HUP OF Hi UK'
NED, PAUL REPLIES
FEBRUARY 7, 1^26
Mr. Herbert L. Faulkner,
JUNEAU, Alaska,
Dear Sir;
I would have been glad to pub
lish your explanations of your cit
izenship status, but you have al
ready given it widie publicity,
so to save space, I will omit
it in the February issue of my
paper.
<Tthe outstanding weakness of
your defense is that your evidence
is dead, with all due respect to
the dead.
1 was not the one who sent
a marked copy of the ALASKA
FISHERMAN about yo*ur Recent
naturalization to the Grand Jury,
first, because I felt that that was
a duty belonging to the office of
the United States Attorney, and,
secondly, because I felt that it
would be of no use, as the event
proved.
I felt , justified in publishing
the facts as they appeared, first,
because the question of your cit
izenship has been a topic of gen
eral discussion for a number of
years Secondly, because you are
actively in politics and as such
you are a fair topic of conversa
tion. Third, because the events as
they have reached the public seem
to justifiy the belief that you were
not a citizen during the past years
and that you were fully conscious
of that fact. Fourth, because you
have not heretofore made any
statement purporting to answer the
questions now discussed.
The investigations and exonera
tion made by the Grand Jury was
a rather strange procedure, was
it not? Is it customary for the
Grand Jury to call the objects
of its inquiry before them to test
ify? Will the United States Attor
ney call other persons suspected
of crime before the Grand Jury
and thus give them the IMMUNITY
bath? Of course your appearing
before the Grand Jury was another
exhibition of the “cleverness” for
which you are famous for now
you not only hold papers of citizen
ship, but you have also gotten an
immunity bath by your appearance
before the Grand Jury since un
doubtly you will be able to prove
that the United States Attorney
called you.
The question now arises, Did the
United States Attorney really ad
vise the Grand Jury as to the law
of the case and the value of the
evidence which you offered as en
titling you to the privilege of the
special statute known as section
4352 (10) of the Compiled
Statutes? .
The facts which are of public
record shows that on the 29th
day of March, 1905, you made oath
as follows;
“I, Herbert L. Faulkner, of Ket
chikan, Alaska, do declare on oath,
that it is bona fide my intention to
become a citizen of the United
States of America, and to renounce
forever all allegiance and fidelity
to any foreign prince, potentate,
state of sovereignty whatever and
particularly to Edward VII of Great
Britain and Ireland of WHOM I
AM NOW A SUBJECT,”
And that you signed the same
before D. C. Abrams, Deputy
Clerk of the District Court of the
United States, First Division,
Alaska, at Ketchikan.
Was noft this enough to justify
me or anyone else in believing
that you were not a citizen of
the United States and that you
KNEW it?
I had a talk with your brother
in-law about the same subject last
year, and he related to me a con
versation which he had had with
you when he charged you face to
face with being a non-citizen of
the United States, and he further
said that you did not reply to him.
During the time L lived in
Juneau, it was the general com
ment that you did not vote in
the general elections. I lemember
on one occasion the newspaper
said that you were out of town
that day,and it appeared later that
you had gone “up the Basin back
of Juneau,” an easy walk of about
two hours. On the second occasion
you again were out of town at
Haines, the business being very
urgent. On the other occasion you
were for the moment at Peters
burg. There you voted contrary
to the laws of the United States
as in such cases provided. On the
last occasion you were CAM
PAIGNING for the DEMOCRATIC
TICKET, as you say, which is ex«
cuse enough to justify absence
from any home town on election
day.
At any rate, it was the general
comment of the people who knew
know that you were not a citizen
of the United States and that these
sudden calls of duty to out of town
points were the results of premedit
ation.
To cap the climax, you became
naturalized last December after
due “publication” as provided by
latw; which consisted of placing
your name in the Clerk’s office
under several sheets of other names
which fact was perhaps a mere
accident and not the * result of
planning.
The law which was invoked
on your behalf applies to those
who had up to 1909 “erroneously”
believed that they were citizens
on account of misinformation and
had thus exercised the rights of a
these facts that you certainly must
citizen. This law however makes
a specific exception as to those
who could claim its protection and
excludes those who had made the
declaration of intention required
by law. This you had done. 7
For the benefit of the curious, I
herewith quote the law;
“Any person not an alien enemy,
who resided uninterruptedly within
the United States for the period
of five years next preceding July
1st, 1914, and was on that date
otherwise qualified to become £
citizen of the United States, EX
CEPT he had not made the de
claration of ‘intention Required
by law and who during or prior
to that time, because of misinform
' ation regarding his citizenship stat
us erroneously exercised the right
and performed the duties of a
citizen of the United States in
good faith, may file the petition
for naturalization prescribed by
law without making the preliminary
declaration of intention required
of other aliens, and upon satisfact
ory proof to the court that he has
so acted may be .admitted as a
citizen of the United States upon
complying in all respects with the
other requirements of the najtural
ization laws.”
Can the United States Attorney
say that you come within the terms
of that act? Can any officer of the
United States say that you “had
not made the declaration of in
tention required by law”? Even
if for argument I conceded that
this “erroneous” information from
your uncle had come after you
had filed your declaration, does
that put you within the terms of
the law itself. A plain reading
of the law is simply this that;