If any alien, after having made the previous declaration, die 'before he is actually naturalized, the widow and children of such alien shall be considered as citizens of the United States; and shall be entitled to all rights and privileges as such, upon taking the oaths prescribed by law.'1

When an alien applies to be admitted as a citizen, he must make oath or affirmation before one of the courts mentioned above, that he will support the constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject.' The clerk of the court must record these proceedings.2

3

In order to the admission of the alien as a citizen, the court must be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years, at least, and if he has arrived in the United States since February, 17, 1815, five years next preceding his admission, without being at any time during the five years out of the territory of the United States; and must also be satisfied that he has resided within the state or territory where the court is held, one year at least, and 'that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; provided, that the oath of the applicant shall, in no case, be admitted to prove his residence."

In case the alien, applying to be admitted to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any order of nobility, in his native country, he must, in addition to the other requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application is made, which renunciation must be recorded by the court."

No alien who is a native citizen, denizen, or subject of any country, state, or sovereign, with whom the United States are at war, can become a citizen during the continuance of the war." Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the

1 St. 1804, c. 47, s. 2. 2 St. 1802, c. 28, s. 1.

4 St. 1802, c. 28, s. 1.

5 St. 1802, c. 28, s. 1.

3 St. 1813, c. 42, s. 12.

6 St. 1802, c. 28, s. 1.

jurisdiction of the United States, before January 29, 1795, may be admitted to become a citizen, on due proof to the court of his having resided two years within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, and one year, immediately preceding his application, in the state or territory where the court is held. The oaths to be taken and proof of his moral character, &c. during the two years, are the same as those to be taken by other aliens, and the proceedings are to be recorded in the same manner.1

This provision was no doubt adopted under an impression that persons who come into the United States while the law allowing them to be naturalized after two years residence, was in force, which law was repealed, January 29, 1795, acquired a right to be naturalized according to the provisions of the old law.

If any person applies to be naturalized without a certificate of his declaration of intention, it must be proved to the satisfaction of the court that he was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before June 18th, 1812, and has continued to reside within the same, or he shall not be admitted. And his residence within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least five years immediately preceding the time of his application, must be proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens of the United States. Such continued residence, when satisfactorily proved, and the place or places where the applicant has resided for these five years, must, together with the names of the citizens, be stated and set forth in the record of the court admitting the applicant, otherwise the same shall not entitle him to be considered a citizen of the United States.

'The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.'

93

2 St. 1816, c. 32, s. 2; St. 1828, c. 108, s. 2.

It has been decided that where a father was naturalized before the 14th of April, 1802, when the statute was passed, a child, who was a minor at the time of the naturalization, and then out of the country, but who was residing in the United States on the 14th of April, 1802, became a citizen under the foregoing provision.1

The statute of April 14, 1802, enacted that the children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens to the United States.""

But the right of citizenship does not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided in the United States.3

And no person who was proscribed by any state before April 14, 1802, or who was legally convicted of having joined the British army during the revolutionary war, can be admitted a citizen, without the consent of the state in which such person was proscribed.1

We have given the law on the subject of naturalization such as we suppose it to be now, without adverting to all the changes which have from time to time been made in it. The system established by the law of 1802 has been so much altered by successive statutes, that an entire revision of the subject is very much needed, even if the present system is retained.

It seems to us, however, that the principle of our naturalization laws, is in some degree questionable. We are far from wishing to refuse an asylum in this country to any unfortunate persons who may have been compelled to seek refuge among us by poverty, or political or religious persecution. Let our country always continue to afford them protection and shelter. Still less should we wish to discourage men of wealth, learning, or skill in the arts, from resorting to our shores. We should rather aim to introduce among us the arts and industry of foreign nations. But admitting all this, it by no means follows that it is advisable to admit to the privileges of citizenship indiscriminately every foreigner that may come into the country. It is unfortunately a fact that a very large part of the emigrants from Europe is composed of the most vicious and degraded part of its population.

1 Campbell v. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176. 2 St. 1802, c. 28, s. 4.

3 St. 1802, c. 28, s. 4.

4 St. 1802, c. 28, s. 4.

Under these circumstances we cannot refrain from the inquiry, why every ignorant and vicious being that comes here across the Atlantic, should have the same political rights as our native citizens who have been educated and brought up with some knowledge of our institutions? Are such rights likely to be beneficial to these wretched emigrants? Have they the information and intelligence which are desirable in all who vote in popular elections?

Without wishing to deprive any foreigner, who is deserving of it, of political privileges, what objection could there be to allow such persons only to be naturalized, as could read and write the English language? To exclude all others, would be only to exclude those to whom it is certain political privileges could never be important, and who would be likely to abuse them. It is true that skill in reading and writing does not afford a perfect test of qualification for citizenship. It is true that many persons are able to read and write, who are not very desirable citizens. But we doubt whether any other general rule can be devised, which will exclude so large a part of the most worthless description of foreigners, and, at the same time, be sufficiently liberal to suit the general character of our institutions. As the great mass of native citizens can read and write, it is not unreasonable to require the same qualification of foreigners before admitting them to equal privileges.

The only objection to the provision proposed is, that aliens in many of the states are not permitted to hold real estate. But it seems to us that this argument cannot fairly be brought forward in Congress. It is not any law of the United States which prevents aliens from holding land, but the laws of the individual states. The right of holding land is but an indirect consequence of naturalization. The state legislatures have the power of allowing aliens not naturalized to hold land, and Congress may very safely trust these bodies to do what may seem to them expedient on the subject. Several of the most important states already allow aliens to hold lands. Others will probably soon follow their example. Most, if not all the state legislation, in regard to the disabilities of resident aliens, has been liberal, with the obvious object of encouraging settlers. And we should not be surprised if in a few years, all the states should permit resident foreigners, whether naturalized or not, to hold real estate without any restriction.

If the laws of the United States are exceptionable in allowing free white aliens of every description to become citizens, they perhaps err in the other extreme in denying that privilege to all aliens who are not white. Corrupt and ignorant foreigners of any color are not desirable citizens. But we are unable to perceive why a Chinese, an African, a Malay, or an American Indian, if he has the intellectual and moral qualities which are requisite in a citizen, ought not to be entitled to the same privileges as an Englishman, an Irishman, a German, or a Spaniard? That the principle of this exclusion of the colored races of men, is not considered fundamental, though it has been sedulously adhered to in the naturalization laws, is evident from the circumstance that the Senate, at the very last session of Congress, approved of a treaty with the Choctaws, by which any of that tribe are allowed to become citizens of the United States.

Making the alien's five years continued residence in the United States, without even once going out of the country, a necessary prerequisite to naturalization, seems to us needlessly severe. The object of the provision undoubtedly was to prevent the naturalization of seamen. If rigidly adhered to, it would, of course, have this effect most thoroughly, for no person who had ever made a voyage which carried him out of the territories of the United States, (which is the case in many mere coasting voyages,) during five years preceding his application, could be admitted. But the provision operates only on seamen, but if carried into effect, it would exclude from citizenship any person who had gone by water from New York to Charleston, or New Orleans, or from Boston to Portland; or who had passed a day in Quebec, Montreal, or Halifax. No doubt continual residence in the country ought to be required to entitle an alien to naturalization, but it ought to be a continued residence according to the common use of the words, which is not inconsistent with occasional absences.

We see no very strong reasons why persons who arrived in the country previously to June 18, 1812, should be allowed to be naturalized without any previous declaration. Persons who care so little about citizenship as to neglect taking this preliminary step for a long course of years, scarcely merit a special exemption of this kind.

6

The provision made by the act of 1802, that the children of