Neither age nor sex is involved in the definition of the word "citizen." It therefore includes men, women, and children,' and, for certain purposes, as we shall have occasion to observe later on, corporations organized under the laws of the several states.2 Citizenship is either(1) By birth; or (2) By naturalization. Citizens by birth are those born within the United States, or in a foreign country, if at the time of their birth their fathers were citizens.3 There are certain exceptions to this rule of natural citizenship. Children born in the United States of ambassadors and diplomatic representatives, whose residence, by a fiction of law, is regarded as a part of their own country, are not citizens.1 Indians born members of any of the Indian tribes within the United States which still hold their tribal relations are not citizens. They are not citizens, even if they have separated themselves from their tribe and reside among white citizens of a state, but have not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as citizens by the United States, or by any of the states." To become citizens, they must comply with some treaty providing for their naturalization or some statute authorizing individuals of special tribes to assume citizenship by due process of law.* The fact that the parents of a child (Chinese) born in the United States are prohibited from becoming citizens 11 Bouvier's Law Dict., verb. citizen. 2See, post, 226. 3 Rev.Stats., 1993; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356; Oldtown v. Bangor, 58 Me. 353; State v. Adams, 45 Iowa, 99. * In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905. 5 Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94. 63 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, p. 245, note 1. does not militate against the citizenship of the child. Such child is a citizen.1 Generally speaking, citizenship by birth is the rule. Ordinarily, a married woman partakes of a husband's nationality, although marriage with an alien produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife.' The law recognizes the right of expatriation; but instances of it are so rare that the subject deserves no attention here. One not a citizen may become such by complying with the provisions of the federal naturalization laws.1 Naturalization gives the alien all the rights of a naturalborn citizen. He thereby becomes capable of receiving property by descent, whereas, as an alien, he might not so receive it, and of transmitting it in the same way.5 Ordinarily, naturalization is not complete until the lapse of a probationary period after a preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen. During this period, between the taking out of "first" and "second" papers, the declarant is not considered as a citizen to the extent that he may either exercise the elective franchise or hold office. He is entitled to no privileges other than those specially vouchsafed to him by the law. In the location of mining claims he is endowed with the full rights of a citizen, to the same extent as if his naturalization were completed by taking the final oath and the issuance to him of his final papers. Therefore, for all purposes within the purview of this treatise, we shall treat an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen as if he were fully naturalized; and when we employ the word "naturalization," it is to be understood as designating the act which confers upon the alien the right to enjoy, in common with citizens, the privilege of locating and purchasing mining claims upon the public domain. 1 In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. Rep. 905. 2 Wharton on Conflict of Laws, 2 11. 3 Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Peters, 242. 4 Rev. Stats., ?? 2165-2174. Jackson, er dem. Doran v. Green, 7 Wend. 333. 2225. Minors.-Minors born in the United States are citizens, and may locate mining claims. There is no requirement in the general mining laws that the citizen shall be of any particular age. To say that minors are not qualified locators, is to say that they are not citizens. The conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that in some instances the statutes expressly require that the citizen shall be of a particular age before he may acquire certain classes of public lands. Thus, in reference to coal lands, the provision is, that every person above the age of twenty-one years who is a citizen of the United States may enter such lands. A similar provision exists as to homesteads under the federal laws. The expression of a requirement as to age in some instances, and the omission of it in others, is significant. It is quite true that minors may not transmit title during infancy with the same freedom as adults. During this minority they are incapacitated from entering into contracts, except with reference to necessaries, and, generally speaking, may act only through guardians, under the supervision of the courts. But this circumstance does not prevent them from acquiring property. As was said by the supreme court of California, "Nor is there any reason in the nature of things why a minor may not make a valid location. . . . It may be added that, so far as we know, it is the practice in many mining communities for minors to locate claims."+ The fact that this is the recognized practice in many mining communities is, perhaps, not of controlling weight; but it carries with it the suggestion that a contrary rule would disturb many titles acquired in good faith, and that such rule should not be invoked without the most substantial and cogent reasons. 2226. Domestic corporations.- By domestic corporations, we mean those created or organized under the laws of the several states of the union, using the term in contradistinction to foreign corporations, or those who owe Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528. * Id. 532. 1 Rev. Stats., ? 2347. their existence to the laws of foreign countries. The latter class will receive attention when we deal with the subject of aliens. A corporation is a citizen of the state which created it.1 A corporation created and existing under the laws of a state is to be deemed a citizen within the meaning of the statute regulating the right to acquire public mineral lands, and as such is competent to purchase and hold a mining claim." The supreme court of the United States has held that a corporation created under the laws of the states of the union, all of whose members are citizens of the United States, is competent to locate, or join in the location, of a mining claim upon the public lands of the United States in like manner as individual citizens.* 66 the be that can The italics in the above quotation are ours. Judge Knowles, speaking for the circuit court of appeals i11 ninth circuit, is of the opinion that the inference to drawn from this decision, although not so stated, is only corporations whose stockholders are citizens locate mining claims. We do not think that the supreme court intended to lay particular stress upon the word all." If it did, it went entirely beyond the exigencies of the case under consideration. There was nothing in the facts requiring such a ruling. It is probable that the expres sion was used unadvisedly, and not with the intention of establishing a fixed rule that a corporation organized under the laws of a state could not lawfully acquire or hold unpatented mining claims if one of its stockholders were an alien. In the territories, under the alien act of March 3, 1887, aliens are prohibited from acquiring real estate; 1St. Louis v. Wiggin's Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423; Chicago & N. W. R. R. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444. 2 Rev. Stats., 2319. 3 North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co. 6 Saw, 299, 316. 4 McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630; followed in Dahl v. Montana C. Co., 132 U. S. 264; Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105. 5 Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 70 Fed. 455. 624 Stats. at Large, 477. yet domestic corporations may freely acquire such lands, and aliens are permitted to own and hold twenty per cent. of the stock of such domestic corporations. Is it to be presumed that in the states wherein the laws make no discrimination between aliens and citizens, with regard to the acquisition and enjoyment of landed estates, that the government should insist that none of the stock of a domestic corporation holding or locating an unpatented mining claim shall be held by an alien, under penalty of being refused a title by patent, if sought, or of suffering escheat after patent, should the government see fit to enforce it? Judge Knowles, in the case above referred to,' gives a logical solution of the question. Where a corporation is created by the laws of a state, the legal presumption is that its members are citizens of the same state." A suit may be brought in the federal courts by or against a corporation; but in such case it is regarded as a suit brought by or against the stockholders of a corporation, and for the purposes of jurisdiction it is conclusively presumed that all the stockholders are citizens of the state which by its laws created the corporation.3 66 In the language of Judge Knowles,― Congress was familiar with this rule, and, it seems probable, intended to establish a similar rule under the "mineral land act of 1872." This view is strengthened by a consideration of the section of the Revised Statutes regulating the proof of citizenship in proceedings under the mining laws. "Proof of citizenship under this chapter may consist, "in the case of an individual, of his own affidavit thereof; "in the case of an association of persons unincorporated, "of the affidavit of their authorized agent, made on his "own knowledge or upon information and belief; and in "the case of a corporation organized under the laws of "the United States, or of any state or territory thereof, by "the filing of their charter or certificate of incorporation." 1 Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 70 Fed. 455. 2 Ohio R. R. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286. 3 Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444. 4 Rev. Stats., 2321. S |