Evening journal., 1902-10-10

title XXX of the revised statutes of
the United States, dealing with the
naturalization of aliens. No court in
this country has amy authority or
jurisdiction to naturalize persons other
than aliens; and the provisions of sec
ton 5425 in question have reference
solely to offensss committed with re-
spect to proceedings for the naturaliza-
ton Of aliens. The omission of a
proper averment on this suOiect rem
ders the indictment fatally defective
In view of the foregoing cOnsidera-
tions the Indictment cannot be sus-
tanned as charging a conspiracy to
commit OF cause to be committed, AN
offense against the United States under
section 5.425
Law Quoted
In Williams VS. United States, 16S
U. S.. 3S2, the court had under con-
sideration the sufficiency of an indict-
ment on the margin of which was en-
dorsed a reference to certain statutes
which, however, wene not mentioned in
the body of the indictment. The court
held that the Indictment could not be
sustained under the statutes referred
| " III AA' AhNAAt1AiAs UNl AAAsll AAAI AnAAtN-
ment properly charged an offemse
against the United States covered by
a statute not referred to iD the in
/ dictment. Mr.. Justice Harlan deliver
ing the opinion of the court said:
1T is said that THESE indictments
were not returned under that statute,
and that the above Endorsement on the
margin on each indictment shows that
the District Attorney Of the United
States proceeded under other statutes
I that did not cover the case OF extorticm
I committed by Chinese inspector un-
der color of his Office. 1t is wholly
immaterial what statute was in the
mind of the district attorney when he
drew the Indictment. if the charges
J made are embraced by some statute in
) force. The Endorsement on the mar
, gin of the indictment constitutes no
i part of the Indictment and does not
: add to CIR weaken the legal force of its
p averments. We must look to the In
dictment itself. and if it properly
charges an offense under the laws of
the United States. that is sufficient to
: sustain it. although the representative
> Of the United States may have supposed
5 that the oileuse charged was covered
/ DY Inherent statute.
A distinction between the present
( case and that Of Williams vs. United
, States is that the statute. the violation
= Of which is alleged as the object Of the
e conspiracy is expressly referred to not
= only in the indorsemsnt on the in
3 dictment. but in the body C the in
/. dictment; while in Williams vs. United
q States the only reference made to the
, statutes under which it was claimed
the Indictment could be supported was
d merely by way of Endorsement on its
= margin. If it be assumed, "A point
y not intended now to be decided-that
( the above distinction between the two
Q cases is without substance, the ques-
. ton arises whether the indictment be-
t fore this court properly or sufficiently
!, charges any offense against the United
+ States.
o It certainly does not charge a com
sDiracv 10 commit an offense under
+ section 1892 relating to perjury, for
= there is no alteration in THE Indictment
r. that the false statements were sworn on
d affirmed to. Nor does it charge a con-
sDiracY to commit an offense under
T section 1896. which provides that Gin
l. all cases where amy oath or affidavit
r is made or taken under or by virtue of
|, any law relating to the naturalization
/, Of aliens. or in any proceedings under
, such laws. any person taking or maxi
o ing such oath or affidavit who know
l. ingly swears falsely. shall be pun
: ished' etc. For. as before stated, the
. indictment does not aver that the false
e statements wsre under oath OF by aff-
D. davit. nor that the twenty-One per-
(" sons were aliens. Much stress was
e laid bv the district attorney on sec.
3 tion 5.427. which is as follows:
Il Every ue-son who knowingly and
II Intentionally aids or abets any person
> in the commission of amy felony de
e nOunced in the three preceding sec
e tions, or attempts to do any act therein
3 made felony. or counsels, advises oi
r procures. or ATTEMPTS to- procure. the
.e commission thereof shall be punished
y in thu same manner and to the same
n extent as the principal party"
+ Not Properly Framed
! But the Indictment does not charg,
Z, that the defendarfts knowingly and
i Intentionally aided or abctted thI
twenty-cno persons. CIR amy OF Them, il
= the commission of the offense of OBJ
= taining, accepting or receiving certih
Gates Of citizenship with the scientel
: specified IN section 5,425. Nor does i
y aliege the commission of that offenze
a. Nor DOES the indictment allege tina
n the defendants. or any of them. know
y ingly and Intentionally attempted to d'
y any act denounced in section 5,425, O.
y, that they, or any of them, counseled
: advised or procured, or attempted L
procure the commission of such Of
i fd1se Nor does the indictment charg
"a conspiracy TO violate section 5,427. ]
- charges the defendants with cunspirae.
a. to commit what is termed an oifens'
! under section 5,425, and not with th
i, violation of section 5.427. The de
{, PENDANTS are charged with conspirac,
4 under section 5,440 as amended, th
- punishment for which is substantial.