Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-02-02

married in alien husband3s Acts March
?, 1907, c. 1884, section 3, "a Stat. 1928
GU. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911. p. 400,
covers this point. providing: That
any American woman who marries
foreigner shall take the nationality or
her husband" The supreme court OF
California in Mackenzie VS.. Hare ct al.
board Of election commissioners. l54
Pacific Reporter 713. was called on 10
apply that provision to similar state
OF facts and to defend the constitution
ality of the statute. Ethel Z. Mackeh-
zie was before her marriage citizen
Of the United States. having been born
in California and lived as a subject OF
this country. She married Gordon
Mackenzie q British subject. In Jan
uary, 1913, she applied to the defend-
ants to be registered as a. voter. She
was refused on the ground that she
had surrendered her citizenship upon
her marriage. On her application to
the court for a writ commanding de-
PENDANTS to permit registration. the
question was duly presented to the
court. The court held the statute con-
elusive, and says: Just as an amen
woman who marries a citizen becomes
q citizen herself, whether she wishes
II or NOT. ~ 80 a female citizen VINO
marries an alien becomes herself an
alien. whether she intends that result
or not. She must bow to the
will of the nation, as expressed py 'iie
act of congress" However. the open
ing sentence of the 14th amendment 10
the constitution Of the United states
declares that: "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States. ana
subject to the Jurisdiction thereon. are
citizens of the United States. and state
in which they reside" Does the stature
rob her of this guaranteed citizenship
The court, in holding that 1t does not
saws that it has never been denied tnat
citizenship can be renounced, or tnat
this amendment does not forbid ex-
narration, BY the provision OF TINS
statute. It becomes possible that ex-
narration occurs by such marriage
and II also necessarily follows. her
RIGHT To vote was consequently de-
oIorad IN have been rightfully with
held.
MOVING PICTURE SHOWS.
Recently the city of Toledo, o.. en-
acted an ordinance setting as'ue
SIM Of money to be expended in the
show for the benefit OF its inhabitants.
The city auditor refused to eNpeno tne
money so appropriated, and mandamus
was then Instituted. The supreme
court of Ohio held that all the opera
lions of the city must come within such
powers of government as. In view OF
their nature and field Of operation, are
local and municipal in character, ana
that regardless Of whether moving pic
ture exhibitions may be educational to
q certain extent, they can not be
classed as public enterprise. State ex
rel. City Of Toledo VS.. Lynch, luz
Northwestern Reporter, CO.
A LEGAL MASQUERADE.
This is an action for personal injur-
les committed by defendant. an inter-
urban railway company. 1t seems that
PLAINTIFF was wholly unaware OF
change that had taken place in the
ownership Of defendant company,
caused by it's consolidation with an
other, and so by mistake Instituted the
action against it in the name 1t had
before the consolidation. Nevertheless
the attorneys In the employ of the COM
pany as consolidated answered the
complaint, but did so in the name OF
the company as sued. Thereafter,
when it became apparent that the con-
solidated company was the real party
in interest, the court allowed 1t to be
substituted as defendant. The question
arose in the discussion as to the run
ming OF the statute of limitations; de-
PENDANT claiming that the proceedings
as Instituted agains the wrong party
did not affect the running of the statute
Of limitations in favor Of he conscA-
dated company. The supreme court OF
Ohio, in disposing of the question, held
that as defendants attorney in reality
represented the company. as CONSOLE
dated, they being employed by it to
represent it's interests, that they as
scented to plaintiffs mistake by an
swering to his complaint; that any ir-
regularity in bringing the suit against
the improper party was cured by their
voluntary acceptance of the response
bi1ity OF the suit; and that such subtle
masquerade could be of no avail to al