879

right of action would be barred by'the to ivhibh I have referred. 'The to the bill is therefore sustained, and the bill dismissed for want of equity.
! , , ,. ' ·

1Ertu. LIFE INs. Co.

TowN Olf MILFORD.

11. ,ToWN OF

, (Oirtmit Oowrt, No D. lUmM,. July 5, ,1887.) ,
BLODGETT, J. ThE! suits brought by the same complainant against the Milford and the Wwn of Belmont have been submitted on demurrers, and present precisely the same questions, which 'are presented in the case just considereld;; .and these demurrers will therefore be sustained, and the bills .dismissed for want
,

"

,

f<

;

I"}

«(Jirouit Qowre; , ' . Oaliforni'a. July 19, ".,: D. 1887.) .

,"'

"

"

,';'

OF aLiENs:':"'TOONGDECLAItATION AT PR'rvATE llil:emENOB;' Tlie :elerkof the United States'llil'cuit court hall no authority,to take from an of intention to 1)ecome a of the UnitElq at the. party, and for that purpose to carry the re,cords 6fthe court'from the clerk's office to such residence. ", ".,.,!,

In the cifcuit court of the United ,States for the-district of California, 'deciaratiobsbyaliens of their i'nteiltion to, become citizens of the United ''States arecohtained' in: bound'volumes, which constitute records of: the court. Printed forms of declaration., with blanks' to be filled with. the name of a:pplicant and of the country of which he is a oitizen, or -of whose ruler he is 'a subject,' are bound in the volume, and ate filled l1p"and \.lSoo as applicatiens are ·made. On the twenty-eighth' of June, '1'8S7', Emilie Charlotte Langtry, III subjeot of the <1uoon of Great Britain, 'madeappFcation to become 'a citizen of the 'Pnited States, and on'e'of ,these volumes'; of which one-third of the blanks had been used and constituted the original declarations of intention of the different applicants, _W,as,taJten fromthlil clerl,\.'s.,office at Francisco by and to, resi(Ience of ':Mrs. Langtry, in the city, and tqere heir declarationvvaijl, made and oath, bef()re the deputy-clerk.'This fact coming to the knowledge of Mr. Justice: FIELD, of the Unite<lStatessuwith Circuit Judge SAwYER the circuit court ,at San Francisco. the following proceedings were had in the' circuit court on the nineteenth of July, 1887. FIELD, Circuit Justice, addressing Mr. Barnes, a counselor olthe circuit ,court, inquired whether he was counsel for Mrs. Langtry. Mr. Barnes replied that he was not such counsel, although he had given her advice as :to making a declaration to become a citizen. The justice then said that

FEDERAL· REPORTER.
(

\

pis attl:lutiou had 'been called to the fact that Mrs. Langtry's declaration had b,een taken at her residence in this city, and not at the clerk's office, and that for that purpose the records of the court, in which such declarations are entered, had been carried by the deputy-clerk to her rooms; and that great doubt existed in his mind as to the legality of the declaration thus made; He did not thinlr that the statutes furnished any authority for the clerk of the court to take a declaration of one to become a citizen out of his (the clerk's) office, except in open court, and for that purpose to carry'the records of the \coUrt to the private residence of the . 'l'ope,rmit the proceedingt.o pass without comment would be to establisn it dangerops p:t:ecedent, .and orie to give rise to g:r:oss ,abuses..'Tlle'justice observed that to bean American citizen was a great pri\7ilege;"th'at citizenship should be regarded as a'sacred trust; and thiit persons seeking to take upon themselves its responsibilities ought to consider it of sufficient value to attend where the records of the court are held in proper legal custody. In some states, a man is allowed to vote as soon as he makes his declaration of intention to become a citizen; and if the clerk of the court, or his deputy; can go around the country takit is evident that ing declarations,oOntentjon and administering dangerous conseq'u0nces biight follow, especially as there is no limit to the,nuJ:Q,QI1I, of, deputies which . a, may appoint.. At one time the statutes frequired ·the person making. a declaration ·of intention to do so ;m. but i'6 1876 cOfigress passed a the declaration to 'be make before but 'it. could not have contemplated the granting of authority to clerks to remove records from the proper ,place of .theircustody fol" the .l'l.ccommodation of parties. 19 St. 2, c. 5. Mr. Barnes stated, in reply,that in the case of Mrs. Barrios, widow of Pres.ident.l3an:ios, oiGuateJ;llala,the records' had been taken from the (lourt to the hotel where the lady was stopping. Justice FIELD was not aware of the fact, and stated that the precedent was a bad one, and should not be followed. The justice suggested to Mr. Barnes that he should inform M,rs. Langtry of the doubt expressed by the court of the legality of per dec1ltration, and to inform" her that she could remove that doubt t>y repeating the declaration before the clerk of the court at his office, or before the court. Mr. Barnes replied that he .would act upon the suggestion.
"

is state\i in the public journals that Mrs. Langtry is not a feme 80le, and that her husband is living in England, and a subject of the queen. If this be SO, the question will arise, on her application .forfinal:naturslization papers, whether'she can be naturalized in this country. No person can be scitizen of two countries; aud a wife is by law a citizen of :her hmlballd'sco\lntry.
.NOTE. By (JOURT. .It

.TltE

I ':

:'

,

"

UNITED STATES'll. ONE OIL PAINTING.

881

UNI'fEt> STATES V. ONE OIL PAINTING.

(Circuit (Jourt, N. D. IllinoiB. July 25, 1887.)
CUSTOMS

Where an .oil that would have been entitled to' be Pltssed free of duty as lin "Ilntiquity, ' under the act of congress of March 3,1883, (clause 669, Heyl, part 2, p. 38,) if regularly entered as free, has been brought into the United· States by the owner without such entry, or p'ayment of duty, but with full opportunity to the custom·hous", officials for examination and de· mand of duty. and WIth no intent on the part of the Owner to defraud, and in the actual belief that it was not subject to duty, a proceeding to forfeit it will be barred, bil" section 21· of the act of June 22, 1874, if not brought within one vear from the, time of its importation. '

(Jraharn H,.

P. L.

Harris,

Atty., for the United States. '

for defendant.,

J. This is a proceeding on the part of the UnitedS4ttes to f<;)rfeitanqil painting, said to be by Raphael Sanzio, called "The Virgin of the Bool,{," and alleged to be worth $50,000, as a work of onli' of the old masters, on the ground that it was imported into this country in fraud of the customs laws, and without payment of duty; the seizure made on the sixth of December, 1885. The information contains four counts. all of which charge willful and intentional fraud on the part of the importer in bringing this painting into the United States without payment of duty. It is admitted that the pltinting in question was imported into the United States through the port of New York by this claimant, Henri Kieffer, from Paris, France, by the steamer Labrador, on the eighth of November, 1883; that it was packed in the trunks and boxes containing the wearing apparel and personal effects of Kieffer and his family; and the proof shows that these trunks and boxes were duly inspected by the proper customs officers at New York, and the contents passed free. 'J'he proof also shows that a large number of other pictures, vases, and articles of were also packed in these boxes, and all passed free of duty. The proof also shows that Kieffer, the claimant and importer, had for several years before his immigration to this country, been engaged in business in Paris as a house decorator and furnisher, and also as a collector, to some extent, of bric-a-brac and works of art; that several months before he left Paris, a dealer in pictures left the one now in question with Kieffer,and obtained an advance of money upon it; that afterwards this same dealer obtained from some valuable paintings from Kieffer's collection, which he was to sell at fixed prices and pay the proceeds to Kieffer; that he disposed of these paintings, but did not pay' the proceeds or any part thereof to Kieffer, and on being threatened with prosecution agreed that Kieffer should hold the Raphael picture as security for the proceeds of the pictures thus disposed of, and that Kieffer's title shoulq become absolute unless payment was made by a stipulated time. Not paying at the time fixed, Kieffer took steps in court to have his v.31F.no.14-,56