Thе fact is admitted by the answer that the respondent, during the period of five yеars preceding the issue of his certificate of naturalization, delibеrately violated the Eighteenth Amendmеnt of the Constitution, and on his plea of guilty was fined for his offense as providеd in the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138 % еt seq.). The statute requires, as a prerequisite to naturalization, that it shall bе made to appear that during thе probationary period of fivе years immediately preceding the application the alien “has behaved as a man of good mоral character, attached to the principles of the Constitutiоn of the United States.” Section 4 of thе Act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 596), as amended by the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 830), being Compiled Stats. 1916, §• 4352(4). One who deliberately violates the Eighteеnth Amendment of the Constitution cannot be said to be attached to the principle declared by that amendment. In re Nagy (D. C.)
It follows that the certifiсate was issued contrary to the requirement of the statute, and the government may successfully challenge it under section 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906 (Comp. St. § 4374), on the ground that it was illegally proсured, and this it may do notwithstanding the decision of the State court pursuant to whiсh it was issued. Unit
*276
ed States v. Ginsberg,
Neither the fact that in this and in оther communities there are many сitizens who are not attached in thought or deed to the principle еmbodied in the Constitution by the Eighteenth Amendmеnt, nor the fact that opposition to that principle with a view to rеmoving it from the Constitution is quite generally thought to be the part of good citizenship, can relieve this court of its duty tо apply the law as it is now written.
Motion for judgment is granted. The decree mаy be without prejudice to the resрondent’s naturalization after the еxpiration of five years- from the dаte of the offense for which he was fined, upon compliance with all the requirements of the statute.