The record-union., 1892-03-01
RODGERS is A CITIZEN.
Despite the Efforts of His Enemies
to Prove Otherwise.
eligible to Any ONCE Within the
Gift of the People''-So Says
Another Lawyer.

So much has been said by those who
are seeking to secure the defeat of John
b. Rodgers for Chief of Police, regarding
the pretended doubt as to his citizenship,
notwithstanding Deputy Attorney-Gep-
eraI Layson's opinion given last week,
that friends of Mr.. Rodgers yesterday de-
termlned to secure another opinion on the
subject from lawyer of well-known
ability, Alvin j. Bruner. That gentleman
says:
The question as TO whether or not John B.
Rodgers, independent candidate for the Office
OF ChIei OF Police of Sacramenty city at the
coming election. is eligible To the office if
elected, being the all-absorbing question in
sacramento politics, l have Investigated it,
ana herewith submit my conclusions.
ne iaefs of the ca; are as follows Mr..
l,odgers Was born IN australia in 1880 OF
alien paseats IL 1858 his parents immi-
Sratcd 10 California, and the same year the
Itiher deserted his vile and child. IN 1868
his mother obtained decree of divorce, IA
Nllculo," from his father, the mother being
awarded the custody OF the child.
shortly afterward his mother married ma
uNe-born citizen OF the United states The
child ie.nainet in the custody and control of
MS nicther and stepiather from thence on dur
IN August, 1873, the father was natural
ized.
On February 20, 1892, Mr.. Rodgers was
mcHto County.
The revised statutes OF the United States
prov ide:
The children CT perst rs who have been
dGiy haoufllIle Under any law OF the United
states, being under the age OF = wears at the
time OF the naturalization o. their parents.
shall, ii dwelling IN the United States be con-
sIGefed citizens thereof
ANY woman VINO is now or may hereafter
be married TO citizen OF the United States,
ana VINO might herself be lawfully natuI;tlized
shall be deemed Il citizen.' (l{evis d statutes,
1884; Kelly vs. owen, Wall, 1867
she becomes tijSo JactO natdralized citizen.
thelly ". owen, Wall 1870; United States
Us. kellre. 3 Fed. Rep. S2.l
Ihls proposition Is affirmed by many cases
IN tire arous Sta-es, and is unquestonably
settled law.
The mother having been thus naturallzed
during the minority OF tie child, did the child
tp$o tdcto become citizen OF the United
, .ateS? IansWer: "UnquestionaJly So" The
ReYlS 9tatu es provide supra that If the
parents are natufaliked Curing the minority
o. the cnilc, the cni!d is thereby naturaliZed
Inc decisions of tie Supreme ana Federal
Counts of the United Sta. e : without Gissfnt-
ing Noct, arTirIn that If alitn par, hts migrate
TO the United states am the ia her dies, and
the widow marlIeS u citizen OF the United
states curing The minority of the child, e
chIla by that act becomes a citizen. This
poslIlon IS uitquestioned. In the casein DO nj
the father did not e nor was he naturaliZed
during the minority OF the child, but 0gttti-
cdtly speaking he ceased 10 be the parent of
the child when his wife obtained q divorce
u EtItCtO Turing TIE llllte size thu CUSTODY
of the Child, which, in this case. She had dur
ING the entire period OF its minority.
'lf the father be dead or be unable or refuse
10 take the custody, or has abandoned his
family, The mother is entitled thereto" Gal
G. c., Sec. 1879
The authority of the father ceased by the
decree of divorce. zeal. G. G., Sec. 2O41
What, then, is the effect o. u decree of di-
Yorce a tlacU1O for the fault of the husband
wherein the custody OF the child is committed
10 the wife upon the legal status OF the father?
find the law, after close inve 5tigation to be
as follows: That the decree OF divorce giving
isthe custody of the caiid absolutely TO the
mother take away tllS0 tgct0 all control of the
father thereafter over The child, until it shall
be restored by tie action of a pro er court
BY the decree, the infant is no longer the
Child OF the divorced father, but is entirely
under the control of the mother until il ar
rives at he age of ma o.ty. Wilkinson vs.
Deming, sc H., 342.)
This being the law, the status of the child
can in no wise be affected by the subsequent
action Of the father, whether he remains an
alien or becomes naturaliZed,
Mr.. Rodgers then becoming a citizen by viz
tue of his motlerS naturalization, the decree
OF the court OF February 90, 1892 was a void
act, and in no wise affected his legal status
My conclusion is that Mr. Rogders is eligible
to any Office in the gift OF the people OF the
State of California.