# Reply Brief of Petitioner — Knauer v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386450_0121%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief of Petitioner - **Published:** January 1, 1946 - **Citation:** 328 U.S. 654 ## Text » SUPREME COURT. OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1945 No. 510 PAUL KNAUER, | | ; ‘ ‘ Petition ,- US. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPLY BRIEF OF PAUL KNAUER, PETITIONER ), ° THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c . _. REPLY BRIEF OF PAUL “*KNAUER, PETITIONER - “T Reply will be made tothe Arguments of the Solicitor — General in ,the order in which they are made in his brief- ' But first a few general observations. | Summary of Arguments The Arguments of petitioner in reply to those of the » Solicitor General érystalize into these formulas. © ‘ : aie ‘ I Only a solemn admission of- record is competent to over- throw a judgment of naturalization: where the charge per- tains only to subjective matters of intention and mental reservations; for, the possibility,that the judgment may be right, cannot be reduced to a certainty that it is wrong by .any less evidence than an admissjon, —* ee 7, Nek rt 2 . ae II An oath of allegiance is an oral’act that operates regard- less of any mental ‘Teservations, because the oath itself negatives mental reservations, nd is an act that the applicant canxot ‘recall. The oath itself can never be chal- lenged by. either party. If the. court has jurisdiction to administer’ the oath the applicant becomes a citizen in- stafter, and all future acts are those of a citizen; and the- government cannot be heard to challenge the judgment awarding citizenship, because of acts done after admission to citizenship. Naturalization cases are tried judicially and can be over- turned only upon proof of extrinsic fraud; where the Gov- - _ ernment has consented to the application, or made no ob- © jection to its grant, the government must show. that its consent, or its negative action, was induced or obtained by some active fraudulent conduct on the part of the applicant ; otherwise res adjudicata isthe complete answer. oe 2) i. The question of attachment to the principles of the Con- stitution is one of fact and its decision is submitted by. Congress to the State and District Courts for judicial deci- ' sion; anda judgment. of naturalization have the attributes ° - of stability of. all. judgments and cannot be overthrown ex- cept upon ‘evidence rising to the dignity of a solemn ad- _ mission of. revord. PS ter" ii? - IV ct hae id There are no conditions attached to the enjoyment of naturalized citizenship and what is done after: admission is granted, is done pursuant to the charter of his rights— the certificate of the naturalization eourt; and no change of war allies, of administration, nor the. advent of a war ° re 7 s - 3 | | = . sone ewe can disturb him; for his oath of allegiance is to the Constitution. V Cainions has not declared that ‘ a bund member may not -~ be naturalized and such membership is not inconsistent with an attachment to our Constitution and our form of gov ernment in our country ; and granting f reedom of speech to such a naturalized person creates no danger to our imsti- - tutions. Freed6m of speech is the balance wheel that pre- serves equilibrium in government. I A judgment of naturalization entered in a State Court -is res adjudicata of matters submitted to it for its ad- judication and only a ‘solemn admission of record is com- petent to overturn it...” The Solicitor General contends in his Point I that peti- . tioner in swearing in his petition for naturalization that he intended to renounce fealty to the German Reich and that in 1937, when he took his oath-of unquafified allegiance to this country, he committed conscious and deliberate fraud. The reply is that it is fundamental kaw that courts will - nét give a repeat performance and try the sam? issue twice. Every lawyer knows that if ke seeks to overthrow an adjudicated issue he must allege some new matter that is sufficient, if established, to make a different basis for ad- judication than that which underlies the issue attacked. Ittmust be shown that the new. facts alleged: were nat known, and could -not reagonabl¢ have been anticipated, from,the existence of the known facts. And where fraud is asserted it must be alleged that such fraud precluded an opportunity to learn the facts and thus have @& fair trial of theissues. — Ta, ae: a. > 4 Nothing is shown here in the complaint except the’ con- clusion of the pleader that there was.a false oath. Whether that oath was false depended on the facts that were proven before