/  6
 
I32
THE
most important change in the newtariff is that relatlng
to
wool and
wool.
len goods, by whlch the raw materialmade free and the dutiesn the manufac.tnred articles are reduced to
0
per cent.on yarns,
40
per cent. on cloths, and 5pe1centondress goods The eduction ontheseartlcles1schiefly
In
the speclficrates, or pound dutles
so
called, whlchwere imposed to offset thedutles onwool. These pound duties were in somecasesveryonerous, anglng rom
163
cents on blankets o
60
cents
on
drewtrlmmlngs and on the higher grades
of
carpetsTheheoly ponwhichhe pound dutws
u
lald was that
It
takes,
io1
csanll)le,
€0111
pounds
01
raw
wool
tomake
one
pound
of
cloth, hat s, hedutleswere ompensatoly. When theWllson bill came the manufacturerswhohad henlalrmg of the McKinleybill, confessed, or rather nsist,ed, hatthey had stretched he ruth” whenthey sald that the pound dutleswere nomore hanacompensation
for
the du-ties
on
raw wool They
now
claimedthat hepounddutiesaswellas he ad-valorem duties were protective (andnecessary
01
course), nd heymadetheir own former ntluthshe asis
of
ademand hat he woollen dutlesshould be Increased over and above thecompensatory llne
of
the IilcKlnley blll,and hey actually prevalled
on
the Se-nate to raise them
6
per cent above the
Wilson
bill asa eward thelrpre-viouslshonestehavior hls,ow- ever, can be ovrrlooked now, or relegat-ed to the tomb which contains
so
manyother tariff leceptlons and obberlesThe relief toheublicromhe abolitlon
of
these ound utleswlllbe very +eatThe new schedule ofwoollen manufactures does not
go
intoeifect tlll the first of January,
1895,
butthe wool schedule takes effect immedl-ately.Next
In
importance to wool and
aool-
lens rehecheduled of china ndglassware,whlchare reducecl from
55
and
60
per cent o
30
and
35
per cent
Of
course thele 1s a great outcry
on
thissubject from the protected Interests, andthey all alk of going out of business,Just s hequinine-makersdidwhen Congress put hatarticle
on
the reellst.
It
js
a
sufficient nswerohemakers of china and glassware that anytrade whlch cannotbe carrled
on
in thiscountry wlth a tax f
30
per cent. leviedon the consumer for its benefit ought tobe abolished. There
is
no
danger, hom-ever of their going out
of
business per-manently.The next
most
important thing in thellst
1s
tin plates The increase
of
tax onthis rticle
was
perhaps hegreatestoutraze ln the McKinley bill. The dutyon
tnl
plates In the tarlff of
1883
was onecenG
;L
pound,being qual o
35
percent valorem.McKinleyaised
It
c-
0
1
-0..
-I.
The
Nation.
ad valorem.
It
now reduced one cenlper pound,
z
e
,
t
18
put
at
1
1-5
centswhlch equal o
42
percentadva lorern. Here we may repeat that an in.dustry which cannot be carrled on
laxing
allheonsumers of cannedgoods ancl all hebuyels
of
tin pans,pails, and
dippers
42
cents on each
dol-
lar’s worth,
is a
detrlnxent to the coun-try and ought to be abollshed
A
morebrazenalthough less irnpor-tant Item in the IiIL[cRlnley bill than
the
tln-plate tax was the duty on pearl but-tons, which raised from
25
per centto
243
per cent. average
As
to
sonle va-lletiesand sizes
It
was muchhlgher,being about
i
,000
per cent Thls swindlewas accomplished by cunning phraseolo-gy that c’olnmon people couldnotun-derstandTheMcKinleyduty
was
“
24
centsper ineand
25
percent
”
to be regretted hat he duty notput back to the
old
rate of
25
per cent.
It
stands n he new bill
at
1
cent perline and
15
per cent
,
which is equal to
84+
per cent ad valorem.Llnseed
oil
mas monopolized byTrust as soon as the McKlnley bill waspassed, hedutybeing ncreasedfrom
26
cents to
39
cents per gallon It
1s
nomreduced o
20
centspergallon.Castor oil was
also
put into a Trust, the dutybeing
80
cents per gallon. It is
now
re-duced to
35
centsFlax. hemp, grain bags, cotton baggingand burlaps are
on
