797, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) Chin Fong v. White, 258 F. 849.

An alien, who unlawfully remains in the country, commits an offense distinct from the offense of unlawfully entering the country, as is expressly recognized by this section, so that Chinese laborers, unlawfully remaining in the country without certificate of residence after General Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917, became operative, can be deported by executive proceedings under section 19 of that Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 4289jj), regardless of whether that section was intended to apply to aliens unlawfully entering before it took effect. Ng Fung Ho v. White, 42 S. Ct. 492, 259 U. S. 276, 66 L. Ed. 938, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) 266 F. 765.

Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917, § 19 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 42894 jj) of which authorizes deportation of an alien who entered the United States in violation of any law of the United States, and expressly provides that it shall be applicable to such aliens, irrespective of the time of their entry, applies to Chinese who entered this country in violation of sections 6 and 7 of this act, though they entered before 1917, so that such persons can be deported after executive hearing under the Immigration Act, and are not entitled to the judicial hearing given by the Chinese Exclusion Law. Sit Sing Kum v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 277 F. 191.

II. REGISTRATION AND CER

TIFICATE

10. Certificate-Evidentiary effect and rights conferred.-Readmission certifi

cates, issued to Chinese merchants on their leaving the country temporarily, are for the purpose of avoiding detention and to facilitate readmission of those who are entitled to return, but have no binding effect as adjudications of the right to return, either under the Chinese Exclusion Laws or under Immigration Act Feb. 5, 1917. Hee Fuk Yuen v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 273 F. 10. certiorari denied Pang Hing V. White, 42 S. Ct. 51, 257 U. S. 639, 66 L. Ed. 411.

A Chinese laborer, who came to the United States prior to the treaty with China of 1880, and who obtained a certificate of residence issued under an act of Congress of 1893 (Comp. St. §§ 4320, 4324), under which he subsequently visited China and was admitted to the United States on his return, was not entitled, under article 2 of such treaty, to bring into the United States a minor son born in China after such treaty. T. C. Chou v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 282 F. 227.

Cited without definite application, Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012; Jung Kwok Hin v. Burnett (C. C. A. Ariz.) 255 F. 685; Chan Gai Jan v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 266 F. 869; Doo Fook v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ariz.) 272 F. 860; U. S. v. Ko Sai Cheung (C. C. A. Mo.) 281 F. 988; Woo Shing v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ohio) 282 F. 498; In re Bhagat Singh Thind (D. C. Or.) 268 F. 683; Wong Sun v. Fluckey (D. C. Ohio) 283 F. 989.

gration Act Feb. 5, 1917. Hee Fuk Yuen v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 273 F. 10, certiorari denied Pang Hing v. White, 42 S. Ct. 51, 257 U. S. 639, 66 L. Ed. 411.

Merchant.-The fact that a Chinese merchant has acquired a lawful domicile in the United States does not give him a status which entitles him as a matter of right to return after a temporary absence from this country, or which bars his deportation under Immi

Deportation proceedings.-Under this act (Comp. St. §§ 4320, 4324), requiring a Chinaman, applying for admission on the ground that he was formerly engaged in the United States as a merchant, to establish the fact that he was such for at least one year before his departure, one who had been a merchant for at least one year before his departure for China with the intention of returning could not be excluded on his return by the immigration officials, on the ground that his original entry was fraudulent, but could be deported only by a judicial proceeding. White v. Chin Fong, 40 S. Ct. 449, 253

U. S. 90, 64 L. Ed. 797, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) Chin Fong v. White, 258 F. 849.

Evidence.-A finding by the immigration authorities that the status of a Chinese alien was that of a laborer. and not of a merchant, under this section, held not reviewable, where based on evidence showing that, while he was a member of a mercantile firm and helped conduct its business, he also devoted a considerable part of his time to superintending and working in a fruit orchard, which he leased. Chan Gai Jan v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 266 F. 869.

In habeas corpus proceedings by a Chinese seeking admission as the son of a resident merchant, evidence that the father was principally engaged in delivering liquors and cigars sold by the firm of which he was a member held not to destroy the father's mercantile status, since the manual labor of delivering articles was a necessary part of the business. Ex parte Young Toy (D. C. Cal.) 262 F. 227.