the Judge that tried the question of fact in the State Court. The finding and judgment of the trial court upon those facts are therefore canclusive as between the parties. The answer shows that the Naturalization Service made a fall investigation of the fagts before the fqoplication was heard. The government made no effort to show that it did not have every fact in 1987 that it presented here in 1945. Nor did it show any concealment of any fact. * ‘Phe presumption is, of course, that all facts existing. at the time of the hearing in 1937 were presented to the court and adjudicated upon. oan “ | , Under those conditions the judgment admitting petitioner to citizenship must stand as entered, and standing as en tered petitioner became ja citizen and asa citizen he was, privileged to do all thinws said to have been done after he became a citizen. mee did not a hit te be a citizen. ¢. ‘" a oe The Baumgartuer case was stronger on the facts than the case at bar. ° Baumgartner talked to his diary and put down his otherwise seeret thoughts. Tnethis case it-shows Koaner Was trying to protect, German citizens from unwarraticed attack. - He was protesting unfavorable actions, Ime. was sending charity; not for the Nazis, but for people. The motive that, impelled Knauer actions was protec tion and nid te Gernian-American citizens who. suffered much in that area. Only a Solemn Admission Will Overturn a Judgment Which is Res Adjudicata | [t is obvious that a judgment which has become final and res adjudicata on the issues between the parties cannot be bd , 4 ‘ 5 ‘ overt brown except by a solemn adimission by the party who may be charged lo hh: ave obtained it by fratid.- Atel even then a court would Want some corroboration. of such oan adinission ina citizenship case. TP there be sone theory on Whieh the judagment may be sustained it should be adoptec. Any aan 2 thiat it may be right should proteet it, AJ — Artin Citizenship Either Creates a Citizen : or It Does Not ‘\ pa ene Sither creates a citizen or it does wail. "dks at eleetrieal current it-is either off or on. Phe qilenent Chere is fair ipon its face anid every clement of jurisdiction is present. Pt ecompletels bond petitioner to call slutios canel obligations of citizenship; only the government could avail itself of any “Hp posed fraud petitioner could met Tt is optioned with thes vevernment to attack it judenment in sueh eases: Whichsimeans that, at most, the Jiylement was ons Voidalile, ie. valid. until set aside. Being veidable ants wider sneha condition all acts done thereafter were those of accitizen and privileged exeept as against any possible Violation of law, tune all prior aets are me reed in thee jude Trent, The question. of res adpidicata in steh ace Tt i tleeiche il ina State Court, isvdetinite I passed oni in l. ‘, cape, hel. SL ST, Be. 2, The question Bf ren ad judicata as ayy his r in this case. is illustrated! in Sections TE sanel TUE bustent’, . : ¢ cee 8 II ¢ There can be no fraud in an oath of allegiance for the reascn that its character is such that it operates to change the status from alien to citizen. It is an oral act that operates regardless of mental reservations which are hega- ‘tived i in the prescribed oath - The validity of an oath of allegiance depends upon jurine diction to administer it. It has the Gharacter of an act and. ix in fact an oral act. It has the effect of stepping across the border line from one sovereignty into the adopted . country. | } en } A renunciation of allegiance to a foreign sovereignty is not mere words, but an act that transfers sovereignty. Even: if there were mental reservations, although there can be none, itis the act itself that transfers allegiance and the next ‘moment the naturalized citizen is subject to every obliga: tion of the native born. A thousand oaths could give it ne creater legal effect, However, the cath was taken as re- quired and mental eiaiealedie are vocgatived in the oath. There are, and can be; no meutal reservations in an wath, of allegiance. The meeene ee form provides against it. The nature of ai oath is such that one taking it can have uo mental reservation. The government wrote it that Way and the courts take, it as-is. The Oath of Allegiance is, to Support the Constitution and Laws of, the United States The oath of allegiance is: a renounceinent of present allewi lance, to another sovereignty and a declaration of an unrdserved support .and defense of our constitution and laws as against all enemies. The oath is the evidence of the transfer’ of allegiance from the old to the new, This 7 oral act, this thing—the oath—the Congress has required as an objective and enduring proof of the, new allegiance, Without it there can be no naturalization; with it citizenship besins.. It cannot be fraudulent for it is a tle that binds one to the other. Tt ys an act, an-oralaet, eG The oath isthe final and conclusive proof of the transfer “OY allewianee, and the person making it will never be heard to \saly that he entertained ALY mental reservations, for, % emboilied in the oath is the statement that it is made withau: mie ‘metial reservations, or purpose of evasion, It ‘is the government that exacts the oath. [ts exeeniion ands the proceeding, Citizenship flows therefrom, both: ¥ de facto and de jure. ¢ i : . . It is the facts of the case, na: salbedicnded’ hy the MMi ite court, that entitled the applicant to admission to vitize " ship.» The oath is the demonstrable fact, that finally, when all antecedent conditions exist, transfers allegiances and jt then becomes a miimiment of tithe to citizenship, F The oath eneages ‘the new citizen to defend-tte Corn ° “stitution in the huture neninst all enemies foreign snl - domestic. ‘There is not a word of evide nce in this record that tends to show that Knauer in any wise failed in that ‘respect. The evidence shows that. he relied qn thie — enarantees of the Cons titution, and conte mnded for thers, What he i ix shown to have done, he had the freesdom to dle, ‘Germany: Was not then our eneiny, Knauer was doing nothing against our country, itsccoustitation or its claws. Naturalization Cases Are Tried Judicially - When Congress submitted the procedure of naturalizine aliens to the judicial department it made those matters: subject fo judicial practices, methods and procedure, and _ the judgments of the courts. in such eases have the stability ie ‘did so take part. ° * 8 and: sanctity of all judicial pronouncements. Things de cided and issues adjudic: ited are to remain decided. — - if there is lacking a jurisdictional element ina naturaliza tion proceeding ‘a certificate of naturalization obtained therein ix “illegally procured’ and ts subject to de set aside asa void proceeding, on motion, hy appeal, or complaint in equity. ’ If there is fraucof the dine ‘ter that prevents the govern. ment from having an opportunity to properly conduct fts portion of the proceedings, or make a proper, slowing, or defense, then there is jurisdiction in equity to void the judgment by which the’ certificate. of naturalization is eranted. But the m: itter is judicial with the usual characteristics right of appeal for the cor rection of all-errors-relating to trial and procedure, and the right te void the judgment onjdirect attack for lack of jurisdiction of the existence off Such frand as vitiates. jurisdiction. But the Congress. gave no jurisdiction to treat a canmiptidin in equity asa writ of error or to undo things which have passed into the realm of res adjudicata. -This néinc pie ix recognized by thts Court. ae We have referred the court to the ease of U.S. ve Ness, 245 U.S. 319, in which it is stated that the Pie of the ‘State Court upon the testimony of witnesses, compete ney, weight of evidence, and credibility of witnesses, is bindibe and conclusive, though clearly erroneous, if the government took part in the proceeding—and here it is admitted that it But the Solicitor General relies upon the ease of Linria v. UL S8., 231 U.S. 9, which he says forecloses petitioner's view- paint. Not at all—it confitins it. The proce eding toseance! 2 certificate of naturalization beeause of abandonment. of residence is based upon the original validity of the naturali- z, ? 9 ~w ee ‘ “This equity rule, which was firmly ostablig Hel in English practice long before the foundation of air re public, the courts have developed and tas shied te tule fil a universally recognized need for correcting injue ‘tices which, in certain instances, are, deemed as lenths eross to demand a departure from rigid adherence ta the term rule. Out of “deference to the ee reated policy in favor of the repose of jucmentts entefedt during past terms, courts;of equity have: heen enutions in exercising their power over such judsinents, US.) Throckmorton 98 Uy S61." “Intrinsic Fraud’ Is Not Fraud From Which Equity Will Relieve , hpiicins here ihe rule as stated by Chief Justice Tart Toledo S>Co.xne € sg Scale Cow ine {feet dee ides y tbat that which is spoken of as ‘‘intrinsie frand’ or perpiredk state ments made | in the trial of the case, is not fraud ia the fecal sense, b it is the incident or hazard of- all lawsnits sandy therefore, the only fraud is extrinsic fraud. aud thirst theat type of fraud is something done whieh has ttreatly pre vented the party complaining from making a fulleand: t: Th - defense” (P. 