rience has bridged over apparent antagonisms, and the republic is so enduring in its structure and so liberal in its policy that the civilized inhabitants of every climate share its blessings under laws inviting them freely to participate in its benefits. The right of expatriation, so often maintained, and recently vindicated so ably and fully by this government, is a part of that policy.1 Congress, by the act of July 4, 1864, provided for the appointment of a Commissioner of Immigration, made provisions to enable indigent emigrants from foreign countries to come to and settle in the United States, and otherwise encouraged immigration.2 Some of the States have passed laws of a similar character, and sent agents abroad to invite immigration.3 All this has been done on the faith of a naturalization policy established by laws sanctioned in their general purpose by almost universal consent for over 60 years. Good faith and justice require that existing rights and facilities for becoming citizens should not be abridged, and as to the time of residence it has been sanctioned by treaty stipulations. Foreigners or their descendants have made the republic what it is, with all its material and moral resources. Immigration adds to our productive industry, and thus enlarges all our resources. It is well that the public judgment will sanction no measure hostile to immigration, or looking to an abridgment of the privilege to become citizens. The alien and sedition laws passed during the administration of John Adams afford an instructive lesson as to the impolicy of exposing the authors of any new measures to the charge of being unfriendly or too severe in the admission of citizens. 1 The treaty between the United States and the King of Prussia, in the name of the North German Confederation, proclaimed May 27, 1868, contains these provisions: ARTICLE I. Citizens of the North German Confederation who become naturalized citizens of the United States of America, and shall have resided uninterruptedly within the United States five years, shall be held by the North German Confederation to be American citizens, and shall be treated as such. Reciprocally: Citizens of the United States of America who become naturalized citizens of the North German Confederation, and shall have resided uninterruptedly within North Germany five years, shall be held by the United States to be North German citizens, and shall be treated as such. The declaration of an intention to become a citizen of the one or the other country has not for either party the effect of naturalization. ARTICLE II. A naturalized citizen of the one party on return to the territory of the other party remains liable to trial and punishment for an action punishable by the laws of his original country and committed before his emigration; saving, always, the limitation established by the laws of his original country. ARTICLE IV. If a German naturalized in America renews his residence in North Germany, without the intent to return to America, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in the United States. Reciprocally: If an American naturalized in North Germany renews his residence in the United States, without the intent to return to North Germany, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in North Germany. The intent not to return may be held to exist when the person naturalized in the one country resides more than two years in the other country. The republican national convention at Chicago, on the 21st of May, 1868, adopted as a part of their platform the following: 9. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers, that because a man is once a subject he is always so, must be resisted at every hazard by the United States, as a relic of feudal times, not authorized by the laws of nations, and at war with our national honor and independence. Naturalized citizens are entitled to protection in all their rights of citizenship, as though they were native-born; and no citizen of the United States, native or naturalized, must be liable to arrest and imprisonment by any foreign power for acts done or words spoken in this country; and if so arrested and imprisoned, it is the duty of the government to interfere in his behalf. 2 13 United States Statutes at Large, 385. 3 In some of the States aliens, having declared their intention to become citizens, are by law entitled to vote. In 1846 the legislature of New York established a board of commissioners of emigration, still in existence. The following is from the platform of the National Republican Convention of May, 1868: 11. Foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development, and resources and increase of power to this republic, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy. But this is not deemed advisable. Unless national courts are substituted equally accessible to applicants, the facilities for naturalization would be greatly abridged or rendered inconvenient and attended with unnecessary expense. It has been proposed to confer jurisdiction of naturalization on registers in bankruptcy, and require them to hold terms for business in every county, to be paid by fees, and without compensation from the govern ment. In many localities the business would not justify such officers in holdng terms in every county. mThese officers may be as liable to err in judgment, or become faithless uty, as the judges of the State courts. States ver was of ge never gress has power to control and subject to penalties State officers to forge onsent to execute national laws as fully as officers created by law. It will not do to withdraw all confidence from all State On the 25erely because some have been recreant to their trusts. When maintained was cy becomes universal in State officers the only remedy will Messrs. Graham vith their existence. additional points ra a complainant when h provide for the offence o aver upon its face the motive as a fact, in this court what is ton of passengers during the year 1866—Continued. and the punishment of the defendan. in the indictment fall for the reason that is a real person, and the court, therefore, can harm or mischief. That the third and fourth August. September. October. ing" and "using as true"-and are therefore bad; for 95 15 46 23 113 1, 602 1, 522 414 383 4,493 98 68 550 330 4.185 First. Whether it is necessary, under the 13th section of the act of Congi 469 11,874 March 3, 1813, entitled "An att for the regulation of seamen on board the public 54 1,818 vate vessels of the United States," that said indictments should aver that the certific citizenship or the evidence of citizenship therein mentioned was produced to the comman of a public vessel of the United States or to a collector of customs. Second, whether the certificates of citizenship or the evidence of citizenship mentioned in the said 13th section embraces any other certificate or evidence than the certified copy of the act of naturalization mentioned in the said section of said act, and the proofs of citizenship mentioned in the 4th and 6th sections of said act. Third, whether the said indictment is invalid for the reason that the certificate set out therein is not a certificate of citizenship as is mentioned in said 13th section. On the 6th of April, 1844, Benjamin C. Elliott, judge of the city court of Lafayette, was impeached and removed from office by the senate, the high court of impeachment of Louisiana, on articles of impeachment charging that he- I. Grossly and culpably neglected to cause the records and proceedings of the court to be kept in respect to all the acts and proceedings of said court under the naturalization laws of the United States. II. That he unlawfully and corruptly caused and permitted 1,748 certificates of naturalization to be issued * from the 2d of March, 1841, to the 4th of January, 1844, in fraud of the naturalization laws, &c. III. That he permitted his clerk to issue fraudulent certificates. IV. For issuing fraudulent certificates corruptly for money.-United States Senate documents, vol. 9, 1844-'45, 2d sess. 28th Congress, Doc. No. 173. In that case it was said, in a report to the House: It further appears that nearly 400 of these certificates were issued in one day. It seems to your committee impossible that this could have been legally done. Twelve hundred oaths administered and 800 witnesses examined as to the age, the qualifications, the residence and moral character of the different persons naturalized in open court by the judge. The report does not show whether the question was made as to the power of the State to impeach for frauds in the exercise of a jurisdiction conferred by national law. (7 Hill, N. Y. Rep. 137; People vs. Sweetman, 3 Parker Crim. Cases; 18 Barlow, 444.) But there can be no doubt of the power of a State to impeach its own officers who, exercising a national jurisdiction, prove themselves unfit to perform any duty. States. rience has bridged over apparent antagonisms, and the republic is so enduring in its structure and so liberal in its policy that the civilized inhabitants of every climate share its blessings under laws inviting them freely to participate in its benefits. The right of expatriation, so often maintained, and recently vindicated so ably and fully by this government, is a part of that policy.1 Congress, by the act of July 4, 1864, provided for the appointment of a Commissioner of Immigration, made provisions to enable indigent emigrants from foreign countries to come to and settle in the United States, and otherwise encouraged immigration.2 Some of the States have passed laws of a similar character, and sery agents abroad to invite immigration.3 ons mass All this has been done on the faith of a naturalization policy es upon lished by laws sanctioned in their general purpose by almost unid to the consent for over 60 years. Hermann Good faith and justice require that existing rights and faci Mr. Henry becoming citizens should not be abridged, and as to the tirom different dence it has been sanctioned by treaty stipulations. Forgon, and does yet. descendants have made the republic what it is, with allation to add to our moral resources. Immigration adds to our productive industry.8, of which there were our resources. It is well that the public judgment will salon under the acts of the New York legPort of New York during the years migration, or looking to an abridgment 13, 1853, and May 14, 1867. The alien and sedition laws pass Adams afford an instructive 11867. authors of any new measur severe in the admission.16 68, 047 65, 134 1 The treaty between .. 79 36, 186 33, 712 German Confederat 4,979 6, 315 See annual reports of the commissioners of emigration of the State of New York for the year ending December 31, 1866, and for the year ending December 31, 1867. Number and destination of passengers during the year 1866. April. May. June. July. August. September. October. November. December. Total. States. But this is not deemed advisable. Unless national courts are substituted equally accessible to applicants, the facilities for naturalization would be greatly abridged or rendered inconvenient and attended with unnecessary expense. It has been proposed to confer jurisdiction of naturalization on registers in bankruptcy, and require them to hold terms for business in every county, to be paid by fees, and without compensation from the government. In many localities the business would not justify such officers in holding terms in every county. These officers may be as liable to err in judgment, or become faithless to duty, as the judges of the State courts. Congress has power to control and subject to penalties State officers who consent to execute national laws as fully as officers created by national law. It will not do to withdraw all confidence from all State officers merely because some have been recreant to their trusts. When such recreancy becomes universal in State officers the only remedy will be to dispense with their existence. Number and destination of passengers during the year 1866—Continued. New York.. 5, 613 3, 636 6, 986 New Jersey 291 8, 78115, 745 13, 035 10, 779 6, 686 6, 039 8, 475 7, 615 4, 217 97, 607 252 569 630 1,775 968 693 596 529 685 606 283 7,877 Nebraska 2378 5 23 9 119 Rhode Island 94 57 80 194 652 327 154 10 15 26 164 156 246 1,348 989 927 1, 317 2, 206 2,042 1, 630 2, 214 12 49 23 192 76 2,392 22 50 8 6 15 152 392 447 1,802 2,055 1, 120 2 6 1,125 1,947 2 3, 082 Nevada Colorado 4 Prince Ed'ds Isl'nd. Idaho Totals.. 