personal property, the practice of nations has been much more liberal. This difference of view in regard to the two kinds of property was due in part to the fact that, in early times, only land and immovables were recognized as having the quality of property, and in part to the fact that personal property, especially in the form of money and valuables, could be easily concealed and withdrawn from the operation of the law. The result was that personal property began to be made the subject of legal regulation at a much later date, and when more enlightened views had begun to prevail upon the subject of ownership and property regulation.' Treatment of Aliens. From the principle that all persons within the territory of a state, at any time, are subject to, and are protected by, its municipal laws, it follows that aliens, so long as they obey those laws, will be as fully protected by them as are the citizens of the state in which they are resident.' They are subject to some restrictions, however, from In Italy, Denmark, and Greece' aliens are under no disabilities in this respect. The ownership of land in the United States is regulated by the laws of the individual states of the Union. Some states impose no restrictions on foreigners; others require residence and an oath of allegiance; in others a declaration of an intention to become a naturalized citizen of the United States is necessary." "Feudal principles were maintained so long in England that, until the year 1870, an alien was incapable of holding land for more than twenty-one years; that is, he could not purchase a freehold. This, however, was remedied by the Naturalization Act of 1870, which 1869, pp. 114, 124, 129, 138. Ibid. relieved aliens of most of their disabilities, and, as regards land, placed them on the same footing as subjects."-Boyd's Wheaton, p. 113. Amos, Science of Law, p. 164. "Aliens domiciled in the United States owe a local and temporary allegiance to the Government of the United States; they are bound to obey all the laws of the country, not immediately relating to citizenship, during their residence, and are equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws. Those aliens who, being domiciled in the country prior to the rebellion, gave aid and comfort to the rebellion, were, therefore, subject to be prosecuted for violation of the laws of the United States against treason and for giving_aid and comfort to the rebellion.-Carlisle vs. United States, 16 Wallace, 147. It is the duty of the President, to whom the care of our foreign relations is committed, to take all law which citizens are exempt; and, on the other hand, are not held to the performance of certain duties to which citizens are liable from the fact of their allegiance. The most important of these is an exemption from personal imposts' and from obligatory military service-a duty, from its nature, incumbent upon citizens alone." ful measures for the protection of alien subjects of a state with which the United States are at peace, who shall have come within our territory and placed themselves under the safeguard of our laws with the consent of the general and state governments.-III Opinions of Attorney - General, p. 253. But where aliens have suffered violence from citizens of the United States, they can be protected only by the redress to be afforded in the courts and the special interposition of the legislature.-Ibid. The state courts only have jurisdiction of the criminal offence in such cases; the circuit courts of the United States of a civil action, where the offenders are citizens.-Ibid. 1 The term impost, as here used, refers to impositions of personal service, as for jury duty, etc., and to impositions of money in the way of poll-taxes, or other levies upon In party where, besides the ordinary incidents of battle, they would be exposed to be treated as rebels or traitors in a quarrel in which, as aliens, they had no concern, and on their return to England would incur the penalties imposed on British subjects for having taken part in the war. All who could prove their British nationality were, accordingly, exempted from military service. But if a British subject had become naturalized in America, England refused to protect him so long as he remained there. dividuals who had declared their intention of becoming naturalized, but had not completed the necessary formalities, were also treated as aliens, and exempted; but her Majesty's government declined to interfere in their behalf if they had voted at elections, or in any way exercised any of the exclusive privileges of a citizen. In 1863 an Act of Congress was passed specially including intended' citizens in a further enrolment of the militia;" and a proclamation of the President allowed sixty-five days to such persons to leave the country, or become liable to be enrolled by remaining. To this Great Britain In states where a military establishment is maintained by a system of voluntary enlistments, few restrictions are placed upon the admission of aliens to the military or naval service. By such an act, however, and during the period of such service, an alien forfeits the protection of his own government, and must look for protection to the state under whose flag he serves. In nearly all states aliens are debarred from holding public office of a political character, and are denied the right of suffrage, when that right exists. Some states still place them under special disabilities in the matter of holding land, or engaging in business, or following certain trades or professions; others make this conditional upon reciprocity.' In nearly acquiesced, the period allowed for departure being deemed sufficient. It was regarded as an established principle that a government might, by an ex post facto law, include in its conscription any persons permanently resident in its territory, provided it allowed them reasonable time and facilities for departure on the promulgation of such a law." In the courts of the United States alien friends are entitled to the same protection in their rights as citizens. Nor are their suits barred by proof that the remedy is not reciprocal.-Tayler vs. Carpenter, 3 Story, 458. Aliens in the United States are not liable to militia duty. For treatment of alien enemies by the United States, see §§ 4067-4070 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. It is clear, by the common law, that an alien can take lands by purchase, though not by descent; or, in other words, he cannot take by the act of law, but he may by the act of the party. This princi ple has been settled in the year- all the Continental states of Europe aliens are placed at some disadvantage as regards subjects in instituting or maintaining suits at law, and in testifying in certain cases. They also require a register of aliens to be kept, and, in many instances, claim and exercise the right of expelling them from their territories for cause. Many of these restrictions are reasonable, and, if they are generally known, furnish no ground of complaint to other states whose citizens are subjected to them. In some cases, notably in certain Mohammedan and pagan countries, whose systems of government and law are radically different from those of Christendom, the separate treatment of aliens has been made the subject of treaty stipulation. DOMICILE Nature of the Relation. Of all the persons residing in a state at any given time two classes have elsewhere been described aliens and citizens. Between these extremes is found a large class of persons who are not temporary sojourners, neither have they the quality of citizenship. Their residence is not transient, and they are aliens only in the sense that they are not members of the body politic, owing it the allegiance of defence, and for that reason do not enjoy the rights and political privileges of citizens. These persons are called domiciled strangers. While their residence is to some extent permanent, they are unwilling, for reasons of their own, gentium. Fairfax's devisee vs. Hunter's lessee, 7 Cranch, 603 (619). An alien who becomes naturalized may hold land acquired before his naturalization. A grant by a state to an alien is not void; he may take, though he cannot hold against the state. - Governeur's heirs vs. Robertson, 11 Wheaton, 332. Neither the Constitution nor acts of Congress required that aliens should reside abroad to entitle them to sue in the courts of the United States.-Breedlove and Robeson vs. Nicolet and Sigg, 7 Peters, 413. In the Chinese Exclusion case (130 United States, 603), it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that "the Government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory."- Nishimura Ekiu vs. United States, 142 United States, 651; Fong Yue Ting vs. United States, 149 United States, 698; Lem Moon Sing vs. United States, 158 United States, 538, 547. In re Moses, 83 Fed. Rep. 995. to give up their citizenship of nativity; and it is not inconsistent with their peculiar relation that they should cherish a remote intention of returning to their native countries should it ever become desirable to do so. Definition of Domicile. Domicile may, therefore, be defined as the place which an individual has freely chosen as the centre of his domestic and jural relations, and a domiciled stranger is an alien who, for purposes of residence or business, has selected a certain place as his durable abode, with no present intention of removing therefrom.' Distinction between Citizenship and Domicile. There has been some confusion expressed in the works of writers upon the subject as to the precise meaning of the terms citizenship and domicile. From the definition given it will be seen that they are not synonymous; indeed, in strictness, they have no possible connection with each other. The citi zen is a creature of the municipal law of a state, with which other states ordinarily have no concern. The rules of domicile determine the status of an individual from the standpoint of international law, and have no necessary connection with citizenship. Domicile is a fact, and, when the domicile of an individual is drawn in question, is proved, like other facts, by evidence as to residence or intention. Citizenship results from birth, or the operation of law, and is acquired by undergoing a legal process, the various steps of which are regulated by the 'It is remarkable that no definition of the term "domicile" has as yet been universally accepted. It has been defined as "a residence at a particular place accompanied by positive or presumptive proof of an intention to remain there for an unlimited time.' This definition is approved by Phillimore in his work on the subject. By the term "domicile," in its ordinary acceptation, is meant the place where a person lives and has his home.Boyd's Wheaton, § 151B; Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pp. 275 277; IV Phillimore, pp. 32-46; I Halleck, p. 361; II Wildman, pp. 36, 37; Woolsey, $71; Glenn, p. 233, Risley, Law of War, pp. 94, 95; I Lorimer, Institutes, pp. 426-435; Hall, pp. 239, 279, 498, 500; Vattel, liv. i. chap. xix. § 218; Dicey, pp. 1, 3; Story, Conflict of Laws, 41; Bruce vs. Bruce, 2 Bosanquet and Puller, 28, note; Bampde vs. Johnson, 3 Vesey, 201; Stanley vs. Bernes, 3 Hagard Ecc. Rep. 374. 437; Best on Presumptions, p. 235; Mitchell vs. United States, 21 Wallace, 350. |