421). a C2 12 a > @ cee % 5 fe ‘ Applying here the ‘rule as stated by Chief Justice Taft _ it preeluges the action of the government in this ease for the reason that the government™ ie, not claiming that it) was deprived of an opportunity of “making a full and fair defense to the proceeding for naturalization. No clainn. is made that. it; was in-any wise hindered in its preparation, or deceived . as to the t facts, whereas the recared, spreatkes. cooperation by -petitioner rand a complete and indepouitest .tnvestigation by .the government. made in pre paration for the heating. . The real claim. made by the Solic itor General is that a lot of things have happened since the naturaliza tion trial. which, he now coeives, point to a possibility ‘that Knauet took his oath of allegiance in 1937 with mental reservations. What has happened i Is, a War with Germany ‘ame On, and viewpoints changed, and war psy chology bes’ came intolerant of other’s views. Racketeering j In fovern ment condensed the whole horror of wag into the words “Nazi? and ‘fascist’ and to-sinear one with Diie words “was to create an at moxp re of war guilt about him. ‘It is not the form of ecovernment that any country uses. fhat condemns, it is the abuse of it, and: the racketeering in if, that is thegfault. And in this case the assumption of the lower courts was, and of the Solicitor General here is, Amit war euilt is upor, petitioner, when, in fact, the war canie twovand i a half years after petitioner was naturalized. This” ease was tried once in 1937 when there w as no war ail petitioner was admitted to citizer iship. T he government found no fault then, but a trial of the same: issue im gan era of actual war hes “pit a diiferent ‘complexion on the evidence, caused by the advent of war. | Looking into the briefs and argume nts of the MANY cases heard by this Court where prior adjudications With ‘the fraud clement present were involved in the issues, it is seen that, while this c ourt has examined each ease upon its | ” ~ ee tee merits, it has applied the-rmile contended for-by pe tittoner theugh sometimes wtihout definitely stating it-- preferring obviously, not to classify fraud: fanless nessnitry to the decision. But: the rule ‘does have “it place in judielal procedure ard often xuides the way, toa correct ceeision, . ° ‘ That fortion of the «pplication for citizenship in the pre- scribed form which states that plaintiff. is attached to the principles of the Constitution, is.an allegation proven and disposed of in the State court trial, and is res adjudicata between the parties & If the doe trie of stability of judgiments is to be adhered toi the administration of justice then the preiponition of the Solicitor General that. he can’ single out an ‘issue ina naturalization proceeding and aelitiga@ it can have ne force »here.. He argues that the allegation in the application for citizenship that sttés that petitioner was attached te the principles of the Constitution was conseiously false. That allegation is part of the pleading in. the application for vitizenship and is ‘an issue which the trial judee of the State Court had to dee ide upon the evidence offered by peti- tioner and his Witnesses ane upon the investigation and recommendation of. the Naturalization Servieel and evi dence of the government, if any. z ~The point was ap eg byes in di sposing of an’ argument in (Sov. Ness, 24) US. SL [2 826, where Ming Justice Br: andes ‘is spe “Opposition tothe granting of a petition for natural zation may prey Vath because of ohjectioas to the com peteney or weight“of the evidence, or credibility. of Withesses Or mere = TT in procedure, decision on SS ‘it lenst of a state court of naturalization, is, thongh ‘clear erroneous, 14 a ‘ 4. ° ; . conclusive even against the United States if it entered an appearance under Section 11.7") °What Justice Brandeis was disposing of there was acon \ tention thgt a judgment without, jugisdiction Wer the sub. ject matter (certificate of entry ‘absent) Was res ad judicata, and he was saving that wliere a State Court has jurisdiction its action upon the evidenve is binding as a thing decided between the parties, but where there was absence of juris diction there eauld Ve no res ad judicata, : The pr ine iple was also recognized by the court in another 2 naturalization Case, This court denied a certiorari writ to the voverhme nt whieh sought a review of the case of Yevited States ve Sakharam G. Pandit, Bed, 2d 285. There a trial court had admitted to citize mh a high-class Hindu of the Brahma Caste and of full. Indian blood, born in India, who applied for citizenship, Claiming he was a’. “**free white person, © The application