the free llst This
is
a
very Important change.Solphulic cid, hemost mportantchernlcalagentemployed nmanufac- turing Industry, is restoled to the freelist, McKinley having taxed Itcent perpound Bichromate
of
potash, notherindlspensable gent
oQ
manufacturlngIndustry, which has always een a closemonopoly in hiscountry, leduceclfrom
3
centspelpound about
33
percent
)
to
25
per cent This artlcle ought
to
have been put on the free llstLumber is at last put on the free ltstTheduties on white ead,pigcutlery, gloves, and nearly all he
m1s-
cellaneous artlcles have been materiallyreduced. heeductlon
on
Ironndsteel, although seeming
io
be conslder-able, s eally
no
reductionexcept oncertainpeclalties, eing rohlbitoryeven at he ower ratem nowadopted.This is the case with plg-iron and steelrallsThe reclproclty clause of the McKin-ley act is repealed. but the reclprocal
commercial
arrangementseretoforemade
”
are kept force,
“
except wheresuch arrangements arelnconsistent withtheprovisions
of
this act.” Therefore,upon the signlng
of
the blll by the Pre-sident,heetaliatory utles gainstVenezuela, Hayti, and Colombia whichwere established by Presldent Harrison’sproclamation,rebrogated.
This
is
Important as regards the
“
mild coffee
”
produced by
those
whlchisdntiabh
cents
per
59,
No.
1521all hrough, and with
“
ifsbuts
”
about It, is the clause placingworks of art on the free llst. The spec-tacle presented to other civilized natlonsby heUnitedStates llnglng o tsbarbarons
on
educatlonaland e-fining nfluences In the hape of pic-turesandstatnaly.hasbeen aboutasanomalous afi that
of
a
Inm with a war-clubatagardenparty One Congress afteranotherhasmetandadJourned without getting rid
of
this
thoughfree-art clauses havebeen introduced inseveral
of
the tariffbllls Indifferenceon the part of the genersl body of legis-latorshas been more
oi
afactor,per-haps, thau active olqjoslt1on. in the de-fe:,t
of
repeal,but hls lrne homea-sure seenls
to
have found fllends
in
thccommittees
of
both houses and
In
thedebates on the floor
as
well
The
Arne-
rlcan artlsts who
deslred
to
be exemptfrom this offensire sort)
of“
protection”and have kept
up
nctlve war ontax, are to be congratulated on the suc-cessful outcome
of
thelr labors, and thegeneral public
on
step Increasing theirrespect fol alt
and
thelr reputahon forIntelligence
at
the sanw time
___-~___
”
-~
G‘01:
CSSET’I,
os
.YT.4l’E
EX-GO~E~XOR
of
Xassacllusetts,in his address before the gradnatlng class
of
the Yale Law School,
has
set forthhis own
views
as to
what
a constitutionshould be and as to what constitutionshould not
be.
The Constitutlon theUnited States,
it
18
almostneedless osay.
18
constltutionas
It
should be.
“
In less than thirty wolds,” says Gov-ernorRussell,
“
It
createdourwholenationalJudlcialsystem
”
By
‘‘
eightwords
”
It stablibhedour dmlraltyancl maritime
Jurisdiction,
whlch, bymagnificent ~udlcial evolution,”asbroadenedhe rigmalEngllshdea, untll urlsdlctlonextends
“
rom heebbnd flow
of
the de so asocoverevery eague of navigablewaterwithlnour ontinentaldomain.”system
of
conlprehensive general prin-ciples and broad powers, sufficientlylas-tic to allow of expansion by proper con-structlon, yet sufficiently dlstinct to beeffectlve and protectire, has stood hetest
of
more than a hundred years, hascarried
us
through orelgnwars ndclvll conflict, has adequately met a )he-nomenal increase of
population,
wealth,aud area wlth
its
new and momentousquestlons, askilfullp djustedhedellcate rdatlons between State and na-tion, and governed as efficlently
$0,000,-
000
of people scattered hlough orty-four tatcs,eachmg from oceanocean,as hesmallpopulation of the narrowcoast lnewhlchembraced ts thirteen rlglnal onstltuents
”
Gov-elnor
Ruzsell
also triumphantly quotesMr. Dicey,
when
speaking
of
thereign power established
by
Coneti-
 
Aug.
23,
18941
~____
tution.
“
It
needed the thunder
of
civilwar to break his repose, and it may bedoubtedwhethernythinghort
of
Impending evolutionwill ver gainarouse him to actlrity
”
Substantially very ecent onstitu-tionframed n
a
Southern Westernstate
is
manifestly, n Gov. Russell’sopinion, what
a
constitutlon should notbe. Themasterfulpower of enunciat-Inggreatprinciples n ewwordscer- tainly eems ohavepassed way
as
completely s If
500
yearshad nter-vened-as the ecent onstitut~onswerewrittenn
a
newanguage---as
If
the framers of
1787
were old Romans
and
the framers of to-day modern Ztal-1ans
As
far back
as
1845,
the Constltn-tlon of Illiuols increased in volume Inthe ratlo of eight to eighteen.” in
18i5,
theConstitutlon of Mlssouri
“in
theratio
of
eleven to thirty-one In 1891,the Constltution
of
Mississippibecame“almost
a
code of laws,” containing
885
sections nd overing
47
pagesThereno admlnistrative detail too pettyconstltutlonaldelegate
to
tryhishand at; and the controlling idea flittle constltutlon-makers man~febtly
IS
that
when they get a chance to managematters.heymust
fix
tllenl to snitthemselresand rustnobody-not heLeglslature, not the ~udic~ary, not eventhe people whom they extol the foun-tain of politlcalwlsdomInone of the new States there are prohibltlons“uponheLegislature In theingle matter special eglslatlon”
;
an-
other, the Constitution
“
even fixes thotimewithin
whicha
judgemust en-der is ecision”; In NorthDakota,it equires heSupremeCourt of theState odo
the
work of the eporter,
“
o prepare syllabus of the polnts
ad-
Judicated
in
each case
”
That
1s
to
say, the small nllnds which
get
control of
a
convention seize hemopportunity o
“
run
a
State,’‘aspoll-ticlanswouldermt,orhe ext twenty thirtyyears,andby so do-
mg
undermlne hehealthyAmericanprmclple of self-governmentandcivicresponsibllity. Gov. Russell’s phllosophi-
ral
comment
1.3.
“
Hy thecreation oflnlportant adm~nlstrative boards and bythe many restrictions
on
the leg~sla,tlve,executive, and Judicial departnlents,thetendency of these constitutions
is
to
es-tablish
a
sort of automatlc permanentadmlnmtratlon
as a
substltute orusual of government
”
as
Chief-Justice Cooley has sald to some f theseconstitution-makers.
In
your constitu-tlon you are tying the hands
of
the peo-Storyadmonished
us
more han
a
century ago.
‘‘
The rage of theo-rists to make constitutlons veh~cle forthe conveyance of the~r wn and1-isionary apho~~s~~~s
i
gc~ve~nment re-quire4 o be guartled
against
nnth henioet ntceasing
”
Thestitutluns which havefollovscJforesiah?;.
The
Nation.
In addltion
to
the egotists who thinkthat heycan eglslate or he uturewith greater wisdom han any eglsla-tors whom the people may hereafter
se-
lect, hereare hedemagogues
of
theday, always afraid of the unpopular, andready to advocate any favorite n~easure
of
thehourHotels, heatres. xpresscompanies,heelephone,heleep- ing.car,heelegraph,heailroad, become suddenly sub~ects
of
constltu-tionalawhemendment
at
Al-bany, repaled yhe unlons,which
1s
Intended oprevent heem-ployment of convlctsat
remunerative
work in the State pr~sons,
s
speclmen
of
thls Pr~sons
prison
reform
1
ttllfurnish one of the unsettled problenls ofpresentivll~zation
Social
science
is
still
wrestlingwith he ub-Jecturnanilyemandshathe convicthalleiven
n
reasonablechance to amend h~slfe and become
a,
useful nd elf-supportingmember
oi
society.conomicsequirehathe cost of reforn~ationbhall not beoogreat, hat he expense6 of theprisonsystem be kept w~th~neasonable Ilm~ts,and hat heconvict hallbe,
If
pos-
s~ble.elf-supportingow towhatextent hiscanbe bebt
accom-
phshed
1s
still questlon-aquestionwhichsece~vlnghearefulon- sideratlon of some of the estndmost phllanthroplc n~nds
11
the worldYet
