and the requirement of a previous declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce former allegiance, shall not apply to persons who have resided in said islands at least five years prior to the taking effect of this act; but all other provisions of the laws of the United States relating to naturalization shall, so far as applicable, apply to persons in said islands. Act of April 30, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 161,

chap. 339, § 100).

21. Jurisdiction of courts.-The declaration of intention must be made before a court having jurisdiction under the statute. The language of the statute is, "before a circuit or district court of the United States, or a district or supreme court of the territories, or a court of record of any of the states having commonlaw jurisdiction and a seal and clerk."

The act of February 1, 1876 (19 Stat. at L. 2, chap. 5, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1331), provides that the declaration may be made before the clerk of any of the courts above named.

It has been held in Michigan and Wisconsin state courts that it is sufficient if the declaration is made before the clerk out of his office, and becomes a part of his records when filed. State ex rel. Hopkins v. Olin, 23 Wis. 309; Andres v. Arnold, 77 Mich. 85, 6 L. R. A. 238, 43 N. W. 857. But in the case of Re Langtry, 31 Fed. 879, where the clerk of the United States circuit court had taken the necessary records and seal of the court to the private residence of Mrs. Langtry and received her declaration of intention there, the court (Mr. Justice Field) held that the declaration must be made either in the clerk's office or in open court. The court said that persons seeking the great privilege of American citizenship ought to consider it of sufficient value to attend where the records of the court are held in proper legal custody. The justice called attention to the fact that in some states a man is allowed to vote as soon as he makes his declaration of intention

to become a citizen, and said that, if a clerk of the court, or his deputy, could go around the country taking declarations of intention and administering oaths, dangerous consequences might follow. He said that Congress, in authorizing the declaration to be made before the clerk, could not have contemplated the granting of authority to clerks to remove records from the proper place of their custody for the accommodation of parties. See also St. Scola's Case, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 344.

State courts, in admitting aliens, act as United States courts. Re Christern, 11 Jones & S. 523.

City, police, and county courts in various states, when courts of record and having a clerk, have been held entitled to take this declaration. United States v. Power, 14 Blatchf. 223, Fed. Cas. No. 16,080; Gladhill, Petitioner, 8 Met. 168; Ex parte Gregg, 2 Curt. 98, Fed. Cas. No. 3,380; State v. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245, 9 Am. Rep. 196; Re Conner, 39 Cal. 98, 2 Am. Rep. 427; Levy's Case, 14 Ops. Atty. Gen. 509; State ex rel. Fossler v. Webster, 7 Neb. 469; Morgan v. Dudley, 18 B. Mon. 693, 68 Am. Dec. 735; People v. McGowan, 77 Ill. 644, 20 Am. Rep. 254.

A court with no clerk or recording officer other than the judge of the court has been held to have no jurisdiction of applications for naturalization, or to receive declarations of intention. Mills v. McCabe, 44 Ill. 194; Slate ex rel. Fossler v. Webster, 7 Neb. 469; Re Dean, 83 Me. 493, 13 L. R. A. 229, 22 Atl. 385.

The police court of the District of Columbia has no power to naturalize foreigners. Rev. Stat. § 2173 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1334).

It is not necessary that the court have all the common-law jurisdiction that pertains to all classes of action, but merely that it exercise its powers according to the course of the com

mon law. Re Dean, 83 Me. 493, 13 L. R. A. 229, 22 Atl. 385; Re Conner, 39 Cal. 98, 2 Am. Rep. 427; People v. McGowan, 77 Ill. 644, 20 Am. Rep. 254; United States v. Lehman, 39 Fed. 49.

The state legislature may prescribe and limit the times when and during which applications for naturalization may be heard in the state courts. State ex rel. Rushworth v. Inferior Court of Common Pleas Judges (N. J. L.) 30 L. R. A. 761. To this report of the case is appended an elaborate note relating to the powers of state legislatures and courts in respect to naturalization, which contains an exhaustive citation of authorities.