was gontested and ‘the trial court heard extended’ argument® and finally ul mitted Pandit to citizenship on May 17, 1914. NO appesl yas taken, On Juné 23, 1928 the government filed a petition ‘to cancel the certificate as illegally proeured. Res adjudi- cita was pleaded; the District Court sustained: the plea. The Cirenit (ourt of Appeals affirmed ou the ground thirt in the triakof the issue of fact as to whether-Pandit wis a free . white person the trial court had made an error within jurisdiction and that the doctrine of res ad judicata applied. This court denied certiorari (273 U.S. 759). And that was at a date subsequent to the action of this court: in. denying a right of citizenship to a high-easte Hindu iu the case of United States». Thind, 261.08. 204. And so it is to be observed that this court has spoken when necessary to a decision upon the question of res ad judic ata in naturalization cases, showing they are not in a class by themselves but that the principle of stabi lity of & » ': . rs . . judgments applies to them as in other cases, ‘Tf there were to be aly differentiation it would seem that the rube wouhl abe tightened instead of loosened, as citizenship: in this ma- . tion issestegtiod one of the highest privileges.” But, aside from the fact that the judgment acimitting petitioner to citizenship is the highest and most conclusive proof and expression of petitioner's attachment te. the ‘principles of our constitution, the government presented no direc, evidence to show that Nimuer was not attached fu the constitution: ‘Tie only evidence produce al Wis sone 1400 pages of condemnation yt the bund and then, havine condemned it: omly to the extent That the trial jodee found that, while its teae ings ‘were céptrary to the principles of the constitution of the United States,’ yet, “the fact that a person is a meniber Of a localcunit of the bund is rot, in itself” sufficient to prove fraud which would warrant judgment of cancellation vt it decree of naturalization’ (Tr. ety. But Rnauer never Was a member of the Bund. _The Question of Attachmént to the Constitution Was One . = _ of Fact for the State Court to Decide It is admitted by the Solicitor General, as indeed he mist admit, that the questionof whether petitioner was attached to the principles of the constitution wala frictional question: in the naturalization proceeding in the, State Court. Tie ‘Naturalization Service oinvestigated petitioner's back. eround, his character, hiis beliefs in, and his knowledge of, ‘the coustitution, and petitioner and his required witnesses ’ -ravecevidence thereof; and upon that record and evidenes the State Court passed its judgment that petitioner was qualified and thereupon admitted him-to citizenship. Of what purpose is all that proceeding if it may be over ¢ turned as matter ofvourse? Las it come to pass that a solemn judgment of court has deteriorated to.the point oc? : ; ~“ 7 . 16 a: : Py : e si “. , = Where it is Gnly proma facie correct land subject tothe Cone _ tradieted by oral eviderice? “, The historical background “of tlie naturalization law re » cited ly the Solicitor General’ cannot change the fact. tat ( CHEPESS delegated to the judicial department the matter of judic sinlly determiming the question of attachment to. the principles of the constitution, and that means according to the usages and procedure of the Courts; and the doctrine of res adjudivata and stability of judgments is va foundation stotie of that judicial structure. : 4 The principles of the constitution in wich uur applicant, ix to believe, age not specified by C ongress and are left to ‘the judiciary to seeks determine, Everyone knows generally what those priutiples are, but they are variously expressed according to the viewpoint of. the individual. © Generally speaking they are sovereignty in the people, ane ge legation of. powers, by the people to their government, * and limitation of those powers ; three -independent depart 7 ments, legislative, executive and judicial, the reservation of inviolable rights and fregloms, and the right to te pre sentation. Whether petitioner was att: ached to the piiiieipites of the. constitution during the period ot “his probation was essen: tially a question of fact for the State Court te decide Upon. the testimony of the petitioner and his supporting Withessus, It ix not claimes! that‘anything was hidden from the Natu- falization Serviee-or the trial judgeg: hence it must be assumed that therp Was a ‘full.and fair hearing upon the issues. Here the court’ was satisfied with the record and, judicially so determined, All the elements of res ad judicata Are present; the trial was as of. April 