{"character_count": 5813, "word_count": 1051, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9840999841690063], "ccnet_perplexity": [2163.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



and is one that interests all classes of citizens; 1t
had been amended and modified at different pc
RODS, and it at present entities any foreigner who
has resided in the United States for five years to
become citizen, provided he declares his inen-
ion three years previous to taking out his natura-
izalion-papers. In 1904, an amendment had
oeen made to the law, which provides that all
persons arriving under age may become citizen
wo years after he becomes of age, upon proof OF
Ills having resided three years in the country dur
ne his minority. The law as it now stands,
places the foreigner, no matter from what country
ne comes, on an equality with natve-bom
youth of years of age. In opening this broad
privilege as il was the policy Of this country 10
encourage emigration, it was necessary ioI Con
gress to place some wholesome checks upon II.
1t therefore provided that all proceedings in rela-
ton 10 emigration should take place in court OF
record, and that the examination into the qualIh-
cations of applicants should be made in open
court, for the purpose of ascertainlng whether
the party is entitled to naturalization or not; and
the court. before granting any such paper OF nara-
liZation, must be satisfied that the party so ap-
plying has been in the country five years. AS no
judicial proceeding can be recognised except by
testimony or proof before the court, court would
act rashlv bv proceeding OH any other evidence.
The Indictment upon which the accused was put
unon his trial, alleges that he made an affidavit In
open court, and in that oath he committed wlliul
perjury The first count in the Indictment charges
that Frederick Altz, who had only been in the
country four wears, was sworn to by the prisoner
as having resided here for the last five years; and,
secondly, that he had resided here three years
before he was twentyone. In order to sustain
the Indictment the public prosecutions must prove
that the oath was false; was wlfully and know
mglv false. As to the statement relative TO the
residence Of Altz in the United States, that was
clearly proved to be false by the testimony Of a
number of his countrymen. 70 prove the charge
perjury ii was necessary to show that the oath
had been made wilfully. The ignorance Of the
prisoner Of the language and proceedings of the
court i'll this case, as testified to by several wit
nesses made it fairly infcrrible that the party had
not wil'uly taken false oath. The question
was, did he know the residence of Altz to be less
than five years; it was for the jury to determine
from the evidence before them what was the
prisoners knowledge with respect to the fact he
stated; the had been trapped or deluded in this
oath, it would not afford foundation of an indict
ment for perjury; something must be shown thai
he was acquainted with the matter of fact, and il
he stated it differently, he swore false As this
oath had been taken in the shape of an affidavit
| if it had not been read or explained and made
known 10 the witness, it would be unjust to incul
pate him. His honor, in allusion to the cour


where this proceeding had been made, took oc
casion to say that it did not become him to speal
of the judicial acts of another tribunal, but tina
there had been some very extraordinary proceed
ings in the administration of the oath was very
evident. Ii remained to be proved that the pri
soner. when he was called up, was actually sworn
Or that the party, if sworn, knew the nature O
what he swore to although man ofthe most or
dinary comprehension must have perfectly un
derstood the nature of the affidavit If the affida
Wit was administered, and the prisoner had really
sworn to it, and it had been all false, it would no
constitute perjury, unless sworn to in open court
The law of Congress intended that this process o
naturalization should be an act of the court and il
must, therefore, appear unequvocally that 1t took
place in court of Justice, before they could con-
vict the prisoner It was the duty of the officer
who administers the oath, to be satisfied that the
party understands what he is swearing to- and nc
magistrate can receive such paper unless he is
SO satisfied. ".:


1t is perjury, also, when party comes rashly
and presumpmously forward, and swears to some
thing he knows nothing about, although it shoul'
turn out that what he swore to was true.


The determining matter of this issue was, whe
ther the oath had been administered; and if so
whether it was in open court, legally and solemn,
sworn. Mr.. Barbiere, the clerk of the marn
court, had sworn that it was his usual practice t.
administer the oath in the presence of the court
but in this particular instance he could not say
although it was his invarable custom never t,
enter it upon record. unless sworn to in presence
of one of the Judges. If Mr.. Barbiere's staemen
was to be relied upon, it was sufficient to estab
lish this fact; but the clerk did not distinctly
recolect whether Judge Scheiffelin was presen
or not at the time of administering the oath, ant
as the testimony of various other witnesses res
pecting great number of aflidavits having beer
sworn to in the absence of the court it went to
shake Mr.. Barbiere's recollection on this point
There should be no room for doubt that the Judge
was absent; and as the clerk had no right to adj
minister an oath in the absence Of the court, il
this fact had been clearly made out, there could
be no foundation for an allegation of perjury in
this case.


Judge Belts concluded his charge by remark
ing that before the perjury could convict, they
must be satisfied that the OATH was administered
incourt and if they had doubts that the court was
in session at that time, and he admitted that there
were doubts Of that fact, they must acquit the
prisoner Of the charge of perjury.