§ 221.

Falsely Claiming Citizenship.-Section 5428 of the old statutes, becomes Section 79 of the new Code in the following words:

"Sec. 79. Whoever shall knowingly use any certificate of naturalization heretofore or which hereafter may be granted by any court, which has been or may be procured through fraud or by false evidence, or which has been or may hereafter be issued by the clerk or any other officer of the court without any appearance and hearing of the applicant in court and without lawful authority; or whoever, for any fraudulent purpose whatever, shall falsely represent himself to be a citizen of the United States without having been duly admitted to citizenship, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The word "duly" in the section on the authority of Judge Chatfield in United States vs. Hamilton, 157 Federal, 569, applies to a regular compliance with requirements, rather than to the truth of the facts involved in the admission, and where the person charged was granted a certificate of citizenship by an order of Court, both of which are regular in form, and have not been vacated, it is impossible to charge unlawful use, based solely upon a further allegation of knowledge that the certificate had not been duly made.

In Green vs. United States, 150 Federal, 560, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an alien who knowingly makes a false affidavit that he has been duly naturalized as a citizen of the United States, before a Registration Officer for the purpose of procuring himself to be registered as a voter at an approaching election in a State, commits an offense under this section. That Court also held that it is not necessary that the false certificate be actually used for an unlawful purpose to constitute the offense denounced by the statute.

§ 222. Taking False Oath in Naturalization.-Section 80 of the new Code re-enacts old Section 5395 in the following words:

"Sec. 80. Whoever, in any proceeding under or by virtue of any law relating to the naturalization of aliens, shall knowingly swear falsely in any case where an oath is made or affidavit taken, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than five years."

In United States'vs. Moore, 144 Federal, 962, the Circuit Court of Appeals passes upon a form of an indictment under this section, and says that in prosecutions for perjury and in prosecutions akin thereto, it is a fundamental rule that an indictment must show that the tribunal before which the offense is alleged to have occurred had jurisdiction over the issue to which it related. It is also a fundamental rule that it is not sufficient to allege in general terms that the tribunal named had jurisdiction over the issue alleged to have been involved, because such an allegation includes matters of law, as well as fact; while it is the duty and right of the court before which an indictment is pending to be so far advised of the facts that it can determine for itself whether the issue was of such a character as to give the tribunal named jurisdiction thereof, and such as to render the alleged offense material thereto.

In the case of Schmidt vs. United States, 133 Federal, 257, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that on the trial of a defendant for perjury committed in a naturalization though such affidavits, when signed, were in blank. So, too, in that case the Court held that a defective final order was admissible as evidence of the facts therein stated. The Supreme Court, in Holgren vs. United States, October Term, 1909, affirms same case, 156 Federal, 439, the principal question being whether, under this section, a conviction can be had in a Federal Court for a false oath thereunder in a State Court. Held, that it could.

§ 222a. Oath Must be Material.-No prosecution for false swearing under Section 80 can be successfully maintained unless the oath was a material oath. U. S. vs. Bressi, 208 Federal, 369.

§ 223. Provisions Applicable to All Courts of Naturalization.-Section 5429 of the old statutes is re-enacted into Section 81 of the new Code, and some new words are added for the purpose of showing that the penal provisions above treated are applicable to proceedings had or taken in any Court, and reads as follows:

"Sec. 81. The provisions of the five sections last preceding shall apply to all proceedings had or taken, or attempted to be had or taken, before any court in which any proceed

ings for naturalization may be commenced or attempted to be commenced, and whether such court was vested by law with jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings or not."

See Holgren vs. United States, 156 Federal, 439, affirmed by Supreme Court, October Term, 1909.

§ 223a. To Cancel Certificate.-A suit to cancel certificate of naturalization must show either fraud or that the evidence before the Court which granted the certificate was insufficient to warrant the finding of residence. U. S. vs. Roekteschell, 208 Federal, 530. The word "reside" as used in the naturalization suit is capable of different meanings. Generally however, it signifies nothing more nor less than domicile. U. S. vs. Roekteschell, 208 Federal, 530.

§ 224. Corporations, Etc., Not to Contribute Money for Political Elections, Etc.-The Act of January 26, 1907, 34 Statute at Large, becomes Section 83 of the new Code, in the following words:

"Sec. 83. It shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and VicePresidential electors or a Representative in Congress is to be voted for, or any election by any state legislature of a United States Senator. Every corporation which shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars; and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any contribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

229. Inciting or Engaging in Rebellion or Insurrection: 5334-4. 230. Criminal Correspondence with Foreign Governments: 5335-5. 231. Seditious Conspiracy: 5336-6.

232. Recruiting Soldiers or Sailors to Serve Against the United States: 5337-7.

233. Enlistment to Serve Against the United States: 5338-8. 233a. Ordinance-Purchase, sale or Disposal of.

ence.

$ 225. Treason.-At the time of the formation of this Republic, treasons were numerous in England. They were divided into high and petit. By the old Common Law, there were several forms of petit treason, which later, by English statute, were reduced to three. These were: the killing by a servant of his master; the killing of a husband by the wife; and the killing of a prelate by an ecclesiastic owing him obediAll these petit treasons were abolished, however, in 1828, and there remains now but one sort, and that is high treason. So, when the word "treason" is used, it means high treason. Under the United States laws, there are no Common Law crimes, and treason, as defined in the Constitution of the United States, consists only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The meaning of the words "levying war," and the other words, "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," is to be found in the Common Law doctrine of an aider at the fact, as applicable to the levying of war in treason. The meaning of war, as defined by Bishop, is an attempt, by force, either to subjugate or to overthrow the Government against which it is levied. Ordinarily, where the overthrow is not contemplated, a treaty acknowledging rights previously denied is expected. If a body of men, mis

takenly deeming a particular statute to violate fundamental or constitutional right, combine to oppose by force its execution, and commit therein an overt act, they are undoubtedly guilty of treason, provided, it is their determination also to resist by violence every attempt to bring them to justice and to continue this course until the Government is compelled to yield to them. Bishop's New Criminal Law, Second Volume, page 703. The same writer, in answering the question, What is levying war? says that in legal reason a levying of war consists of two elements, neither of which can be dispensed with: the one is the intent existing as of fact in the mind of the accused person, either to overthrow the Government, or to compel it, through fear, to yield something to which it would not voluntarily assent; the other is some overt act in the nature of war or preparation therefor, or threatening it, as an array of persons assembled for war, or some war-like violence, or some other step menacing war. Yet, we must admit that it is legally possible for one man alone to levy war upon his Government, and be guilty of treason. Second Bishop's Criminal Law, 704.

$226. The Statute.-In line with the Constitutional definition of treason was old Statute 5331, which is re-enacted into Section 1 of the New Code, which reads as follows:

"Sec. 1. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason."

In 1 Story, U. S., 614, 30 Federal Case, 18275, the following charge was given to a grand jury:

"It is not every act of treason by levying war that is treason against the United States. It may be, and often is, aimed altogether against the sovereignty of a particular state. Thus, for example, if the object of an assembly of persons met with force is to overthrow the Government or Constitution of a State, or to prevent the due exercise of its sovereign powers, or to resist the exercises of any one or more of its general laws, but without any intention whatsoever to intermeddle with the relations of that State with the national Government, or to displace the national laws or sovereignty therein: every overt act done with force toward the execution of such a treasonable purpose is treason against the State, and against the State only. But treason may be begun against a State and may be mixed up or merged