Cited without definite application, Yee Won v. White (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 792; White v. Fong Gin Gee (C. C. A. Cal.) 265 F. 600; Woo Shing v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ohio) 282 F. 498.

F. 792; Ex parte Gilroy (D. C. N. Y.) 257 F. 110.

1904, c. 1630, § 5.) Construction and operation. The legislation limiting the immigration or residence of Chinese laborers re-enacted, extended, and continued by this section, is in force notwithstanding the expiration in 1904 of the treaty of 1894 with China, prohibiting the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States. Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 792. Admission of wife and minor children. Under this section, one entering

the United States subsequent to the treaty with China of 1894 as a resident merchant's minor son, but subsequently acquiring the status of a laborer, is not entitled to have his wife and minor children, born in China and never residing elsewhere, admitted. Yee Won v. White, 41 S. Ct. 504, 256 U. S. 399, 65 L. Ed. 1012, affirming judgment (C. C. A. Cal.) 258 F. 792.

Cited without definite application, Lo Hop v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ohio) 257 F. 489.

(1331)

Sec.

4351. Jurisdiction of naturalization;

forms.

4352. Proceedings for naturalization. 4352a. Validation of certificates of naturalization.

4352aa. Acts repealed. 4352aaa. Persons of foreign birth serving in military or naval forces of United States during war with Germany.

4354. Time for filing petition and for final action; change of name.

1355. [Repealed.] 4358. Aliens of African nativity and descent.

1358a. Sex or marriage not bar to naturalization.

1358b. Naturalization of women marrying citizens or persons becoming naturalized; procedure.

4358c. Naturalization of women who have lost citizenship by marrying aliens eligible to citizenship; procedure.

it appeared

Jurisdiction.-Where upon the face of a judgment admitting persons to citizenship that they were persons of the Japanese race, born in Japan, the court was without jurisdiction, and its judgment was void. Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle, 43 S. Ct. 69, 260 U. S. 199, 67 L. Ed. -.

State courts.-Under the provision that "the naturalization jurisdiction of all courts ** *shall extend

only to aliens resident within the respective judicial districts of such courts." Supreme Court of New York held to have jurisdiction over the naturalization of such aliens only as reside within the county where the application is made. Petition of Briese (D. C. N. Y.) 267 F. 600.

Under Act Cong. June 29, 1906, enacted under the power of Congress given by Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8, to

prescribe rules for naturalization, which confers authority to naturalize aliens upon state courts, and Const. Mont. art. 8, § 11, giving the state's consent for the courts to accept and act on that power, the authority to naturalize is a judicial power, and not a political power. State v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. for Garfield County (Mont.) 202 P. 387.

The act of Congress, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in the naturalization of aliens applying to a state court, is not retrospective in its operation, nor does it confer authority over the records of other courts, as a County Court, which previously possessed power to naturalize aliens. In re Goodman (Sup.) 178 N. Y. S. 499.

Cited without definite application, U. S. v. Stuppiello (D. C. N. Y.) 260 F. 483; In re Silberschutz (D. C. Mo.) 269 F. 398.

1. Procedure and requirements in general. The terms and conditions specified and prescribed by Congress respecting the naturalization of aliens must be strictly construed and enforced, and aliens are bound to strictly meet and conform to such terms and conditions. Petition of Briese (D. C. N. Y.) 267 F. 600; In re Tomarchio (D. C.

Mo.) 269 F. 400; Ex parte Eberhardt (D. C. Mo.) 270 F. 334; State v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. for Garfield County (Mont.) 202 P. 387.

Service on the district attorney of notice of a motion by petitioner for naturalization held sufficient. U. S. v. Olsen (D. C. Wash.) 272 F. 706.

Motion papers in a naturalization proceeding are defective, when an affidavit is not legally authenticated. In re Goodman (Sup.) 178 N. Y. S. 499.

