Southwest-sentinel. [volume] (Silver City, N.M.) 1883-189?, 1896-03-17


look possession IN 1864 with the ar Of
July oelobrn.ionn since then; Others
boldly claim that they had been present
81 the nag raising Ia 1854 when 10 In
manifest they were cnlv pnrroiino ,,bst
they bad learned 70 Be- noconaarv from
some interested Ia toaching Them
Additional difficulties aroao from Ere
fact that not only was Il uncertain a. 10
the time Of residence but MANY had
drlftod back and forth FROM Morico.
after long or short absences. a. uncer.
lain periods; many whose parents we're
Mexican citizens were bora or BROUGHT
here when children lho parent or The
child, sometimes both, returning at en-
uncertain period 70 Mexico and remain
ing there for yoafs, then again returning
% the United States, Domotimos the
child returning alone, while no proof Of
the naturalization Of She parent at any
Time 10 shown" The court then cites q
number Of authorities upon The legal as-
poets OF C~itizonehip and then goes on 70
remark: "8omo Of the challenged voters
who claim citizenship By virtue Of resi-
denoo at tho time OF the treaty were
shown 70 have gone into Mexico after
wards ~ ~cOlonists and resided there
with then familie8 or married there and
bad children, took up and cultivated
land, voted at popular elections and ex-
ercised the rights aud privileges OF Mex
lean oitizens. It was sought to meet
the force Of this proof By ~ondoavonng 20
show that IN some instances the acts Of
citizenship were done under duress or
rather that duress by fine might have
beer applied had performance Of them
been refused. While domioiled foreign
citizens are amenable 10 local laws gen
orally, they are not subject 10 tbooe
local laws which relate to citizenship;
and we cannot allow doubtful testimony
as sufficient proof that The Mexican gov
eminent forced citizens OF the United
States to exercise the privilege Of Mexi-
can citizens Ia violation Of treaty Obli-
cations and the principles Of interna-
tlonal law" the presumption must DO
that such powers and duties we're vol
unfairly assumed and that American
~citizenehip had boan precedeutly re-
nounced. an some instances the re-
turn 70 the United States ives q FIGHT
from dangers incurred for political &C
Invites In Mexico" IL 10 an established
principle Of international law that an
individual can nave only one allegiance
aud no sound system can suffer such a
thing V . double nationality. The
right Of e~xpatriation has always been
favored under our system. Congress
has declared It 70 be q natural and in
heront right OF all people. Those Mexi-
can citizens who were born on the soil
afterwards acquired by us we're not nat
ural born citizens Of the United States;
they we're foreign citizens naEuralized
by treaty. The treaty with Mexico in
1868 permitted natural born citizens Of
the United States who had been natur-
allied IN Mexico to recover their citi-
zenship Of the United States by q two
years residence In the United States;
but this treaty did not apply to citizen
ship acquired by naturalization. Our
Department OF State has declared that
one who becomes expatl lated and &C.
quires q foreign allegiance is completely
an alien citizen and can only recover his
citizenship by the methods provided for
the naturalization Of aliens. This rule
was partially relaxed under the treaty
with Mexico in 1868 so that q citizen Of
the Uuited States who had become nat
uralized IN Mexico could recover his
citizenship by returning to reside in the
United States. But IL was not intended
that q citizen by naturalization could
cast of and then regain that citizenship
with the ease and celebrity Of a mere
change OF residence. A number Of those
who voted but were not citizens Of the
United States, when called upon to tes-
tify, as to how they voted, claim they
did not know, that the ticket was given
TO them at the polls folded; that they
did not remember whether there was an
eagle OF q flag on the ticket and did not
know from whom they obtained the
ticket. "The answer given were so
uniformly similar that it Is difficult to
believe that the witnesses were not re-
peating g Lesson carefully taught by
some one interested ia ~suppresging the
truth from the lips Of those who alone
could show the contents-of a secret bal
lot; TO bellows that the witness
vas In truth utterly ignorant OF the
ticket which he voted or from whom he
got Il would be absurd. In such case
the witness becomes an adverse witness,
and it cannot be expected that the an
swers will DO viewed favorable IN q court
of justice TO the side which he appar-
emily shields" The opinion then goes
on TO discuss the admissibility of evil
dence as to the declaration OF the voter,
as TO how he voted. made after the cleo
tiOn wal over, and while admitting au-
thorities are not settled, holds that the
testimony 10 not admissible, except when
introduced under authority OF section
2O67 OF Compiled Laws, which 10 terms
permits q party producing a witness to
prove that the witness made at other
times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony.