Los Angeles herald., 1892-02-02
Also Governor Of the State of
Nebraska.
Governor Thayer Must Vacatt
the Stolen Chair.
An Interesting Opinion by the o. s
Supreme Court.
The Judgment of the Nebraska Court
Revereed-Boyd Citizen in
Double Sense-Justice Field
Alone Dissents.
A ssociated Press Dispatches.

States supreme COuIb tOuhy uOSiuSu IL
favor of Boyd, i'll the Nebraska govern
orship case.
All the justices except Field con-
Cured in the conclusion OF the court
that Boyd was citizen of the United
States and entitled to the Office of gov
ernor OF Nebraska. Justices Harlan,
GRAY and Brown concurred in that part
of the decision which held that Boyd
was citizen, because from the record
in the case it might be considered as es-
tablished that Boyd's father. having ex-
ercised all the rights of a citizen, had in
fact taken out his final naturalization
papers, notwithstanding he did not
have a record OF such final naturaliza-
ton papers.
These three justices, although that
fact is not stated in so many words by
the court, did not assent to the conclu-
sion reached by the other justices, that
Boyd is also citizen on another ground,
viz: That the enabling act of Nebraska
constituted collective naturalization OF
all the inhabitants thereof at the
time it was admitted INTO
the union, except such as announced
that they intended to retain their rights
as citizens or subjects OF foreign ma
ton, and that the various offices held
by Boyd and the exercise OF the right OF
suffrage by him, with the oaths OF allie
glance to the United States he took at
various times, show clearly that 1T was
his intention TO become citizen OF the
United States, and that in fact he so
considered himself.
The court reversed the judgment OF
the supreme court of Nebraska, and or
dered it to take further proceedings in
conformity with the decision that Boyd
is governor.
The decision was rendered by Chief
Justice Fuller.
Following is summary of the opinion
of the court, which is not a verbatim
statement of its argument, though fol-
lowing are the conclusions reached, and
the line of reasoning of the opinion:
The court says that on January 13,
1891, leave was granted to John M.
Thayer by the supreme court of Nebras-
ka to file proceedings looking to the
ousting of Boyd from the Office of
governor of Nebraska. The court
then reviews the charges contained
in the information filed by Thayer, the
point, as we'll as known, being that
Boyd's father, although he had declared
his intention to become citizen Of the
United States, and had in Ohio, for
years, exercised unquestioned rights OF
voting and holding Office, had, in fact,
never taken out his final naturalization
papers, and was therefore not citizen,
and that as James Boyd himself had
never been naturalized, but voted and
held office under the belief that his
father had become naturalized citizen
while he was minor, that, therefore,
under the constitution, James E. Boyd
was not q citizen, and therefore not
eligible to the Office of governor of Ne
braeka, the state constitution requiring
that the governor shall be q citizen OF
the state for at least two years preced-
ing his election.
Boyd in his reply claimed that the
enabling act of Nebraska constituted
collective naturalization of all its in
habitants at the time of admission to
statehood, and also stated that his
father had in 1854 taken out his final
naturalization papers, although the rec
ord did not show such fact.
The court first devotes some space to
argument in support of its rights OF
jurisdiction under the mode OF procedure
under which the case came before it,
reaching the conclusion that while the
attorney general of the state refuses to
institute suit against Boyd, Thayer, as
the aggrieved party, had right to bring
n NJ of
and that the question being one of con-
stitutional right, Boyd had made fed
eral question which could be reviewed
here.
The court says it understands it is
insisted that Boyd was an alien because
His disabilities as a foreign-born citizen
had never been removed by naturaliza-
ton. Congress, it says, in the exercise
OF its power to establish a uniform rule
of naturalization, has enacted general
laws for the naturalization OF individu-
ais, but that instances of collective nat
uralization by treaty or statute, are nu-
merous.
The court then says: There can be
no doubt that in the admission of a
state, collective naturalization may be
effected in accordance with the inten.
ton OF congress and the people apply
ing for admission. Admission on an
equal footing with the original states,
in all respects whatever, involves adop.
tion as citizens of the United States oj
those whom congress makes members
of political community, and who are
recognized as such in the formation of a
new state with che consent of concress
The question is not what a state may dc
in respect to citizenship, but what con-
gress may recognize in that regard in
the formation of the state.
Application of this doctrine is then
made to the case of the state of Ne.
braska, and its various proceedings
looking to admission are considered
One clause of the constitution the state
adopted, provided that white persons oil
foreign birth who had declared their in.
tention to become citizens, should be
considered electors, and this congress
amended by declaring that it should
not operate as discrimination on &C.
count of color. These provisions, in
connection with section IA of the state
constitution, that no distinction shall
ever be made by law between resident
aliens and citizens, in reference to prop
ertv, seems to the court clear recogni
tion of distinction between those who
had and those who had not elected to be.
come aliens.
1t follows from this that all who de.
clared their intention to become citi.
zens, congress SO regarded, and placed
those whose naturalization was incom'