at
thls pomt there comes
a
band,
or
manybands, of monopolistshavinga corner, trying ohaveacorner,
In
thekilled-labormarketWhathey want
1s
the
exclusion
of everybodywhoseaborwill ompete lhelrown,
i.
e,
wlth heirkind
o€
laborTheyntroduceheegislatlveobby into
a
body
of
menwhoave norlghtoegislate pon nyubject, and hey do his o procure
legislation
for hemselves-legislationwhlchwillhelp helr monopoly many years
to
comeA provision o prescribe and restrlctthe uturemanagement of aprlson sn~an~festlyanattemptlocontrol hefuture-an attempt
to
dlctate
a
poilcy,and tell succeeding leglslatols and perhapsgenerationswhat heymustand whatheymust ot
do
Uonceinlngthis element of control, Governor
Rus-
sell most aptly saysnot
a
kmg;
but
the
vltal
question
IS
not
“True,
may
a
malorlty,
smrce,
It
thetheir
will,
It
acco~d lth the prlnclples lnbtltutlons
OC
of
It
16
not Inhtlerty-loving,The primary purpose of
H,
const~tut~o~l
1s
to create and define
a
government,
its
next
is
to secure personal and politicalrights and estabhsh
few
of tho greatfnndanlentnlprinciples
of
goverll-nlent, snch
“No
title
of
nobihty mhallshallmake
no
Law rebpectlng
an
establlBhrnent
of
All
the an^
ZR
133
areestrictions ponegislationuponhe peopleholecthe leglslatorsBut heyaremore han e- str~ctlons. they are fundamental assur-ances ant1 guarantees of great and 1m-portantlghtsTheight
of
trial yJury
is
a
ilght
affecting
the individual,the prohlbltlon as to titles of nobility isanassurancetoallmen hatallmen
~n
hls country shall be polltically equal;the estr~ctlonconcerning
an
estab-lishn~ent
f
leliglon” assures the nunori-ty
of
rel~g~ouspersons that they shall notbe folcetl by he 1,laJorlty suppoit
a
state hurchSuch estrlctlons oothe chalacter
of
government, and notto ts pohcy. Thvy are organic and areIntended o be Inlmutable, much
so
as that
“
he Unlted States shall gua-rantee to every State
In
this Union
a
re-publican of government
”
Theirahldlngpurpose s oguard hemmo- rlty and the
individual,
ancl to asoure to
all
men constitutlonal rights and hber-ties whlch
a
transltory majority cannotinvade.To these may be added celtam restric-tions upon adnuntstratlve forces oPgovernment-the legislative, the execu-tive, the Judicial But such restric-tlons must extend further than theseadminlstratlveagencies, hat theymustnot hnd the
principal,
thebodypoliticThe onvention, or hebettersecurlty
of
the people,
may
tell futureLegislatures how they must work,but notwhat heymust
It
within heproper of aconstltutlon opre-
scribe
that the enactment f a law shallbe only by yeas and nays, which shallentered on he ournal, for his se-curesohe ody olltic roper d-mmistrativectlonwhere
a
statutewould not bind the law-mak~ng power,andegulatesegislationyome- thing better than legislatlve rules. Butit
1s
not within he proper scope of
a
constitution to presc~lbe that the peasand nays be aken
wca
rocc,
andnot by an lectr~c nstrumentwhichwould enable each member to print hisown name ancl vote on the
roll,
and
all
the members
of a
house to vote simulta-neously. A constitution
may
requirrlthree everaleadings
of a
blll, andthatheseeadmgsen cllffer- entdays,and hat he itle
ofa
pri-vate blll correctly set forth its object,It may go further and follow the Eng-llsh parllanlentary practlce of requmng
D
preamble which shall fully declare thenature and extent of the clalm. and theintended
scope
and purpose of the btll,
may
provld’c that nconstruingeuchstatutes hepreambleshall imit the effect
of
the enacting clauses, for allsuch restrlctlons are In furtherance ofhonest Irg~siatlon, neither
“
~ehehands of tbc people nor
‘‘
continue theleign
ol
a
dcprted
n~n~orll\-
In onlyone Instance. he election
of
the Pres].dent, dld the Constitution
f
United
 
134
and within
a
score
of
years that provi-sion had to be amended.Distrust s he enemy of republican-ism. mencannot rusteachother, and
if
society cannot trust itself, therecannot ong be a republlc.
In
1787 thepublicdlstrustwassectlonaland mo- narchical one State could not trust theother States, and the distrustful part ofsocietycouldnot rustanythlng hat even looked likehe abped mo-narchy.The ramers of theConstitu-tionreated he aseheroically, ndin ime conlpelled the people of theUnIted States,
no
matter how far apartthey mlght chance to he, o trust eachother.heseouthernndWestern constitutlonswhich Gov. Russelldemnsareoverwhelmingevidences of dlstrust, and of
a
distrust which s ofthemost angerous mdThey howthat oclety In thoseStates does nottrust Itself theelectlon of itsowneglslatlveepresentatives,hat society, hough t does not
say
to
king,
‘‘
Come and rule over
s,”
does say
to
a convention,
“
Come and take careof
us;
we have weakened, we have
not
the power of self-government whichfathershad; we belong to he servileraces,ndrencapable of taking care of ourselves.”
It
is notunlikelythat some futurelstorlan,fter
a
carefulstudy of AmerlcanStates andStatecommunltlesandStateconstitu tions, w11l ph~losoph~cally formulate t
a
law of pohtlcal sclence, “The longel
a
constltutlon, heweaker he peopleand the more corrupt the community
”
THE anguage of the irstsentence
0:
the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitutlon
indicates
that a persor
born
In this country
of
Iorelgn parent!
is
a
cltlzenhe
Staats-Zeitung
ha)lately called attentlon o he construction mcldentally placed
upon
this par!of the anlendment the United StateaSupremeCourt In thedecislon n
the
New Orleans slaughter-house cases, andto
a
declslon of Judge Llpplncott, delivered
In
a ase eforeheHudsorCounty Clrcult Court in New JerseyThe United States Supreme Court irits opmlon in the slaughter-house casesdelivered In December,
1872,says:
“Thcfirst ection
of
the ourteenth rticllopenswlth adefinltlonotcitlzenship-noonly cltizenshlp
of
the United States,
u
citlz-nshlp of the States No such de6nltlon was previously found In the Constitutlon, or ad ny ttempt bee]made to define it by act of CongressThe opinion then quotes the first clausof the first
sectlon
of the fourteenth aiticle, as follows. “All persons born
o
naturallzedin theUnlted States. andsukject to the Jurlsdlction thereof, are cit’zens of theunlted States, andof the Statwherein they reside,” and goes on to saj
‘/
The firat
observation
we
have tp
TheNation.
[Vol.
59,
No.
1521
JeRtions which
we
stated
to
have been thelbject
of
dlfferences
of
ownlon.
It
declareslat personsmaybe cltlzens
of
theUnltedtates
w~thout
egard to them cltlzen6hlp
of
partlcular State, and
It
overturns the
orn
wlthln
the
Unlted States
and
subJectred Scott
decision
by makingall
)
~ts
urlsdlctlon cltlzens of
the
Unltedtates. That Its mampurpose
was to
eqtab-
the
cltlzenshlp
of
the negro can admit
D
donp
The
‘sub~ect
o
ItsIctlonwasntended
to
exclude Its
r
eration children
of
mmlsters, consuls,
or
of
In
the case decided
by
Judge Llppin-ott
It
washeld that manborn nlrooklyn, but whose father was anaturallzed Englishman, was not a clti-en
of
this country, and could
not
holdhe office of councilman Knowing thathe case would be appealed to
a
higherourt,as thasbeen, he udgedis- qissed this point as follows (we quote
rorn
a manuscript copy of the unpub-ished declsion)
:
I
adopt
tho
v1ew6
stated
~n
the“Enon this subject, wlthout further
884.
volume
18,
page
831,
t~pon
hls subject,
Law
for September-October,also those
of
Just,lce
eray dellverlng
he
opinion
of
theSupreme
Court of
the
Jmted States
in
the
case
of
1’s.
Wllklns,
12
U.
6,
ageThe article in the
Law
Gew
wa9 writtenby George D Collins
)f
California,ndsnrgument ~gainet the citizenship of the
son
OF
a
3hinaman ornnhis ountry.lenies without discussion the authority
)f
the common-law rule
1n
such casestnd up his opinion as follows:xtizenship, and It
1s
essentla’.
n
order
thattherefore not
zpso
confer
lerson he
a
natlve
natural-bnm
cltlzen
01
;he United fitetes. that
hls
father
be
at
thc
xme
of
the bn th
of
such
a
person a cltlzerhereof.”
In
the case of Elk
VE
Wilkins the opinion of the United States Clrcuit Courwas delivered n 1884 by Justice Grayaction being one brought
by
an In&an against
a
reglstrar n Omaha forefusing
to
register him as a voter, anc
-s
devoted almost entirely o
a
dlscus-;ion of the polltlcal status of Indians
IF
the words “sub~ect to the jurlsdic.;ion thereof
”
the court says.evldent meaning
of
these last
s,
not,
mere’y subjwt
In
some
respect
or
de.
Cree
to
the jurlsd1ctIon
of
the Unlted States
3ut
completely subject
to
thew
political
jurls
ilctlon, and owlng them dlrect
and
ln~med~
xte
alleglance. And
relate
to thchme
of
blrth in
the
one
case.
as
they tcthe
tlme
of
naturabzatton
inIhe
other.
$om
not
thus
subprt
to
the junsdlctlon
n
the United States
at
the
time
of
blrth cannqbecome
so
afterwards except
by
naturallzed. elther indlvldually. as
by
proceedlugunder
the
natural~zatlon cts,
OT
collective
y
as
by
the force
nf
a
treaty by
whlch
forelglterritory
IS
acqulred.”The opinions above cited present whahas been said judicially agalnst the righof the
Eon
of a foreigner born n hicountry to be considered a citizen hereIt
is
a
complete reversal of the opinio:
on
thiB question which was held by
ou
highest authorities before he ratificstion of the fourteenth amendment, anthe bearing f the amendment, as
o
COT
J1
ah
1f
X
ds
S
tl
e.
h
a
51
W
c1
I1
il
i
E
f’
d
r
1
C
e
7
C
‘E
i
7
E
E1
31
l1
.I
1
1
E
t
’i
;<
E
-1
31
ic
t1
-1
I
n
,
tt
E
r
a
18
secretaries of state at Washington.ho were in office after its ratlflcation.ustlce Swayne (who, by the way, wrotedissentingopinlon n heslaughter-
ouse
cases), In wrlting an opmlon ~n
366,
United States vs. Rhodes (Clr-
uit
Court,
in
Kentucky), quoted from
Lent’s
‘Commentaries,’ ‘Citlzens,’er
our
constltutlonal laws, means freelhabitants born withinheUnitedtates or naturalized under the laws
of
!ongress,” and said:
find
no warrant Io1
theopmlon
that
31s
great Imnclple
of
the common
law
ver
been
changed in the
Unlted
Slates. It
as
always obtalned
here
wlth
the
same
nd
sublect
only
to
the same exceptions,nce as before
the
Revolutlon.”Secretary &farcy, writmg instructlons
n
1854,
said.
(‘
have to observe that
t
3
presumed that, accordmg to the com-
IOU
law, any person born in the UnitedItates, unless he be
born
in one
of
theoreign legations thereln, may be cons1-!ered
a
citlzen thereof untll he formallyenounces his citlzenshlp.”Secretary F1s11,ln instructlons written1873, said
“
So
farasconcernsour bwn local law,
a
child born
In
the Unit-d States to
a
British subject 1s a clti-;en of the United States
”
In
a etter
)f
lnstructlone to Gushing, In
1677,
lecretary Flsh said.
“
The mmor chlld
)f
apanlardorn theUnited 3tates, and while in
the
United States.a itizen of theUnitedStates
”
3ecretaryBlaine ecogn~zed he amenew in
a
letter 1881, inwhichhe
laid.
“
The chlld born to an ahen in theJnitedStates
loses
oneaving the Unlted States and returning
;o
hisparents’alleglance
”
The amedea
1s
presented in a letter by SecretaryFrelinghuysen, dated 1883, in whlch herays-
“
A chlld born thls country to
I
foreign ather,when aken by hisFather abroad,cquiresheather’s domicile and nationahty
”
Two years later Secretary Frellnghuy-;en had revised hls oplnion on thls ques-
,Ion,
and in a letter to Ifmister Kassonn he ase of LudwigHausdlnghe
lays
“Notbeingnaturahzed by force
)f
the statute, Hausdlng could only as-;ert cltlzenshlp on the ground of birth.n theUnitedStates,but hls lam Kould,
If
presented,beuntenable, or
oy
section
1922,
R
S
,
It
is made a con-htion of citlzenshlpbybirth that theperson benot ubject oany ore~gnpower.” Theectlon of the tatutesquoted dlffers from the provlsion
of
thefourteenth amendment only phrase-
ology
In
1885
SecretaryBzyarde-cided that’the son of a German subject,born n Ohlo, was not a citizen underthe statute or the Constitution, because“he was on his bmth ‘subject to a for-eignpower,’ nd not ubJect o hejurisdlction
of
the United States
”
the Unlted States Supreme Courtitself oes not ccepthe expressionused inhe laughter-house ases s
nn
thla
In
he case of bfinor

Nation Article Bayard

Download this Document for FreePrint
This is a private document.

Info and Rating

kices

Share & Embed

More from this user

Add a Comment

Characters: ...

openid_1JPBIc7Vleft a comment

The section of interest starts on page 3.
09 / 10 / 2009
Reply