The San Francisco call., 1896-02-08
District Attorney Foote'S Message
From the Attorney.Gen-
eral.
ADVANCED ON THE CALENDAR.
California and the Federal Law De.
partment Join Issue On an I'm
portant Question.

advanced on the Supreme Courts calendar,
and would probably be heard some time
in April.
This is big news for California. It
means, practically, that there is a strong
probability of Judge Morrow's decision IN
the Wong Kim Ark case being overruled,
and the edict pronounced that Chinese
born in this country is not therefore a
citizen.
The Wong Kim Ark was q test case
argued in the United States District Court
in this City. The United States Distri ct
Attorney took the ground, in this case,
that the son of Chinese parents, although
born in this country, could not become a
citizen-or rather that he was not, by
reason of his birth in this country, citi-
zen thereof.
Judge Morrow ruled otherwise, but in
his decision he followed a precedent estab-
lished by Justice Field while sitting on the
Circuit bench in this circuit, and did not
IN measure, exercise his own judicial
judgment in the matter. The effect of
Judge Morrow's decision was, however, to
uphold the view that had already been
taken and acted upon by the Chinese at
the prior elections, under which the mem
bers of the Chinatown "Parlor" of Native
Sons of the Golden State tan incorporated
society and other sons OF Chinese parents
sought to cast their ballots on an equal basis
with American citizens. In truth, Judge
Morrow's ruling was that the sole test of
citizenship-the question of naturalization
apart-Iies in the question of birth. II
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United
States, no matter what his parentage, he
was citizen of the United States.
But this ruling has by no means settled
the question. 1t was, in truth, merely a
technical ruling on test case and action
was taken in the lower court at the in
stsnce of the United States Attorney
Gs-Aeral for the purpose of bringing the
oNStion squarely before the Supreme
Court OF the United States.
II is question of vast importance and
one that has never before been defined bv
the Supreme Court of the United States,
though that tribunal has on more than
one occasion expounded the law at vari-
ance with the Field and the Morrow de-
cisions.
The question at issue is not one that
affects Am erican-born Chinese alone, but
every American born son of foreign born
father who did not become a naturalized
citizen of this country prior to the time
when the son arrived at maturity. In this
view of the case one sees at a glance that
many thousands of voters all over the
United States are deeply interested in the
knotty legal problem, though of course
should the United States Supreme Court
reverse the ruling of Judge Morrow, as il
is confidently expected that it will, the
American Chinese will be the only
ones to be ultimately deprived of citizen.
ship. Sens of non-naturalized Caucasians
will merely have to secure naturalization
in the ordinary way. But the Mongolians
while the existing Chinese restriction laws
are in force, will be forever barred from
citizenship.
The question involved is fundamental
one, and the progress of the case will be
watched with great interest by the entire
legal profession. Itwas originally brought
to the front by the very carefully prepared
articles OF Attorney George D. Collins Of
this City, which were published in the
American Law Review.
In these essays Mr.. collins took what
was first considered rather the novel posi-
ton that the fourteenth amendment tc
the constitution does not, by its language
confer citizenship upon all who are born
in this country. He cited that rortion Of
the amendment which reads: GAL
persons born or naturalized in the United
States. and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof"
The latter words, sin the jurisdiction
thereof" Mr.. Collins maintained. did not
refer to the territorial jurisdiction (as was
proven by the fact that territorial in
habitants were not cltizens), but to
political jurisdiction. And in de-
Gliding the question of political juris-
diction international usage and not
the English common law should
be the guide to the Interpretation
zenship in England was radically different
from citizenship in the United States
which would seem to the layman to be not
a very difficult task-and then argued with
such ability as to attract the attention OF
Attorney-General oiney) that when the
rule of political jurisdiction was
thus applied to the sons of foreign-born
fathers who were not naturalized these
same sons must be considered without the
jurisdiction of the United States, and
therefore, not ipso facto, by birth alone,
citizens of the United States. This is only
the brleiest kind of statement of the entire
argument. The entire argument was, OF
course. mainly directed against the native
born Chinese who for several years past
have been voting in this and other States
under the Field decision, and who had
also been landing at this port from China
on the plea of having been born in this
country.
Attorney General Olney was greatly I'M
pressed with the latter state OF facts and
sent special commissioner to San Fran
cisco to examine into the matter. This
commissioner found that large numbers OF
Chinese were landing here (before the reg
istration act was enforced) upon the plea
of citizenship. Upon his report TO the
Washington authorities Acknowledgement
Harmon, the successor of Mr.. Olney, in
structed the United States District Attor-