Page images
PDF
EPUB

a. Residence in the United States Held not to be Necessary.

In Kane v. McCarthy, 63 N. C. 299, it was decided that a woman who, in 1857, married in Ireland a naturalized citizen of the United States, was a citizen of the United States although she always resided in Ireland.

The Circuit Court of the United States, in the case of Ware v. Wisner, 50 Fed. 310, held that a nonresident alien woman who marries a citizen of the United States is capable of inheriting, in Iowa, since she thereby becomes a citizen of the United States under Rev. Stat. Sec. 1994 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1268).

In Headman v. Rose, 63 Ga. 458, it was held than an alien woman whose husband becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, is under Section 2 of the Act of 1855 (10 Stat. at L. 604, Ch. 71, R. S. 1994, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, 1268), thereby made a citizen, though she may live at a distance from her husband for years, and never come to the United States until after his death.

In the opinion of Attorney General Williams (14 Ops. Atty. Gen. 402), an alien woman residing abroad, who has intermarried with a citizen of the United States residing abroad, the marriage having been solemnized abroad, and the parties after marriage continuing to reside abroad, is to be regarded as a citizen of the United States within the meaning of said Act, though she may never have resided within the United States.

b. Residence in the United States Held to be Necessary.

In Burton v. Burton, 26 How. Pr. 474, where aliens were married abroad, the husband came to the United States, was naturalized and died, the wife not coming to this country until after his death, the court in passing upon her citizenship, said:

"The Act of 1855, therefore, as we glean from this previous legislation, though unfinished, the history of the legislative object to be attained by it, and as well the

[ocr errors]

general considerations which influence nations in framing naturalization laws, was designed, certainly, for the benefit of an alien white woman, whether resident or not, married to a person who was at the time of the marriage a citizen of the United States, thus, securing, by the same law, the rights of citizenship to the children of American citizens born abroad, and to such alien wife all legal rights of citizenship which otherwise, and by reason of her alienism, she might not possess Construed with liberality, however, it might be held also to extend to an alien woman resident in this country, though married abroad to an alien, and who came to this country with him or followed him here, and in that way, or in one of these ways, identified herself with the country of his adoption. . In this case the plaintiff has neither sought to derive the benefit of her husband's naturalization by coming with or following him here nor entitled herself to the benefit of a liberal construction in her favor of the act, as suggested by a residence in this country of any duration prior to her husband's death. Her rights, therefore, as a citizen depend entirely upon the construction of the section of the statute under consideration, and I am of the opinion that she has no claim upon her husband's estate thereunder. He was not, when he married her, a citizen of the United States, and she was never a resident thereof during his life. On the contrary, she was, and continued to be, both alien and stranger.

"The plaintiff being an alien, and having married an alien, and not having resided in this country prior to her husband's death, has no dower right in the lands of which her husband died seized under the provisions of the act of the legislature passed in 1845."

Secretary Seward, in 1868, in the case of the wife and children of one Valon, a native Italian who left his family in Italy, came to the United States, was subsequently

naturalized here, and then sought the assistance of the Department of State in overcoming an impediment interposed to their embarkation from that country, said: "It may be open to question whether the Act of Congress of February 10, 1855, declaring to be a citizen any woman who might be lawfully naturalized and who has married a citizen of the United States, can be deemed to have operated upon a woman who has never been within the jurisdiction of this Government. This doubt renders it inexpedient to issue a passport to the lady in question, as the law requires that passports be issued only to citizens of the United States. The facts of the case will, however, be communicated to our consul at Naples with instructions to use his good offices to procure the withdrawal by the state authorities of all obstacles to the emigration of Mrs. Valon and her children." Mr. Seward to Mr. Tinelli, April 1, 1868; 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 486.

In 1888, Asst. Secy. Rives, said, referring to the same. question: "While the general rule is that the wife and minor children share the fortunes of the husband and father, it is necessary that they should in fact partake of his change of domicil and allegiance, and it has been held that the naturalization of an alien in the United States does not require this Government to regard as American citizens those members of his household who have never been within the jurisdiction of the United States, but have remained in the land of their original allegiance." Mr. Rives to Mr. Smith, Dec. 13, 1888; 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 486.

Secretary Foster, in an instruction to the American Minister to Turkey, in 1893, said:

"Although Attorney General Williams, in his opinion of June 4, 1874, 14 Op. 402, referring to Kelly v. Owen, 7 Wall. 496, and to certain other cases, stated that the authorities 'go to the extent of holding that, irrespective

of the time or place of marriage or the residence of the parties, any free white woman, not an alien enemy, married to a citizen of this country, is to be taken and deemed a citizen of the United States,' yet in view of the obstacles to claiming for the laws, judicial decisions, and executive opinions of the United States effective validity beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, this Department prudently refrains from asserting its application to the case of an alien wife continuing within her original allegiance at the time of her husband's naturalization in the United States, inasmuch as the citizenship of the wife might not be effectively asserted as against any converse claim of the sovereignty within which she has remained. The result would naturally be a conflict of private international law, wherein the state within whose actual jurisdiction the wife remains might be found to have the practical advantage of the argument." Mr. