The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-08-14
RODIEk HAS
No COUNTRY
Citizenship Papers Are With
held Pending Decision on
an Appeal.

3 George Rodiek is a man without {
lcountry. Yesterday he abjured the
kaiser and all his works but no certif.
cate Of citizenship in the United States
was issued to him, Assistant L. S
, District Attorney Dunno PROTESTING
against the issuance of any certificate
until the appeal he had noted against
the decision of Z. S. Judge Dole to the
Circuit Court of Appeals at San Fran
cisco is decided. And until that is de-
; lcided Mr.. Rodiek is neither a German,
an American nor anything else so far
las allegiance is concerned.
The naturalization matter was up be-
fore Judge Dole in the Federal Court
yesterday morning, Mr.. Dunno appear
ing on behalf of the government
against the granting of the application
on the grounds that there had been no
antecedent declaration of the intention
of the applicant to become a citizen,
such as is required by the recently en-
acted new naturalization law. The con-
tention of the applicant, which con-
tention was sustained by the decision
of the Court, was that Section 100 of
the Organic Act, providing that a five
years residence in the Hawaiian ISL
ands prior to the creation of the Ter
ritory obviated the necessity of any
declaration Of intentions, had not been
repealed by the new law. This is the
main point of the appeal noted by the
Assistant District Attorney, although
there are other minor grounds. One of
the sponsors who had signed the appIi-
cation of Mr.. Rodiek, Marshal Hendry,
was not produced at the hearing, Dep
uty United States Marshal Winter be-
| ing substituted in his place. The ques-
ton arose as TO the legality of the
substitution, especially as it was shown
that Marshal Hendry could have been
present, his absence on official business
on one of the other islands being pre-
ventable by sending the deputy. Mr..
Dunno was disposed to waive his OBJ
jections to this point. however, but
entered them on tacit request from
the Court, who then overruled the OBJ
lection.
After rendering his decision on the
application, Judge Dole ordered the
oath administered but the certificate
was held up as above.
FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION.
In the United States District Court
for the Territory of Hawaii. April,
A. d. 1907, Term.
In the matter of the application of
Geo. F. Rodiek, for naturalization.
The Introductory provision as to the
sections providing the method of nat
uralization is the same in the new law
and in the old. 1t is this: "An alien
may be admitted to become a citizen
of the United States in the following
manner and not otherwise" These
words in the new act are therefore
merely affirmative of the same words
in the former act, and are subject to
the exception in the method of natural
ization created by the organic act of
the Territory of Hawaii, unless the !
new act contains words showing an in !
tention by Congress to terminate the !
running of such exception. Does it /
contains such words? I fall to find /
them The method of naturalization is
substantially the same as before but i
with greater elaboration, and some |
added conditions, which, however, have
no bearing upon this question.
The exception created by the organic I
act is limited in it's application to the
locality of the Territory of Hawaii
The repeating act makes no reference
to such legislation although it other
wise refers to the Territory of Hawaii.
"A special statute providing for a
particular place, or applicable to a /
particular locality, is not repealed by
a statute general in it's terms and ap-
plication, unless the intention of the
legislature to repeal or alter the spe-
cial law is manifest, although the
terms of the general act would, taken
strictly and but for the special law,
include the case or cases provided for
by it." l Lewis Sutherland Statutory
Construction, Section 275, page 529.
ut is principle that a general stat
ute without negative words will not
repeal by implication from their re-
pugnancy the provisions of a former
one which is special, local or particu-
lar, or which is limited in it's appIi-
cation, unless there is something in the
general law or in the course of Iegis-
Iation upon its subject-matter which
makes it manifest that the legislature
contemplated and intended a repeal"
Id. pages 526-7.
The cases cited by the District At
torney, Roche V. Mayor, 40 N. J. Law.
25s, and others, on the point that when
repeating statute covers the whole
subject of the first, and embraces new /
provisions plainly showing that 1t was
intended as a substitute for the first
act, it will operate as a repeal of that
act" L. S. V. Tynen, rs U. S, So. o.
do not apply, as the new law express
ly repeats certain sections of the Re-
vised Statutes and makes no reference
to other sections relating to the sub
iect of naturalization, to wit, to Sec |
tons 2166, 2169, 217O, PHI. 2172, 2173 1
and 2174, as we'll as section 100 of the r
organic act of the Territory of Ha- a
vail. BY these omissions it is evident d
hat Congress, in enacting the new law =
IF naturalization, did not design a t
scheme for this matter and !
hat it is therefore not decisive evil