t clauses (3) and (4) of the oath,
as previously prescribed, required the candidate for naturalization to
be ready and willing to bear arms for the United States, but these
holdings were overruled in Girouard _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 61
(1946).
[1054] 66 Stat. 163, Sec. 340 (a); _see also_ Johannessen _v._ United
States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912).
[1055] Ibid. Sec. 340 (c). For cancellation proceedings under the
Nationality Act of 1910 (54 Stat. 1158, Sec. 338); _see_ Schneiderman _v._
United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943); Baumgartner _v._ United States 322
U.S. 665 (1944), where district court decisions ordering cancellation
were reversed on the ground that the Government had not discharged the
burden of proof resting upon it. Knauer _v._ United States, 328 U.S. 654
(1946) represents a less rigid view.
[1056] Osborn _v._ Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824).
[1057] 328 U.S. 654 (1946).
[1058] Ibid. 658.
[1059] Johannessen _v._ United States, 225 U.S. 227 (1912) and Knauer
_v._ United States, 328 U.S. 654, 673 (1946).
[1060] 66 Stat. 163, tit. III, Sec. 352 (a).
[1061] Perkins _v._ Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329, 334 (1939). Naturalization
has a retroactive effect and removes all liability to forfeiture of land
held while an alien (Osterman _v._ Baldwin, 6 Wall. 116, 122 (1867));
the subsequent naturalization of an alien who takes land by grant or by
location on public land relates back and obviates every consequence of
his alien disability (Manuel _v._ Wulff, 152 U.S. 505, 511 (1894); Doe
ex dem. Governeur's Heirs _v._ Robertson, 11 Wheat. 332, 350 (1826)). A
certificate of naturalization, while conclusive as a judgment of
citizenship, cannot be introduced in a distinct proceeding as evidence
of residence, age or good character of the person naturalized (Mutual
Ben. L. Ins. Co. _v._ Tisdale, 91 U.S. 238 (1876)).
[1062] Chirac _v._ Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 269 (1817).
[1063] Holmgren _v._ United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), where it was
also held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing
in such proceedings in State court. Ibid. 520.
[1064] Spragins _v._ Houghton, 3 Ill. 377 (1840); Stewart _v._ Foster, 2
Binney's (Pa.) 110 (1809).
[1065] Shanks _v._ Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, 240 (1830).
[1066] 15 Stat. 223; 8 U.S.C.A. Sec. 800.
[1067] MacKenzie _v._ Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 309, 311-312 (1915). In this
case, a now obsolete statute (34 Stat. 1228), known as the Citizenship
Act o
|