Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-02-02
coLLEcrlvC NATURALIZATION
RCcoeNtzgp.
Gorcrnor Boyd win not be Remstated
Before March, at thc
Earliest
Summary oC She opinion OF tue 4. s
supreme Court.


line Of reasoning of the opinion. The /
court says that, ON January 10, 1891, !
leave was granted 10 John NJ. Thayor Z
by tue Supreme Court OF Suhra1ln 70 /
nio proceedings looking 10 the ousiing I
~ BOYD from tue Office Of Governor " 1
Nobraska. The court then reviews |
the charges contained in the inioima- !
ton filed By Thnycr the point, ~ 10
wOll.kuOwu, being That Boyle father,
although hu had declared his intou-
ton 10 become a citizen Of the United /
Siatus, and had Ia Ohio for year, eXor-
risrd unqucstiOnod rights OF voting and
holding office, had Ia fact never taken
out his Hnal naturalization papers, and
was therefore not citizen, aud that, "a
James Boyd himself had never been
ulturnlizgd, but hat voted aud buld
ONCE under the belief that his father
HAD become u nRtuFalizoi citizen while
lac was u minor; that, therefore, under
the Constitution, James T.. Boyd was
not u olti1nn, aud therefore not eligible
TO the office N Governor oi Ne.
brasln, the state Consultation requiring
that tie governor shall bc cltIZon 0f
tho State for "a, lOall two years pro.
ccding his election. Boyd In his ~.
port claimed that The enabling set Of
Nebraska constituted collective
naturalization Of an ita inhabi,auta at
the time Of IT, admipaiou to statehood,
and 40 serted that hia father had, In
1864, taken out hla ilnal-nalurulizitiou
papers although the rtcord did not
show such fact.
The court nrst devotUs somu space 10
an argument In support Of IL
HIOlfTs OF TuufsDiC1IoN
under the mode OF procedure under
whlCh tho case comes before 30, reach-
ing the conclusion that while tho
ht'0fnoy.geuUfH " the State refused 10
institute suit against Boyd, Thayer
n the aggfieved party, had n right 10
bring the suit In tho nominal name Of
the State, aHd that tho question being
one VI the denial of constitutional
right, Boyd had made Federal ques.
1 ton, which could be reviewed more.
I Tho court .ays Il understands that II is
Insisted that Boyd was IN allen be-
cause his disabilities ~ fUrsign.born
/ citizen had never been removed by
naturalization. Congress, II says, IN
/ the exercise Of It's power TO establish "a
uniform rulo OF naturalization, has On.
/ acted general laws for tho naturalizs.
/ ton Of individuals, but that inttances
Of collective naturalization by treaty
or statute are NUMEROUS.
The court then iayG There can be
no doub, that In the admission OF
State, collective naturalization may DO
effected ia accordance with the lnten.
tlon Of Congtues, OF people applying Tor
admission on an equal footing with the
/ original States. Whatever inv0lves
/ s..l.UNlus. satNlWrUa 90
States II those whom Congress makes
| members of n political community, and
| who arc recognized M such In tho
formation Of the new State, with tho
new State, with the consent Of Con.
grsss, tho question Ia not what the
| State may do In respect to clti1enship,
| but what Congress may recognize in
that regard In tho formation OF tho
State.
THE APPLICATION OF THIS DOCTRINE
~ then made to the State OF Nebraska
and It's various proceedings looking TO
admission are considered. One clause
/ OF the State constitution adopted pro.
vided that persons OF foreign birth who
have declared thor intention 10 be.
come citizens should be considered
electors, ana this Congress amended
by declaring that II should not oper.
ate as n discrimination on account
Of color. These provisions, In con.
nectlOn with section / u the State
constitulion, that emo distinction shall
ever DO mace by law between resident
aliens aud and citizens Ia reference 10
property" seems 10 tho court clear
recognition Of the distinction between
those who had aud those who had not
elected To become aliens. 10 follows
From this that all who had declared
their intention 10 become citizens Con.
grtss so regarded, and placed those
whose naturalization was incomplete
In the same category with persons al.
ready citizens.
But says the court, II Ia argued that
James Il. boyd never declared bis in.
iention To become citizen of tho
United States, although his father had,
and that, because aa alleged his father
had
NOT COMPLETED MS NATURSLIzA
TIoS
before his son attained hls majority,
tho latter cannot be held 10 have been
made n citizen OF the United States by
tho admission set OF Nebraska. Tho
statutes, ~ says, lrnNe nuCu 70 Do ue.
sired with reference 10 the nationality
lasp and tho status. OF minors whose
parents declare their intention but
do not take out their final papers DO.
tore their children reach q yonTs OF
age. Clearly minors, the cour. says,
acquire an inchoate status by thc
declaration OF intention on the part OF
their parents. II they attain their
majority before the parents complete
tholr naturalization, they have right
TO repudihte the slatua aud accept q
foreign allegiance rather than hold fast
10 the citizenship which the the par.
ents' act initiated for them. Ordinarily
a man makes application ON his owl
behalf for naturalization, but II doe,
not follow that M equivalent may not
on occasion be- accepted IN lieu Of a
technical compliance.
The history Of Hoyd Is then traced,
bis voting In ohio In 1855 under the
belief and assurance from his father
, that he had taken out Ills inM plpers
Then 10 traced