El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1897-05-07

o. DV the Y nlUeQ SGdueS anu WlGuln III
l. meaning of the amendment he was M
IS regarded as having been born ''subjet
II to the Jurisdiction thereof" The di
e similarity between the Elk case an
l. the one at bar is so pronounced tia
IL further reference to it is not deeme
= essential.
l. OThere was concluded at Washington
d July 10, 1868, it may be said contem
e pOraueously with the adoption of tn
= 14th amendment, a treaty between tn
!. United States and Mex CO, ''relative tt
# natural ZatiOn." Pursuant to motto
Y given by the Mexican governm ent thi
! treaty as the court is informed by tn,
y secretary of state, was terminated Feb
/ II, 1882. 1t is therefore not now opera
= tive and reference is made to it ONLY
l.. for the purpose of indicating the con
struction placed upon our naturaliza
ton laws at that time by the treaty
5 making power of the respective gov
ernmentS.
The first trticle of that treaty pro-
, vides:
! ''Article 1. Those citizens of the
| United States who have been made cit
liens of the Mexican republic by nat
uralization and have resided without
interruption in Mexican territory five
years, shall be held by the United
States as citizens of the Mexican repub-
J lie and sb all be treated as such. Re-
ciprocally, citizens of the Mexican re-
public who have become citizens of the
United States and who have resided I'M
interruptedly in the territory of the
United States for five years shall be
held by the republic of Mexico as citi-
zens of the United States and shall be
treated as such. The declaration of
| the intention to become citizen of one
or the other country has not for either
party the effect of naturalization. This
| 1<,1@ 1l,, n1,va x-ral1 hos
ready naturalized in either OF the
! countries contracting as to those here
after naturalized."
Two conclusions are fairly deductible
| from an analysis of the foregoing Ian
guage:
FIRST The two high contracting par
ties recognize that MeXicans were en-
braced within our naturalization laws.
and,
cond-That they had the right in
div .dually to invoke the aid of the stat
ute Notwithstanding the provision which
at that time limited the right of natur-
alization to free white persons.
When all the foregoing laws, treaties
and constitutional provisions are con-
sidered, which either affirmatively con-
fer the rights of citizenship upon Mex
leans or tacitly recognize in them the
right of individual natura ization, the |
conclusion forces itself upon the mind |
that citizens of Mexico are eligible to |
American citizenship and may be in |
dividually naturalized by complying |
with the provisions of our laws. and |
this conviction is further strengthened |
by consideration of the first section of |
the act of July 81, 1868, re-enacted as |
section 1899 of the revised statutes. Its |
language is as follows:
''Whereas, the right of repatriation |
is a natural and inherent right to all |
people, indispensable to the enjoyment
of the rights of life, liberty and the |
pursuit of happiness: and, whereas, in
the recognition of this principle this
government has freely received emil
grants from all nations and invested
them with the rights of citizenship:
and, where as, it is claimed that such
American citizens, with their descend
ants, are subjects of foreign states,
owing allegiance to the governments
to the maintenance of public peace
that this claim of foreign allegiance
should be promptly and finally dis
avowed; therefore, any declaration,
instruction, opinion, order or decision
of any officer of the United States
which denies, restricts, impairs or
questions the right of eXpatriation, is
eotal principles of the public.''
1t will be observed, the preamble de-
clares that we have freely re ceived i'm |
from all nations and have in
vested them with the rights of citizens;
and the enacting clause denounces as
Inconsistent with the fundamental
principles Of the republic any opinion,
decision or order if any United States /
officer which denies, restricts or ques-
lions the right of expatriation.
1t may appropriately bs said that
is the final step in the
process of eXpatration, and, literally e
any order, opinion, or deci- {
ion of any United States officer deny
ng, restricting or questioning the
light to become a naturalized citizen
ave as to Chinese, would come within |
The denunciation of the statute. 1t is
that the statute was not in !
ended to have an effect so far reaching
n its consequences and that the prim-
Try purpose was. as the title of the ORR
FINAL act asserts. to protect. the rights t
II American citizens in foreign states. b
But the language of the act is signifi- ,
ant as illustrating the policy of the
words of Vice Chancellor Sanford,
the right of citizenship freely and \
With a Ii b6ralty unknown in the old | e
world" ] Sanford, GIL.
THE APPLICANTS RIGHTS.
i
cation of the questions discussed, the
court is of the opinion that whatever
nay be the status of the applicants {
7iews solely from standpoint of the 8
he Is embraced within the
pirlt and intent of our laws upon nat
realization and his application should
De granted. If he was shown by the
testimony to be man attached to the {
principles of the constitution and we'll
disposed to the good order and happi-
less OF the same. 1t is suggested that
he proof fails in this respect, and the
objection appears to be based upon the
ground minated in the briefs of his Il
inability to understand or explain those
,riuoiples. That the applicant is la
nentably ignorant is conceded; and
hat he is unable to read and write the
estimouy clearly disclosed. Natural
y enough his unframed mind is found
efficient in the power to elucidate or ,
efine the principles of the constitu- s
ion. But the testimony also disoloses