Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-02-14


States'-Rights-Boyd VS.. Thayer.
Time vas when such decision - that
rendered BY the Supreme Court OF
tho United States In the case OF
Boyd %. Thayr would have aeitatcd the
country from one end TO the other. We
do not say that the case was not decided
Alright, nor that similar decision might
not have been reached even before the war
between the States, though We hardly
think it would. yet We cannot but regard
it as a decision whose importance cannot
be too highly estimated. The decision, to
state 1t in few words. was that BoYD 10 the
lawful Governor Of Nebraska. Thus the
Supreme Court Of the United States has
decided a contested-election case from q
State, and in doing so has seated Gov
erpor in the executive chair OF what we
used to call sovereign State" sucn
"sovereignsn are. we fear. not the genuine
article; and yet they may be. for Mr.. JUS
tice FIELD stood alone in denying that tine
Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the case.
The fact has nothing to do with the merits
or dement's of the case. yet as the court Is
composed largely Of Republican Justices
II NAV not be amiss to mention that BOYD
ia Democrat, and THAYER Republican.
The former was the Democratic candidate
for Governor and the latter the Republican
candidate for that Office at the last euber-
material election in Nebraska. The con-
test was based upon the assumption that
BoYp was not citizen OF the United
States. and, not being such. was not eiigi-
bic 70 the Office of Governor of Nebraska.
Let us remark Just here that If it had been
proved that Bonn was not citizen, THIS
fact would not, or at any rate should not'
have been considered as giving THArER q
title TO tbe'ofice of Governor. but ought 10
have had the effect of creating necessity
Tor q new election.
The Supreme Court delivered long
opinion in the case. 1t held that though
BoYp had never himself been paturalized,
and though it could not be conclusively
proved that his father had ever been natu.
ral,zed. vet the facts that the father had
netitioned for naturalization aud had
after taking out his first papers (and pre-
,umably his final papers,, exercised. with
ont question as to bis right to do so, all
the rights of citizen. were. under the
circumstances, sufficient evidence that he
had become a citizen. There was, oil
course. no doubt as to the sons citizenship
if the father was citizen.
The Federal Constitution (the four.
teenth article of amendments) provides
that ell persons born or naturalized III the
United States are citizens of the United
States and of the States in which they 70.
side. SO il BOYD the father had become q
citizen of the United States he had be.
come a citizen of the State (Ohio) in
which he resided. The law provides that
a minor becomes naturalized. or as IT born
III this country. when his father becomes
Q naturalized citizen.
The Supreme Court in it's opinion in the
BOYD case first discusses the question Of
iurisdiction-that is, how such a case eve
got into The CORTLAND reaches the con
cluslon that as the Aforementioned OF
Nebraska had refused to institute suit
against BOYD, yet THAYER, as the aggrieved
party, had the night TO bring the suit il
the nominal name of the State. and thai
the question being one of the denial of a
constitutional right. BOYD had made
Federal question. which could therefore
be reviewed in the Supreme Court of the
United States.
The nominal name of the State" Is
good. We do not see how any case oil
any sort which raises Federal question
can be kept out of the United States courts
under this decision.
ANYHOW, 1t is most interesting case. II
reminds rs of the celebrated DoRR cas-
from Rhode Island, not because OF like
ness to 1t, but of unlikeness.