48, 1937, and subse- quent events could not alter-the j dgment entéred on that date. The march of time dees no thange ‘legal principles but it does change viewpoints. ; ae | : a ' ' ; . ae Opposing counsel in the zeal of his cloquénee says that petitioner ‘* bitterly opposed the eire ‘lation. of wuy Matter critical of Nazi Germany’ —referring to finding 33 Tr | The reference there is to the acts of a person at a conve nition passing out pamphlets of another organization from another city, acting out of turn. There was nothing bitter about it. It was proper uder the etre uumstances, (Witness Se eMit ys, Knaner etrial, page 497.) - : * Tt is also said that petitioner sought to introduce the swastika flag into thé affairs-of the Federation of Germarr American Societies. It is to be remembered that sone Gerifan sotieties Wanted to keep the emblem of thie old republic and some wanted to change to the new. There was much agitation over the-matter, It was large Iw political and Wits deb: ited among members and societies. Tt had ne other significance than organization politics at that time, > Out of the condliet the German American Citizens Miianee ‘grew with whieh petitioner was I: iter ddentifiéd and in Which he became an officer, Tt was all ami itter of pul lie kriow Teale: a ee wud the government?s agents, nnd examiners'no doubt hi il full knoWledge of the facts. They did, at — dirk their | duty, ane that may be assumed. } Iti Is sitid by the Solicitor \General, that ee roll l his daughter in the “bund youth movement.* "The state ment distorts thé facts. “One of the defendants proved that the ‘youth movement in question Was organized hye one ~ Prause who had been a boy seout in Gerniany and hitd ne connection with the bund; that he saw children mt the summer camp with f organize “bentertaimmient and tliat he proceedgd to organize the hoys and girls sand built up the youth movement, independe nt of any organization,, hone scout lines, The boys had their organization and the girls theirs. . It developed mto quite an organization, and from all that-is said of it, it was a credit to the community. There 18: ; ed Was hothing irged as wrong about it, except that it was Ger’ man ane Was said to be subject to the influence-of propa: wanda, It was a clean, healthy, wholesome” organization developed along scout lines (Witness Prouse Record 1271). All this was known at the time. But that was not wartime. The thought of different eras changes. : But, after it is all said, the State Court was delegated by Congress to settle the question of mental qualifications, intentions, attachments and conduct, and that. court tried Those questions out and settled them to its satisfaction > tun that of the Naturalization Service at the time, and by all rules they should remain settled as adjudicated, IV Congress Has Attached No Conditions to the Full Enjoy. ment of Naturalized Citizenship Onee a certifieate of citizenship has been granted to one having. all the qualifications precedent therefor he ‘need not ae looking over his shoulder wor worry over his past. Eis + adopted country will protect him from his prior sovereiga. - He may lack some basic qualifications for offiee but) the common heritage of freedom | \- his, Die may go about his -, affairs fora littetime without being uestioncd hy any oifigial as to his right te go and come. Te may lose his citizenship by a condition subsequent as in Lauria ve US. 231 US. 9, bat not by any attack upon the validity of the proceeding hy Whichwhe was admitted to citizenship. s essential to the enjoyment of an acquired citizenship: thatthe new-born citizen may be assured that the judgment adimitting bin will not be overthrown for whink or caprice. Change of war allies, or of Administration, or the adveat oof war psychology, Should not disturb hing for his oath of allegiance is not to those vested with Heeting authorityeand - ; os 19 " , - temporary power, nor the gavernment itself, but only te the constitution, 2 rs) ' The interesting: collection of historical facts concerning the limitations Upon agquired citizenship prepared by the” Sdélicitor General in bis point IV, howey & pve Pers iesive that there are any conditions attached to one’s admission to eitizenship -o faras the judament admitting hin ix eon cerned, The limitations mentioned pertain te the enjes ment of citizenship onee it has been granted. Tis citizen! ship AS aN cristina platus is secure, He nats hot be presi dent, but after all, few of us ever are and on that he ts net far from equality with one hundred forty riillion others. ‘There exists ne power to denaturalize. Votd jucderyent. and judgments procured: by framd miay be wacated,: