Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XII.djvu/174

 166 NATURALIZATION States and of the states ; and that it recognizes the distinction between the two. Since the act of July 14, 1870, aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent may be natu- ralized. The question however remains, under the laws, what admixture of color will preclude one from being denominated a white person, and may arise when persons of mixed Indian blood born out of the United States apply to be naturalized. The residence required by the naturalization laws is a permanent abode in the country; and when that is 'established or begun, it will not be affected by a temporary absence upon business or pleasure, if the inten- tion to keep up the residence here and return has always existed, and no residence has been established elsewhere. A man's residence may be denned to be the place where he abides, with his family if he has one, and makes the chief seat of his affairs and interests. In re- spect to seamen who have no fixed place of residence, they are provided for in the act of 1872 before referred to. Many questions have been decided by the courts in respect to nat- uralization, which will be summarily stated. Foreigners by birth are prima facie aliens, and must show that they have been natu- ralized before they can inherit; and if not entitled to inherit, being aliens, they cannot become so by afterward getting naturalized. The marriage of an American woman with an alien does not make her an alien ; but if she. emigrates to a foreign country with her hus- band and takes up her abode with an intention to remain there permanently, she would prob- ably be regarded as having lost the character of an American citizen, at least while such a state of things existed, especially if in the country in which she dwells she is by its laws a citizen or subject there, by being married to a citizen or subject of that country. Emigra- tion to another country, swearing allegiance to it, and entering and uniformly continuing in the service of its government, are sufficient to show expatriation, and that the person has lost the character of an American citizen. A child born in a foreign country, whose mother was a native of that country, and whose father was an American citizen who went there with the intention of remaining, but was never natural- ized there, is an American citizen, and can in- herit property in the United States. A child born of non-resident parents, if born in one of the United States, is prima facie a citizen, al- though his mother was in the state merely for the purpose of being confined. A child born abroad of an American citizen is subject to a double allegiance ; but upon arriving at ma- turity he may elect one and repudiate the other, and such election is conclusive upon him. Allegiance in the United States is twofold, to the Union and to the particular state ; but that to the Union is paramount. Where a territory is conquered, it operates to change the alle- giance of the people; but their relation and rights in respect to each other remain undis- turbed. Citizens of Texas before the annexa- tion became citizens of the United States by that act, which operated as an act of naturali- zation; and it was decided in Pennsylvania that a native of Saxony who went to Louisiana in 1801, and was residing there when the terri- tory was ceded to the United States in 1803, and continued to reside there afterward, be- came by the act of cession a citizen of the United States. A court having neither clerk nor recording officer distinct from the judge is not a court entitled to naturalize. As to the right of a citizen or subject to expatriate him- self and renounce his allegiance to his native country, there was formerly even in the Uni- ted States great difference of opinion. The most authoritative writers upon the law of nations treated it as an inherent right, and it was so regarded in many of the European na- tions. In England, however, it was held by the courts that the allegiance of a native-born subject was intrinsic and perpetual, of which he could never divest himself by any act of his own, and that it was not in the power of any foreign prince or nation, by naturalization, to dissolve the bond between a British subject and the crown. In the supreme court of the United States the question was elaborately discussed in three cases, but was not passed upon, while in the state courts there were con- flicting decisions. Chancellor Kent in his "Commentaries," after reviewing all the de- cisions, declared the better opinion to be that an American citizen could not renounce his al- legiance without the consent of the govern- ment in a mode prescribed by law; and as congress had passed no law, that the rule of the English common law remained unaltered. On the other hand, the executive branch of the government recognized the right. Gen. Cass, the secretary of state, did so in 1859; and At- torney Generals Cushing and Black both offi- cially advised the government that an Ameri- can citizen could renounce his allegiance. Fi- nally an act of congress was passed July 27, 1868, declaring expatriation to be an inherent right in all men, and that any act of any officer of the government which denied, restricted, impaired, or questioned it was inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the gov- ernment. In the same year it was settled by treaty between the United States and the North German Union that if a citizen or subject was, after a residence of five years, naturalized in either country, he was to be deemed a citizen of that country; that if he returned to the land of his birth, he could not be prosecuted for any criminal offence unless it was commit- ted before his expatriation ; and that by a resi- dence of two years in the country to which he originally belonged, with no intention of re- turning to the one of his adoption, he would be presumed to have renounced his naturaliza- tion. In 1870 Great Britain, by an act of par- liament, which will be hereafter referred to, abandoned its former policy ; and the right of