Seattle’s Fire Chief Fights a Naturalization-Fraud Indictment
Chief Hunt’s lawyers argued that false statements on his citizenship papers did not matter—because Washington’s constitution had already made him a citizen.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
TACOMA, July 20.—The indictment of the United States grand jury charging Chief Hunt, of the Seattle fire department, with procuring naturalization papers by fraud and false representation was demurred to this afternoon in the United States court, James Hamilton Lewis appearing for Chief Hunt. No argument was had, and if the demurrer is not granted, it is assumed the case will go over until the next term of court in February.
The main issue raised in the demurrer is that Hunt has committed no crime on which an indictment could be based, and the significance of this is that it is held that it matters not what Hunt swore to in procuring his naturalization papers, so long as the statements made were not material. It is maintained that all adults become citizens who were in the state at the time the state constitution was adopted, and inasmuch as Mr. Hunt was in the state at that time, he became a citizen by virtue of the provisions of the constitution.
As an illustration, the attorneys for Mr. Hunt hold, for instance, that if a man were to testify that the name of this city were Seattle and not Tacoma, in a lawsuit in which the name of the city did not cut a material figure, that statement, whether true or otherwise, would not be material in the matter at issue and could not constitute an indictable offense. Admitting for the sake of argument, in the usual way, that all that is claimed in the indictment is true, Col. Lewis holds that Mr. Hunt has committed no crime for which he could be legally indicted. If he did swear he had his first papers when he did not, that was not material, inasmuch as it was not necessary to have those papers in order to entitle him to full naturalization papers. He had been a resident of the state when the constitution was adopted.
It is also held that in this division of the district the United States court has no jurisdiction, and that if the Federal court desired to bring an indictment against Mr. Hunt it should have done so in this county.
“It matters not what Hunt swore to in procuring his naturalization papers, so long as the statements made were not material.”
Naturalization fraud was a serious charge for a public official in 1894, but Hunt’s defense rested on a technicality: Washington’s constitution had supposedly made him a citizen already. The case is a reminder that citizenship status and public employment have long been entangled, and that legal paperwork can be both fragile and politically charged.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.