bat those are yoid ah omitio, . Av alidly naturalized citizen may not hae listurbed as te his status after he has passed into the common fald, yY Freedom of Thought and Rasecedon is the Balance Wheel of the Constitution The accomplished Solicitor General suceest- that: Pres dom of thought does not require that the COnSTEIT ion a: antee its own self-destruction, whieh, of course as stated, ix bevond dispute. But that philosophy finds no here here It is a wishful thought, the reflection of a regret that Con eress has not disqualified a bund member or a Nazi trou citizenship, for even copelusive proot at sucha Hieniberscip. does not now require that. citize niship be ce nied. The Die. trict Court so held. ; ; Freedom of speech need nat be feared; it holds me thresit except to tyranny. [tis a balance wheel in government « that is forever. striving for equilibrium. Stifle it ane democracy will dgift into a dictatorship, as history shows, naw 20 It was one thing to look upon Nazi socialism as a theory of government as of 1987 and quite another to look upon Nazi war Horrors as of 1943. It was one thing for a German ‘to look with pride upon the social gains of the German government up to 1937, and applaud, and quite different, to appraise that government in 1948, after a few years of racketeering in social philosophy, = destruction, : vid starvation. ‘ . . The essence of the Prgument in point V of the So! itor (ieneral's brief ts het hiner of the passing gene . should be admitted to citizenship here: else they will Te racketeering in freedom y and, while shouting praise ot ‘the Constitution, will be strangling its principles and pre- cepts in every crossroad hamlet in tlie country. It ix to treat the Nazi philosophy as if it were as deeply rooted as a religion, as indelible as a complexion, as if it blood, coursed the veins, fanatically, intending to consuriie all democracy and rule the world; ‘and that- every German ix inoculated with the. vieus. Of course, Alexander: con- sqnered the world, but his followers, where are they?) Or Caesars, Cromwell's, Napoleon's, or the followers of any historic personality?) They blend in the-haze of history and _disappear. And so the followers of Hitler soon will be a memory. We had it in our own country. There were the ‘ ° > **vankees*” and the ‘trebs,*’ the ‘‘earpet bageers,’? and **vopperheads,"* to use the war words of that day, but today; ‘they live under, protect, and defend the same consti- tution. Time cures ills. Hatred dies out with the current veneration. — - Bon But Congress has not said that a bund member ora Nazi shall not be a citizen. Congress prescribes the qualifications. As long as we can talk back at the ideas we hate we will be safe. Who is to decide, after all, whose ‘ideas are the ~ >. “were in fact a type of politieal enthusiasm that dyed the 21 most hateful, if there is no freedom to talk hate? To hate seems to be one of our characteristies. ; The answer to the question raised by the Solicitor Gen- eral seems to be that it is a legislative one and that until: Congress has spoken as it has in other instances, the remedy ‘is greater care jn the Nationglity Service rather than seek- - ing to undo what was genérally accepted as correct prae- tice prior tothe war, It was correct then, it is only thought to be incorrect now. ; eee a ee As long as our attachment is to constitutions and laws, rather than meteoric personalities that rise in each century to be worshiped, and hated as well, we are safe as a nation. Tardily, and happily se, the cases of one era tryine another reach this court for correction and a restraining hand—for one generation will assume to punish the usages ‘of the other. In vain did the judges of Charles 1, when arraigned under Charles IL, plead) their Parliamentary Commission as authority for their judgment that) their king be beheaded. They were smeared as ‘tregicides’? and ordered executed for adjudging death without jurisdiction, , The blessing js that this court sits far removed from local, strife and can form a disinterested judement upon the human passion of the day. | 7 : giao ‘ oe | Conclusion - ' A judement of naturalization, in tle absence of extrinsic fraud, is res adjudicata of all matters submitted to a State Court for adjudication and only a solemn adutission is -competent to overturn it. There being no such proof in ‘this ease the judgement of the Cireuit Court of Appeals and the decree of the District Court should be reversed, Ove L. Kankiy,. Attorney for Petitioner, (3718) ‘ n <4 Respectfully submitted, ¢ --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386450_0121%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.