Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1892-02-12
BOYD IS WINNER,
DECLARED TO BE GOVERNOR OF
NEBnAsKA.
Hands uDown n Long Looked for
Decision.

|
Decision.
| WASHINGTON. d. c., Feb 2.-The
, United States supreme court in an
, elaborate opinion by Chief Justice
Fuller. held yesterday that James f.
Boyd is citizen OF the United States.
ana was citizen fer two years proceed
ing his election as governor OF Ne
Draska and that consequently he is en-
titled TO the Office, ana that John NJ.
Ihayer, the hold-over governor who
denied the right OF Boyd to succeed
MIN. must give way. All the justices
OF the court except Justice Field,
untes in the conclusion that the United
States supreme court has Jurisdiction
OF tho case. justices Harlan, Gray
ana Brown, while concurring in the
conclusion OF the court that Boyd was
a citizen OF the United States, did so on
the ground that the exercise of all the
rights and priviles OF citizenship by
Boyd's father. resident OF Ohio. us
shown on the record, established the
assertion made by James L. BOYD AMI
his father. that the latter had, in 1S5 4,
taken out his final naturalization pa
pers although there Is no documentary
proof OF the issuance OF those papers.
These three justices, although the
TACT was not stated in SO many words
by tho court, did not assent to the con-
clusion reached by the other justices.
That Boyd was also a citizen on the
ground, viz; that the enabling act
OF Nebraska constituted collective
natural cation OF all the inhabitants
thereof at the time OF admission into
the union, unless they had stated that
they had intended TO retain their rights
as subjects OF foreign nations and that
the various offices held by Boyd and
the exercise OF the right OF suffrage by
him with the oath Of allegiance to the
United States he took at various times.
shows clearly it was his intention to
become Il citizen OF she United States,
ami that he so considered himself.
Tho following is summary OF the
opinion OF the court which is not a
verbal statement OF its argument
though following the conclusion
reached and the line OF reasoning of
the opinion.
SYNOPSIS OF THE OPINION.
The court says that on January 10,
1891. the leave was granted to John
M. Ihayer by the supreme court OF
Nebraska to file proceedings looking
To the ousting OF Boyd from the Office
OF governor OF Nebraska. The court
then renews the charges contained in
the Information filed by Thaycr, the
point us is we'll known being that
Boyd's father. although he had de-
clared his intention to become citizen
OF the United States and had in Ohio !
Tor years exercised unqudstioncd the |
rights OF voting ami holding Office, had |
In fact never taken out his final nat
papers and therefore was |
not citizen, ana that as James +. |
BOYD himself had never been natural !
lied but had voted ami held Office
unuer the belief that his father had |
become naturaliZed citizen while he |
was minor; that therefore, under the |
constitution, james T.. Boyd was not a |
citizcn. ami therefore not eligible to |
the office of governor OF Nebraska, the !
constitution requiring that the govern
or shall be Il citizen of the state for at |
least two years preceding his election. |
By VIRTUE OF THE ENABLING ACT.
BOYD, in his reply, held that the en-
abling act OF Nebraska constituted a
habltants at the time OF admission to |
statehood, and also asserted that his |
father HAD in 1854 taken out mis- nat |
papers, although the record |
ala not show such fact
Inc court first devotes some space !
TO an argument in support OF its right |
OF jurisdiction under the mode OF pro- !
ccourc undcr which the case comes
before it. reaching the conclusion that
while the attorney general OF the state
refused to institute suit against Bovd.
Ihayer as the aggrieved party had a
right to bring the suit in the nominal
name OF the state and that the uues-
ZION being one OF a denial OF consti-
tutional right to Boyd had made it a
federal question which could DE re-
viewed here.
The court says it understands that
IL is insisted that Boyd was an alien
because his disabilities as n foreign
born citizen had never been removed
by naturalization. Congress, it SAYS,
IN the exercise of its power to estab-
Iish uniform rule OF naturalization,
has enacted general laws for the nat
hralization of individuals, but that the
instances OF collective naturalization
BY treaty or statute are numerous.
FANORS COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION,
The court then says: There can be
no doubt that in the admission OF the
state collective naturalization may
DC effected in accordance with the
intention OF congress and the people
applying for admission on an equal
ooting with the original states, in all
respects whatever. involves the adop-
-ion as citizens OF the United States OF
hose whom congress makes members
Of the political community, anu who
are recognized as such in the forma-
-ion OF the new state with the consent
81 congress The question is not what
l state may 10 in respect of citizenship.
but what congress may recognize in
hat regard in the formation of the
state.
The application OF this doctrine is