The second proviso in § 8 of the Naturalization Act of June 29,
1906, c. 3592, 34 Stat. 596, permitting naturalization of aliens
who cannot speak English if, before the passage of that act, they
have made declarations of intention in conformity with prior laws,
has no bearing on the relation of the seven-year limitation
prescribed by § 4, subdivision second, of the act, to declarations
filed before its passage. Giving effect to the purpose expressed in
the title of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, "to provide
for a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens throughout the
United States," the requirement of subdivision second of § 4 that
the petition for citizenship shall be filed not more than seven
years after the alien has made his declaration of intention is
held applicable to declarations made
Page 245 U. S. 393
before the act was passed; the enactment does not invalidate
such old declarations, but the time runs upon them from its date.
So
held where the declaration was made December 15, 1905,
and the petition for citizenship was not filed until December 21,
1914.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
This certificate presents for construction certain sections of
an Act of Congress passed June 29, 1906, and entitled
"An act to establish a Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization,
and to provide a uniform rule for the naturalization of aliens
throughout the United States."
C. 3592, 34 Stat. 596.
The pertinent parts of the act are as follows:
"Sec. 4. That an alien may be admitted to and become a citizen
of the United States in the following manner, and not
otherwise:"
"First. He shall declare on oath before a clerk of any court
authorized by this act to naturalize aliens, or his authorized
deputy, in the district in which such alien resides, two years at
least prior to his admission, and after he has reached the age of
eighteen years, that it is
bona fide his intention to
become a citizen of the United States: . . .
Provided,
however, that no alien who, in conformity with the law in
force at the date of his declaration, has declared his intention to
become a citizen of the United States shall be required to renew
such declaration."
"Second. Not less than two years nor more than seven years after
he has made such declaration of intention, he
Page 245 U. S. 394
shall make and file, in duplicate a petition"
for citizenship.
The facts certified are these:
Morena, on December 15, 1905, declared his intention to become a
citizen of the United States, and on December 21, 1914, filed in
the District Court of the United States for the Western District of
Pennsylvania a petition for citizenship. On April 6, 1915, the
petition was granted and he was admitted to citizenship.
July, 1915, the United States filed in the district court a bill
praying that the order admitting Morena to citizenship be vacated
and his certificate be cancelled upon the ground, among others,
that the certificate was void because it had been granted upon a
petition filed more than seven years after he had made his
declaration and more than seven years after the passage of the Act
of Congress of June 29, 1906.
The district court dismissed the bill, and an appeal was taken
to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The circuit court of appeals, reciting that there are
conflicting decisions upon the construction of the act of Congress,
has certified the following questions:
"1. Is a declaration of intention made before the naturalization
Act of 1906 saved by the proviso of the first paragraph from the
seven-year limitation of the second paragraph of § 4 of the
act?"
"2. Is an alien who has made a declaration of intention before
the Act of 1906 required to file his petition for citizenship at a
time not more than seven years after the date of such declaration
of intention?"
"3. Is an alien who has made a declaration of intention before
the Act of 1906 required to file his petition for citizenship at a
time not more than seven years after the date of the act?"
The question in the case then, to state it succinctly,
Page 245 U. S. 395
is whether the Act of 1906 is applicable to declarations of
intention made prior to its passage and to what extent applicable,
if at all.
That the question is susceptible of different answers is
indicated by the diversity of views [
Footnote 1] of the courts which have passed upon it.
The cases that have answered the question in the negative have
invoked in support of their view the presumption that statutes have
prospective operation unless controlled by contrary intention
clearly expressed and certain provisions of the act which indicate,
it was said, that it was not the intention of Congress to
invalidate a declaration of intention made prior to the act "at any
future time." And one case adduces the contemporaneous construction
of an administrative board.