12. Persons entitled to naturalization. The provision that "an alien" may be admitted to citizenship "in the following manner, and not otherwise," does not confer the privilege of naturalization on all aliens, but relates only to the manner or procedure to be followed. Takao Ozawa v. U. S., 43 S. Ct. 65, 260 U. S. 178, 67 L. Ed.

Foreigners are not granted citizenship as a privilege which they may demand, but as an act of grace by the government, which may fix such conditions as it sees fit. In re Sigelman (D. C. Mo.) 268 F. 217.

The alien wife of an alien husband cannot become a naturalized citizen of the United States. In re Guary (D. C. N. Y.) 271 F. 968.

Naturalization is not made as of course, but is an act of grace, applicant not demanding it, but petitioning for it, and po vested right thereto exists, and the court may examine conduct of applicant antecedent to the five years mentioned in this section, as bearing on qualifications for citizenship. U. S: v. Kichin (D. C. Mo.) 276 F. 818.

2. Declaration of intention.-A declaration of intention of an alien, filed in a state court, which correctly gave the street number of his residence, but erroneously stated that it was within the county, whereas it was beyond the county line in another county, where residence within the county was jurisdictional, held ineffective as a basis for a petition for naturalization. Petition of Briese (D. C. N. Y.) 267 F. 600.

Under the law placing a limitation of seven years upon the life of a declaration of intention, as the law excludes parts of days, the declaration is valid and will support a petition for naturalization on its seventh anniversary, but may not be extended beyond such anniversary. Ex parte Eberhardt (D. C. Mo.) 270 F. 334.

In the absence of any express statutory provision to that effect, and in the absence of a formal declaration by an alien withdrawing his declaration of intention to become a citizen, a declaration of intention properly made is not violated and does not become void by reason of subsequent acts or conduct on the part of the alien. In re Miegel (D. C. Mich.) 272 F. 688.

6. Renunciation of allegiance.Where a native of Germany, as shown by the record of his naturalization, renounced allegiance to every foreign potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to the Emperor of Germany, that was a substantial compliance with Rev. St. § 2165, though the Emperor's name was not given.

Banning v. Penrose (D. C. Ga.) 255 F. 159.

Where an alien, after having declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, applied for and obtained a passport from the consular representative of his native country as a subject of such country, to return thereto, his action nullified his declaration, and a petition for naturalization cannot thereafter be based thereon. In re Aldani (D. C. Mo.) 269 F. 193.

Where an alien, who had declared his intention to become a citizen, thereafter attempted to volunteer for the military service of his native country, but was rejected, so that he took no oath of allegiance in connection therewith, his act was not a recognition of the claim of his native country to his services, and therefore does not bar his admission to citizenship, as his registration for compulsory service would have done. In re Watkiss (D. C. Tex.) 269 F. 466.

A native of Warsaw, who in his declaration of intention pursuant to this section, renounced generally all allegiance to all foreign potentates, and particularly to William II, emperor of Germany, and who was qualified for citizenship, would not be denied it because not particularly renouncing allegiance to the czar of Russia, who had exercised no authority in Poland for many months prior to such declaration of intention; that city having been occupied as a conquered city by German forces and confirmed to Germany by the treaty of Brest-Litovsk of March 3, 1918. In re Guldenstern (Sup.) 183 N. Y. S. 524.

7.

Amendment.-Where an alien in his declaration of intention, and later in his petition for naturalization, erroneously stated the sovereignty to which he owed allegiance, which allegiance, as required by statute, he "particularly" renounced, the court is without power on hearing of his petition, by an order nunc pro tunc, to allow amendment of the declaration and petition, to date back to the time of their filing. U. S. v. Vogel (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 262.

8. Petition for admission to citizenship.-Alien enemy, filing naturalization petition before enactment of Act May 9, 1918, is entitled to benefit of that act, and may, before hearing, amend his petition accordingly. In re Pollock (D. C. N. Y.) 257 F. 350.

11. Time for petition.-Prior to Act May 9, 1918, declarations of intention made prior to September 27, 1906, were not available unless naturalization petition was filed within seven years from that date. In re Pollock (D. C. N. Y.) 257 F. 350.

14. Subsequent applications.Dismissal of naturalization, petition, on ground not going to petitioner's fit