. and the mob
had misapprehended the law There must oe averred
in the indictment facts which show the court that
crime has actually been committed. 1t was not
enough TO take section framed with particular
view and seek TO apply II to other states or circum
WAS federal law. to authorize the Of certih-
Gates naturalization by the statute OF 1866 IL
provided that no person IN the State or New YORK
should vote unless ne was registered. and one oil the
proofs emitting him to be registered the pro-
dnction, II an alien OF certificate Of naturalization
IL Congress had even attempted To pass law on
that subject he should like To inquire whether that
was within the scope OF its power under the consfi
tuition or the United States But he assumed that
the prosecution claimed IL TO be offence to forge
or misuse certificate OF naturalization for the pur-
pose OF registration. Could Congress interfere TO
ACT
Congressional legislation; and he not only lad .
love but vcneraton Tor federal administration or
justice; 30 that he would not be unwilling to see
many subjects, now outside, drawn into federal
legislative and Judicial operation. But 1t had not
been and was not the policy VI Congress TO take
notice OF regularties irregularities In State cleo
ti0ns or registrations. He found by article two OF
the constitution that electors for the President and
Vice President should be appointed in such manner
the Legislatures OF the several states might direct
He could not see how Congress could undertake to
that the forging OF certificates or naturalization
to be used at State election should be punished AZ
crime When the day came that Congress should
interfere to say how State elections should be carried
on, the day would have when the drst step In
vited all The rest and that was pretty deep ques
ton. Here they had such certificate of naturalza.
ton would not justify the party In claiming regis
ration The oiicer TO whom 1t was presented should
know THAT the person presenting 1t had not been
duly admitted to citizenship. Tue first question he
would ask waS-ShOud 1t not appear affirmatively on
the Indictment that the person purportng TO be ma
the Indictment Should not the indictment aver the
unlawful purpose to be the procuring the reGistra-
sims. to whom one Of the false certifcates was
sold, had bought 1t to keep 1t out OF the market,
would that be crime under the statutey Certainly
not. The indictment should aver the purpose Of the
alleged offence. The truth was that the prosecution
supposed that, no matter whether the certificate
was issued to an alien or not, whether 1t was sold
for the purpose Of enabling alien be registered
OF not, the crime existed. lie thought they should
go further and aver in the Indictment, they would
required to prove the trial, that criminal In
tenti0n accompanied the criminal act.
ARGUMENT or Mr. EDWARDS PIERRgPoNr.
MIR. Pierrcpont replied on behalf Of the prosecu-
pended on the statute OF 1873. He should therefore
take up that statute and call attention TO its pro-
visions and its history. He claimed that sections
twelve and thirteen had general and universal appli
cation, and had no more reference to seamen than
they mad TO any other persons. The twelfth section
fixed the term or residence and provided that evil
dence should be given that the alien had not been out
Of the United states during the I'VE years. Was not
been so regarded by the bar and the bench and by
every one who had anything to do with the
thirty-ave years until it was repealed by
| Congress In 1s4s Congress must therefore have
| had the view that the act was OF general appii-
| cation and was not confined TO seamen alone
There was no other statute but that OF 1918 under
states. After such long acquiescenceIn it was the
Court to be told that It had no relation whatever
cept to seamens Not only from the structure Of the
twelve, and from the sweeping provisions OF section
thirteen, 1t was plain that the act was intended to be
H0ughton had conceded that II the certificate Q
forged certificate reiat ny to seaman 1t would be
crime under the statue of 1s13 but II was equally
true that IL must be crime to forge certificate for
other than seaman unless the statute were exclu-
siveiy confined TO seamen and he hoped he had
proved that IL was not His learned friend had ques
toned the power OF Congress 10 hitch to its statute
OF 1913 the Few York statutes OF 1855 and 1865.
He MR. Pierreponr did not claim any such power for
Congress-. He merely claimed that the act OF 1913
was applicable to the case before the CoUrt. The
naa ssSe up En- 5 a s
deration aud had, on motion to quash the indct-
ment, delivered an opinion, which counsel proceeded
TO read &c decides that the thirteenth section OF
the act OF 1913 IL OF general application and il not
strcted To seamen. The views of that Court seemed
TO be In harmony with the facts and with reason II
that decision was correct it would dispose OF that
view Of the subject The true construction OF section
thirteen was that the forging or uttering OF any GER
tifcate evidence relating 10 the citizenship
toned In the act was tine crime Intended To be pro
hibited and punished. The words were broad plain
and clear. The act had been relied upon down To
the present protecting the purity Of the suffrage.
Did tue Indictment make such charges as brought the
case within the statute Of 1913 Where statute
makes a thing crime all that was necessary to do
was 10 aver the commission OF acts which the statute
denounces ~ crime HIS Honor Judge Nelson had
decided In the case OF Henderson, who had received
money from \ person who had dealings with the
government, that where statute made thing
crime the inteut WIS Of no consequence The same
principle had been decided by his Honor In the
Kohnstamm case. II was OF no consequence whether
the person named in the certificate Of naturalization
was real or fictitious person. He would not dis
cuss the New York statutes Of 1895 and 1905. The
statute Of isis forged ana fraudulent cerdcats Of
naturalization had been issued. II there had been,
and II that statute applied TO the case, there ss
the whole OF II. II the statute did not
apply then there An end OF the case.
The statute did state what should he the form Of
the certificate what words II should employ but
simply provided that II should be o crime TO issue
any false fraudulent certificate or evidence Of
Judge Seson-Any certificate OF citizenship refer
red To IN the act.
Mr.. Pierrepont argued that 1t was not the certn-
cate but the citizenship that was referred to In the
act.
Judge Nelson took q different view OF the meaning
OF the words holding that II the certificate and
not the citizenship that was referred to.
Mr.. Pierrep0nt went on 70 demonstrate his view
Of tue subject He argued that II the words related
not TO citizenship, but the certificate other por
lions OF the section could not be construed. IL
the Court should conclude that the Law had no
reference except to seamen. then. OF course,
the Indictment would not be valid, for there
avernent that the offence related 10 seamen.
The solo question was whether, under the statute
| Of 1sIa the indictment charged crime which Con-
gross Intended to make crime. n It did, then tho