The words especially relied on are those of the proviso in the
first paragraph of § 4 and those of § 8. [
Footnote 2] The latter
Page 245 U. S. 396
may be disregarded. It prohibits the naturalization of aliens
who cannot speak the English language, if physically able to do so,
but preserves prior declarations if made in conformity with law in
force at their date. The proviso of § 4 deserves more notice. It is
that no alien whose declaration conformed to law when made "shall
be required to renew such declaration." To this provision, the
cases we have summarized -- and we refer to them because there is
no brief on file for Morena -- have ascribed the direct influence
of excluding declarations theretofore made.
We cannot assent to that view or to the view that, if a
limitation be put upon the time to complete the declaration by the
final application for citizenship, it can be construed as
invalidating the declaration. It is no destruction of a right or
privilege to limit the time for its assertion, and the cited
provision does no more. Section 4 prescribes a time for completing
the declaration, a time so liberal, regarding the privilege granted
and the reason for granting and seeking it, as not to be considered
in any just appreciation of words as even a limitation of it. And
there was appealing purpose. There were reasons for diligence and
reasons for giving to all declarations the same duration.
It is to be remembered that the resolution of the alien to
change his allegiance is expressed in his declaration. The interval
of time between it and admission to citizenship is the precaution
of the law to assure of qualification. In the old law, this
interval could not be less than two years, and so in the new law.
Aside from this, there was no other prescription in the old law of
the time that should
Page 245 U. S. 397
elapse between the declaration and the final petition. The
minimum of time was preserved in the new law, but there was a
maximum time prescribed for the completion of the declaration, and
unless this was made applicable to "old law declarations" as well
as to "new law declarations," the Act of 1906 would not do what its
title declares it was intended to do -- "provide a uniform rule for
the naturalization of aliens throughout the United States."
A limitation of time even upon the assertion of a right
theretofore having no limitation upon its assertion, or a different
limitation, is not infrequent, and its legality is unquestionable
if a time reasonable, in view of the subject matter, be given.
Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U. S. 55;
Soper v. Anderson, 201 U. S. 359;
Blinn v. Nelson, 222 U. S. 1.
See also Sohn v.
Waterson, 17 Wall. 596;
Union Pacific R. Co. v.
Laramie Stockyards Co., 231 U. S. 190.
This being the power of Congress, there were, as we have seen,
promptings to its exercise.
The act therefore does not invalidate old declarations. It only
specifies a time for their realization, a time ample to consider
and estimate the value of realization, the extent of its duty and
responsibility, a time determined and applied therefore upon full
consideration, and we are not impressed with the argument that
would assign an eternity of duration to prior declarations.
The first question certified would seem to be addressed to the
view that the Act of 1906 made nugatory declarations theretofore
filed. This, however, is not urged by the government, and we
consider it untenable for the reasons which we have already
expressed. Such has been the ruling of the cases.
We therefore answer the first and second questions in the
negative and the third in the affirmative.
And it is so ordered.
[
Footnote 1]
The cases deciding that the seven-year limitation is applicable
to prior declarations are as follows:
In re Goldstein, 211 F. 163;
Yunghauss v. United
States, 218 F. 168, sustaining 210 F. 545;
Harmon v.
United States, 223 F. 425, affirming decree of district court,
and
In re Lee, 236 F. 987.
The cases
contra are:
Eichhorst v. Lindsey, 209 F. 708;
In re
Anderson, 214 F. 662. And to like effect are
United States
v. Lengyell, 220 F. 720;
In re Valhoff, 238 F. 405;
Linger v. Balfour, 149 S.W. 795.
[
Footnote 2]
"Sec. 8. That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or
admitted as a citizen of the United States who cannot speak the
English language:
Provided, that this requirement shall
not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply therewith,
if they are otherwise qualified to become citizens of the United
States:
And provided further, that the requirements of
this section shall not apply to any alien who has, prior to the
passage of this Act, declared his intention to become a citizen of
the United States in conformity with the law in force at the date
of making such declaration:
Provided further, that the
requirements of section eight shall not apply to aliens who shall
hereafter declare their intention to become citizens and who shall
make homestead entries upon the public lands of the United States
and comply in all respects with the laws providing for homestead
entries on such lands."