The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-09

have never been recognized as citizens of
the United States nor authorized to be-
come such under the naturaliaa ton
laws" Citing Fong Yue Ting VS.. United
States, 149 U. S. ZIG, and in re Gee Hop.
n Fed Rep. 27D A person born
States can only become a citizen by be-
ing naturalized either by treaty, as in
the annexation of foreign territory, or
by authority of Congress exercised eth
er by declaring certain classes of persons
to be citizens or by enabling for
eigners individually to become citizens
by proceedings in the judicial tribunals,
as in the ordinary provisions of the nat
uralization acts. The fourteenth
amendment, while it leaves the power
where it was before. in Congress, to
regulate naturalization, etc. Q69 u. S.,
| 701, 702. 1885,
! In American Insurance Co. vs.. Canter,
! / Pet, Sill, 542 Chief Justice Marshall,
quoting the sixth article of the treaty of
1919 with Spain, which admitted the in
habitants of the Spanish territory of
Florida Ito the enjoyment of the privi-
/ leges, rights and immunities of the citi-
zens of the United States" says:
This treaty is the law of the land,
and admits the inhabitants of Florida
to the enjoyment of the privileges,
rights, and immunities of the citizens of
the United States. 1t is unnecessary to
| inquire whether this is not their condi-
! ton, independent of stipulation"
1t is to be observed that the power Ito
| establish a uniform rule of naturaliza-
tion,' vested in Congress by clause 4,
section s, article I of the Constitution of
the United States, is an affirmative grant
by virtue of which Congress was author
tied to displace conflicting State laws on
the subject. This grant cannot properly
be construed to limit the power of Con-
gress, under the authority ito make
rules and regulations respecting the ter
ritory belonging to the United States"
to provide diversely for individual or
collective naturalization in territories
acquired, with view to the special cir
cumstances or needs of each territory.
Upon this principle proceeds the express
application to organized Territories (Sec.
2165 Revised Statutes) of the uniform
rules respecting individual naturalization
through the courts. And on the same
principle depend the varying laws re-
specting both individual and collective
naturalization which have been enacted
/ for certain territories and classes of
t people post, and sec. 100 of the Hawaii
, an Act cited). In other words, our ordi-
nary naturalization laws are of general
, but not universal application
1t never seems to nave been supposed
that the power to establish a uniform
+. more than that aindividual applications
T to become citizens by proceedings in jul
/ dicial tribunals should rest upon uni
. form authority and should follow the
same forms everywhere in the Unitet
States, and in the Territories when the
rules should be extended and applied u
them by Congress. 1t has never beer
!. asserted that the language of this gran
: of power affected the right of Congress
. | to exclude or to admit certain CLASSES
. of aliens by special or collective Prov
sions; or the right of the treaty-makin.
power to stipulate for the same results
=, (See for a stipulation denying NATURAL
q cation, article ~ OF the ChlneSe treaty o
: 1894 ut supra).
:, Accordingly, we find that the power o
10 collective naturalization has been fire
uuently exercised by the Presldent an
"a Senate; in the treaty for the cession Q
- Louisiana, which agreed to admit tn
:. :, inhabitants to- the rights of citizens q
:, the United States CART. III, Treaties an
III Conventions between the United State
:, and other Powers, p. 3S1; The Mayor
az New Orleans VS.. Armas, Pet, Y
y opinion of Justice Catron in bred SEQ
y. &c vs. Sanford, 10 How, 1893, 525); in tn
~ ~ treaty with Spain of 1919 referred to
a. American Insurance Co. VS.. Canter, 81
az pra in the treaty of 1S4S with Mexic
e (article VIII, Treaties and Convention
Il etc. DID. 6S1, 6S5; People VS.. Naglee,
I. : Call 232), which gave Mexican either
~ in the ceded territory the right of ele'
\ ton to become citizens of the Unite
We States, and made continuance iii tt
1 on Territory after year the exercise
Vi that election; and in the Alaska treat
as of 1867 (art III, Treaties and CONVEX
II ! tons, ETC.. PIP. 939, 94D, which eonferrt
., a similar right upon the inhabitants
=. ~ Alaska, excepting uncivilized nau'
- tribes.
he in,
III carried this power into effect. In Boy
ron VS.. Thayer, 143 U. s.. 1885, holding tn
NoV Congress has the power to effect &C
on on lective naturalization on the admissit
nc of a State into the Union, by reason
the necessary adoption as citizens or q
oh United States of those whom Congre
makes members of the political comm
:" nifty, the court says:
hv Congress- in the exercise of the po'
"a er to establish a uniform rule of natu
- alization, has enacted general laws u
der which individuals may be natural
or ed; but the instances of collective ma
OF uralization by treaty or by statute
Ia numerous" Cd, 1922
is And, after reviewing such instance
~ the court cites the Act of February
fo1 1887 GA Stat, $780, making by its teri
~ every Indian situated as therein refe
~ red to a citizen of the United States
ne by the annexation of Texas, und
20 a Joint resolution Of Congress of Mar
nc /. 1S45, and its admission into the Uni
he on an equal footing with the origin
-nn States, December 49, 1S45 all the cit1ze
NO of the former republic became, witho
~ any express declaration, citizens of
nc United States" Citing Stat. 19S;
ia1 Stat, Jos, and other authorities). Q43
TO S.. 1872
ne Compare also the case of Osterman
,at Baldwin, Wall, 116, which determin
that the Act of admission of Texas II
10 the Union was an act of naturaiiZati
re operating retrospectively.
ia1 And finally, the Act organizing
Dn, Territory of Oklahoma, May 2, 1880,
~, Stat. SD, by its 43d section, provid
,ds on the one hand, that member OF
81, Indian tribe in the Indian Terrific
ain might apply to the United States Coz
o. a., to become citizen of the United Stat
,nh and. on the other hand, lAiat cert
No Indian Confederation, accepting tn
on, lands in severalty, and selecting tn
"a alIotments. shall be deemed to be. a
90 are hereby declared to be, citizens of
W United States"
% With respect to the intention OF -
of ! gress in the present case, cannot c.
;ive ceive that there is any doubt Inc Il
Of guage of the Hawaiian Act (sec. ~
tifd that "all persons who are citizens OF
80