22.Army, Navy, and Marine Corps service. Aliens who have enlisted and who have been honorably discharged from the United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps, may be admitted to citizenship without any previous declaration of intention. Rev. Stat. § 2166 (28 Stat. at L. 124, chap. 165, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1332).

23. Minor residents.- By Rev. Stat. § 2167 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1332), aliens who have come to the United States at the age of eighteen years or under may, after reaching full age, and after the requisite residence here, be admitted without having made the declaration of intention required by § 2165 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1332).

Rev. Stat. § 2167 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1332), which allows aliens coming to this country at the age of eighteen or under to be admitted to naturalization after reaching majority and after five years' residence here, without having made the declaration of intention required by Rev. Stat. § 2165 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1329), requires the applicant to make this declaration at the time of his admission, and to further declare on oath and prove to the satisfaction of the court that for two years next

preceding it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States. The oath of the applicant as to his intention must be supplemented by proof, and the vague oral statement of a single witness is not sufficient as a substitute for the documentary evidence required by § 2165. Re Fronascone, 99 Fed. 48.

24. Rights conferred by declaration of intention; in general.*— Mere declaration of intention does not confer citizenship upon the declarant. The declaration is merely an expression of purpose, and has not the effect, either of naturalization or expatriation. By it, the alien simply records his intention to renounce his present allegiance on becoming a citizen of the United States. He remains an alien until naturalization is complete according to our laws. Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Fed. Cas. No. 8,080; Maloy v. Duden, 25 Fed. 673; Re Moses, 83 Fed. 995.

"The law, justly regarding a change in his allegiance by a foreigner as an act of grave importance, wisely provides that there shall be two steps in the process. By the first, the purpose of change is announced. Between this and actual naturalization the lapse of a considerable interval is required in order

*As to the general rights of aliens irrespective of those acquired by declaration of intention, see the following editorial notes collecting and discussing the authorities bearing on the questions involved:

Right of aliens to equal protection of the laws,-Louisville Safety Vault & T. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 14 L. R. A. 583; aliens as grand jurors,-State v. Russell (Iowa) 28 L. R. A. 195; disabilities of; escheat of property, American Mortg. Co. v. Tennille (Ga.) 12 L. R. A. 529; alien's right to inherit,-Easton v. Huott (Iowa) 31 L. R. A. 177; effect of statutes and constitutions upon inheritance through an alien,-De Wolf v. Middleton (R. I.) 31 L. R. A. 146; effect of statutes and constitutions upon inheritance by or from an alien,-Beavan v. Went (Ill.) 31 L. R. A. 85; effeet of treaties upon alien's right to inherit,-Rixner's Succession (La. Ann.) 32 L. R. A. 177.

that the final step may be taken with due deliberation." For. Rel. 1871, p. 254, Sec'y Fish to Mr. Wing, Inst. to Ecuador. From the standpoint of the government, also, it is undesirable that persons inexperienced in our institutions should take part in matters which they do not understand. The period of probation is designed to afford them an opportunity to become familiar with our mode of government, and to fit themselves for the performance of the duties of citizenship. Upon final hearing, the court, for good reasons, may refuse to complete the naturalization.

Does the declaration of intention confer any rights of citizenship upon an alien? While the laws of several of the states of the Union extend the right of suffrage to aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, a state cannot make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, or confer on him the rights and privileges appertaining to such citizenship.

As is said by the circuit court of the United States in the casc of Minneapolis v. Reum, 6 C. C. A. 31, 12 U. S. App. 446, 5C Fed. 580: "A state may confer on foreign citizens or subjects all the rights and privileges it has the power to bestow, but when it has done all this, it has not naturalized them. They are foreign citizens or subjects still, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States." See also Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 160, 36 L. ed. 109, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375.

A mere "declaration of intention" by a foreigner to become a citizen does not deprive a court of the United States of jurisdiction over a suit to which he is a party,-as a suit against a foreign citizen or subject. The final renunciation of his foreign allegiance is necessary. Baird v. Byrne, 3 Wall. Jr. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 757.