The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-06-18
CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH
Attorney George D. Collins
Takes Issue With Just
ice Field.
THE LATTER MAKES REPLY.
He Says He Does Not Consider the
Lawyers Article Possesses
Any Merit.

George D. Collins, well-known attorney
of this City, has taken issue with Associate
Justice Field. In an article entitled "Citi-
zensbip by Birth" in the last number of
the American Law Review, Mr.. Collins
attacks decision of Judge Field in the
Circuit Court of the Ninth Circuit in
which he reiterated the dissenting views
expressed by him in the much quoted
"slaughter-hous cases.
According TO this decision" as Mr.. Col
Inns states it, ga child of Chinese parent
age, both father and mother being subjects
to the Emperor of China, born within, the
territory of the United States, is, ipso
facto, citizen, and becomes, by the fact of
birth, full vested with the status of Ameri-
can citizenship"
This matter is of considerable interest to
the people of the United States, in view of
the new tide of immigration setting in
from Japan and the recent discoveries
made in cody labor Investigations. Mr..
Collins article having Just come to hand
and Justice Field being now in the City,
the CALL is enabled to give the gist of the
formers paper and the reply of Judge
Field thereto. Mr.. Collins writes:
The precise question determined by that de-
cision Judge Field's) has never been directly
presented 10 the supreme Court, but that tri-
bunal has on more than the occasion above re-
ferred to expounded the law at entire variance
with the views of Judge Field, and were It not
for the fact that the Executive Department of
the General Government has apparently acqui-
esced i'll Judge FIELDS decision as a correct in
depreciation OF the law we might well be in
different 10 what he did or did not de-
eide in the particular case before the
Circuit Court, knowing as we do that when
the question is ultimately brought before
the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge
Fields views will not be sustained. But it is
the knowledge that his decision is not the law,
and that the Government seems entirely OBJ
livious 10 that fact, and has, accordingly, for
the past ten years permitted without question
the landing upon the shores OF the United
States of aliens, subjects OF the Emperor of
China, under the claim of citizenship by birth,
and the knowledge that such aliens now ex-
ercise IN California and elsewhere the right of
suffrage.
After devoting some space to the discus
sion OF the general difference between the
condition of subject and that Of citizen,
Mr.. Collins passes to q consideration of the
decisions of the Supreme Court. He says:
In the ''slaughter-house" cases, the court
for the first time, was required TO consider the
meaning OF the fourteenth amendment and to
construe the definition OF citizenship therein
contained. The court quotes the definition:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens OF the United States, and OF the
State wherein they reside" And then pro-
ceeds as follows: THE first observation we
rest both questions which we stated TO have
been the subject of difference of opinion. 1t
declares that persons may be citizens of the
United States without regard to their citizen
ship OF particular State; and it overturns the
bred Scott decision by making all persons born
within the United States and subject to its
jurisdiction citizens of the United States. = =
The phrase subject to the jurisdiction,' was
intended to exclude from its operations
children of ministers, consuls and citizens or
subjects OF foreign states born within the
United States"
From that Interpretation of the constitution
Judge Field dissented and in his dissenting
opinion adopted the common-law doctrine and
virtually held that the definition of the consti-
tuition was but an affirmance OF that doc
trlne: In The subsequent case OF Elk
VS.. Wilkins the court again interpreted the
phrase, subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, ="
and held that 1.-THE evident meaning of these
last words is not subject in some respect or
degree to the jurisdiction of the United States
but completely subject TO their political juris-
diction and owing them direct and immediate
allegiance"
In conclusion Mr.. Collins states that he
thinks he has adduced enough proof 10
render 1t incumbent upon the Government
toquestion the correctness of Justice Fields
decision, and to invoke the higher author
lty OF the Supreme Court to obtain a final
determination of this most important issue
Justice Field was shown Mr.. Collins
article and asked if he wished to make any
answer to il. After reading it carefully
Judge Field replied that he did not consider
the article as one possessing any merit !;
that the vanity of the writer was evidently
pleased by seeing his crudities in print,
and the value of their publication would
there END. Justice Field then continued.
1.-THE fourteenth amendment to the
constitution provides that All persons
born or natCralized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are
citizens OF the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. All persons born
In the United States are subject to their
jurisdiction unless the rights of extra
territoriality are secured to them, or their
parents are transiently passing through
the country. The rights Of extra-territorial-
ity are secured only by the provisions of
international law or by provisions of
special treaties. 1t would be absurd to
bold in the face of the constitutional pro-
vision that children born of Irish, English,
Russian, Turkish or other foreign parents
who have not been naturalzed retain the
citizenship of their parents, except in the
cases mentioned.
'The conclusion of the article would
make the child of any alien not natural
lied also an alien, and large percentage
of our population would be exempt from
all the duties of citizenship. This is a