The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-24

the Hon r. H. Marshall ono of the Judges of Fred
dsrpoo then one Of the Superior Court Judges Of the
city Of New York. and to the Hon. Charles P. DAILY,
Of the Judges OF the New York Court Of Common Pleas
who unanimous In their opinion that such minors
became citizens by operation Of law. Judge DAILY and
Mr. johnson gave written opinions, in which the whole
and their reasonings appear TO conclusive
this point.
Court hsd power to naturalze seems to have been
abanaored by the complainant, ~ the same does no
point in the brief and points presented by his
counsel. Upon that point have no doubt the Marine
Therefore have come to the conclusion that he COM
painant has a ed sustain the charge Of non citizen
ship and that the complaint must be and hereby is
missed.
OPINION OF HON. Z. r. CAPRON, CITY JUDGE.
As individual member Of the Board Of Police Com
msEoners, have arrived at the following conclusions in
this case:-
1st The fact Of alenage, if clearly established, is
ton this Board and therefore, the Chief could not be
removed in this forum for that cause if he ad
that policemen shall be citizens of the United States;
but the power to remove them from Office the ground
OF sliensge s not vested in this Board:
I'd. Acceptance OF the Office by the Chief Of Police wi
knowledge of his aiiensge, would not be tconduct
becoming officer or policeman" within the meaning
Of the rules and regulations Of this department This
CHARGE tmin relates the preach Of some Of too
rules and regulations adopted for The government of po
cemen and must have reference to act committed
after the accused became officer In the depa tment
or to the neglect OF some duty by officer
am strongly opposed to grants Of power in general
terms. Such powers are very liable to be used as in
suments Of oppression and the victim Ia too often left
by the grant without the Of appeal from an ad
decision upon the facts. Such s the before
US. The term sconduct unbecoming o policeman" is
general and Indefinite as an idea can be expressed
in the English language, and the only method by which
IL be mace definite with proper regard the rights
n
department, and specify breach thereof the grava
m.n Of the complaint.
To violate the known rules of the police is
urques stle pably conduct unhecoming policeman
but the charge implies that the accused off
tory only officers. As the acceptance OF Office by the
Chie therefore, without disclosing his aienage MOI
violation Of any prescribed rule that act according
the constitution which In my opinion, due regard to
the rights of the accused pels to give
general charge is not conduct unOecoming . police
man"
Upon the ground assumed in this Of the case the
Chief is entitled to dismissal OF the compnint whether
his aenage is established by the evidence is
tabIshed.
3d. But it may be said this is very technical per-
haps too ground OF decision; tnat the
have the right to expect determination of the case
upon its general merits Let us then see how the
stands In that respect.
Upon the proof is the Chief an alien, or natives
Prama fatie he is native citizen. He is American
soil, and Is exercising all the rights mmunities Of
nstive born citizen OF the country Those who would
but this assumption must establish the fact that the
Chief was alien born.
is than forty and .s. that
establish the place of his birth must almost OF necessi
~, be Of that kind called hsa1ssy. Very rarely can
alter many years have passed away But what is the
evidence in this that poin2 shall not attempt
to recie the whoe being record in the Office Of the
who have the curiosity to peruse it.
Mrs. Letitis Anlgan swears that she is . native Of
Etgand and lived In Brandon, Suffolk county, in the
year 1907 that she knew the Maen family we in the
village OF Brandcn that she resided within forty rods
their house, and she all the children of the family
but George, the Cnief abe says, was about six
years Of sge when the family enasssfsd 70 America m
the year 1917. This witness test6es that ahe saw
George vhen baby and thst' bis sister Mary used to
It must be remarked that this witness gave her evil
sae1 n.y. .1d hs Amy res
spond with the statements of other witnesses she
rever saw, and win whom thsrs is proof that
titles that she heard old Mr.. Ms sell say In Brandon
that he hao been to America and had to New York;
inference draws from this state
pent that George might have besn born America
ing that visit OF the father IL not proved that the
mt ther accompanied her husband.
Unless this witness has commit led wiful perjury her
testimony rebuts eecuay the presum pon of bi;tn in
ia country arising from the fast OF residence it
cannot be plauHby alleged that she may have testified
show that che tells either the truth inten-
Ioral fslsehoed. What appeared in her while
the stand, cast suspicion upon her moves9 Did
Eot sustain most searching examination with
guar consistency of statems mt in ali parts OF her story
In collateral soyrqboraion Of Mrs, Mgan there are
tue Witnesses Mrs. Kervip Mrs Baker Henry G. Atwood
Miss Ann Roe, Mrs Elizabeth Sherlock Thomas Baker,
William Baker and Mr.. samuel Smith These witnesses
testify to either acquaintance with the Chief during
passage OF the Mstss family in the ship Perseus from
England to America in the year 1877 the acknowledged
time when the family emigtat.d, or to acquaintance
and association with him in this country during his boy
hood Several OF these witnesses state the ime Of
their acquaintance with the Chie and his age at that
time, and those TWO dates, the testimony is credi oe
fhao nf a.
the family emgrated in 1871
the affidavit of Ann Cudhpp is received, It fur.
that she was passenger in the Pereeus With the MAJ
SELLS and that she positively remembers George who was
reven eight years old at that time.
omit to dwell upon the proof declarations made n
former years. by the parents of the Chief corrobcrave
Of this conclusion and do not nd 1t absolutely necessary
1, invoke the aid of the venerable and celebrated Ban
con record" Respecting the evidence Afforded bythat
record will, however, remark that the entry, eBap-
tSm
and receivedPDec Goth, is evidently desspvs Of the
family that Ia mentioned BY the other witnesses.
the time of the baptism ponds the ags Of
the Chief, rs given in their testimony.
lhe recutng hearsay evdencs put In BY the Chief to
this point consists of declarations Of his family made
preston my mind in his favor. The omission 10 pro-
his sisters residing In the vicinity Of this city,
that their brother born this country They
much older than himself, and may well be supposed
10 know pobitvey Oh the pace OF hls oirtn Ihe COM
p)ainant made earnest and repeated efforts to procure
the attendance of those sisters Witnesses but
toed in manner indicating their hostility at least to
that side OF the controversy.
Feeling bound to yield to the conclusion forced upon
by fair and full consideration Of the evidence the
queson OF br,h, must decide that the Chief
o subject of Great Britain.
L. The Chief having been born an slien, was
he lawfully naturazed before bis appointment
TO officer He does not claim naturalization on his own
application. His position this question s thar his
ther became naurazed citizen Of the United States in
the year 1927 and tbst in the parent the children mi
at that tne Of whom he one also natural
izeo by operation of Law.
The of this deduction depends the ques
titns:
1st Whether the parent in fact and In law natur
allied.
ID If the parent legally alssd, whether such
naturalization uureg to the Chief under the naturaxa-
ZION laws in force in 1927
Upon3 the point but httls be here said.
The police commission Is but inferior tribunal and
s deter limitations affect parties subject to Its jurisdic
ton only In thesr Official character It's decisions
not authority for any other purpose than the regulations
of the police, nor In any other relation which the
oused may sustain to the pubhs, than NJ of police
man. rhe ststute creating tho commission prsscribes