Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/681

 650

THE GREEN BAG

ance of the laws of the country, is not entitled to citizenship (Ex parte Douglas, 5 West., Jur. 171). II. Attached to the Principles of the Constitution. It is not extravagant to say this condition is one which is in practice ignored. Assur edly it cannot be said that the propounding of the single question to the applicant and his witness, "Is or not A attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States?" measures up to the standard of proof which would be required in any other matter. For before it can be said that A is so attached, it must be proven that he knows what those principles are, for no one can be said to be attached to that of which he is profoundly ignorant, or ought the bald statement of a witness to be re garded as affording the requisite proof until it is first shown that the witness himself knows what those principles are. As illus trating how lax courts have at times been in this regard, take the following language from the opinion in the case of In re Rod riguez, 81 Fed. Rep. 337. "An alien who is ignorant and unable to read and write and who cannot explain the Constitution is entitled to be naturalized where it is shown that he is a thoroughly law-abiding and industrious man of good moral character." And this was the language of a federal judge in the western district of Texas. It can find no justification anywhere, in any act of Congress, and was neither more nor less than a plain disregard of the laws the judge was expected and had sworn to up hold and enforce. It is a relief to turn from such a case to one decided by the Supreme Court of Utah (In re S. W. Nian, 4 L. R. A. 726) and read: "The man entrusted with the high, difficult, and sacred duties of an American citizen should be informed and enlightened. No one should be admitted who has not sufficient intelligence to understand the

principles of the government which may rest in part on his will." And acting upon the principles so laid down, the court held that an applicant who could not read or write English, though he testified that he had read the Constitution in a foreign language, and who knew that the United States had a president, but could not mention his name, and spoke of Wash ington as president, did not understand the principles of this government or its in stitutions sufficiently to become a citizen. It was upon this same ground that the action of Judge Gregory, was. based, and it is one of the encouraging signs of the opening century that there are members of the judiciary whose love for ease and the dispatch of what is usually an irksome and disagreeable duty will not prevent them from honestly, fearlessly, and painstakingly scruti nizing those who aspire for citizenship in this great Republic, and insisting that they shall give evidence in fact of the possession of those essentials which the act of Congress has prescribed. Where, as the Utah court said, "the maintenance of the government may rest upon the will of the citizen it is assuredly only the plain duty of the court to require that there shall be a comprehen sion of the fundamental principles of that government." III. Well-disposed to the Good Order and Happiness of the Government. As in the case of individual character, there is no presumption in this particular. It is subject-matter for proof (In re Bodek. 63 Fed. Rep. 813). Judicial interpretations of this phrase are rare, but some things are patent upon the surface. No one meets this requirement who disbelieves in all organized form of government, or who inculcates such doctrines, or associates -with organizations, which seek to inculcate the idea of destruction of all lawful authority. For since such belief or teaching or associa tions are destructive in tendency of the machinery upon which organized society exists, they represent the direct antithesis