10, 861 6, 608 14, 204 19, 478 39, 760 32, 1832, 22 16, 438 14, 482 19, 597 17, 280 9, 638 228, 851 Total. A bill is reported in accordance with these views: A BILL to amend the several acts relating to naturalization. SEC. 1. Be it enacted, &c., That any alien who shall have declared on oath or affirmation in any court authorized to admit aliens to become citizens of the United States that it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at the time be a citizen or subject, shall be authorized to acquire, hold, own, use, and enjoy, by purchase or descent, any property, real or personal, and the same to dispose of, and transmit by inheritance in the same manner and as fully as citizens of the United States might or could lawfully do. 8 SEC. 2. That every alien, before being admitted to be a citizen of the United States by any court having jurisdiction thereof, shall prove to the satisfaction of the court by at least one credible witness under oath, and by an oral examination in open court, the facts which are by law required to be proved, and of which the court must be satisfied, and in like manner by his own oath all said facts except that he has behaved as a person of good moral character, and he shall in like manner prove by his own oath as nearly as practicable his place of birth, age, time of arrival in the United States, and the place or places where he has resided since his arrival in the United States, with his present residence, specifying the number, street, and city, town, or village, if in a city, town, or village, and if not such other pertinent description of the locality of his resi 8 In Elmondorff vs. Carmichael, 3 Littell, Ky. R., 474, decided in 1823, it is eaid: From the authorites cited, and the investigation the court has made on this subject, the following general rules are discovered to have existed in the laws of England, at our separation from that country: First, "That an alien may take land by purchase, and is clothed with the title; but he holds it for the use of the crown, and may be divested of it by an inquest of office found. This inquest, however, is absolutely necessary, before the title can be taken from him." Secondly, "That an alien cannot take a title by descent as he can by purchase, and in case the heir is an alien, the title is immediately vested in the crown, and no inquest is necessary for that purpose, although an office of instruction may be found. " There can be no doubt that the Commonwealth of Virginia, when it assumed its republican character, succeeded to the rights and privileges of the crown of England, as to her own domain. And it is equally clear that she adopted the laws in force there at a certain period, so far as they were compatible with the genius and spirit of the new government and were not locally inapplicable, without inquiring into the policy of the foregoing principles or investigating the reasons which gave them birth. We have no doubt they were also adopted by Virginia at the Revolution, and composed part of her code, and ought to be adjudged to exist until altered by the legislature. This has been held to be true in New York with regard to that State, and is so decided with regard to Virginia, by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Fairfax's devisee vs. Hunter's lessee, 7 Cranch, 603. It is also decided in that case that a devisee is a purchaser within the meaning of the rule, and can and does take the estate devised to him. But that a grantee from the crown, or government, would or could take an estate by patent, and hold it for the use of the government, is a point not so clear. There is considerable difference between him and the purchaser from an individual. The reasons which operate in the latter case are not as patent in favor of the former. Besides, many dicta in the English authorities are against it. See Bro. Abr., title Patent, 44; 7 Viner's Abr. title Prerogative, p. 78; 2 Black. Commentaries, 347, 348, and Tucker's note; Jacobs's Law Dictionary, under Grants from the Crown. There is, however, opposed to these authorities, the case of Craig et al. vs. Redford, 3 Wheat. 594, in the Supreme Court of the United States, precisely in point with the present. But this case is decided on the authority of the case of a devisee in Fairfax's devisee vs. Hunter's lessee, 7 Cranch, 603, supposing the case of the devisee and that of a grantee from the State to be precisely parallel. Besides, the question does not appear in that court to have undergone the same minute investigation of authority, the mature deliberation, and the application of reason which usually characterize the decisions of that enlightened tribunal. In White vs. White, 2 Metcalfe's Kentucky Reports, it was said, in 1859: An alien can take lands by purchase, though not by descent, at common law; or, in other words, he can take by act of the party, but not by the act of the law. Lands acquired by purchase he can hold until divested of the title by inquest of office. (Elmondorf vs. Carmichael, 3 Littell, 474.) The consequence of this rule is that if he be naturalized before office found, his title as purchaser becomes valid by relation, and it cannot thereafter be divested. This doctrine, however, dues not apply to lands claimed by descent. Not being capable of taking by descent, he has no title to be nfirmed by relation, and his subsequent naturalization cannot operate to invest him with the title which in the mean time vested elsewhere. An alien who has made his declaration of intention to become a citizen is not thereby rendered capable of taking land by descent. (White vs. White, 2 Metcalfe's Kentucky Reports, 191; Hunt vs. Warnicke, Hardin Reports, 61. |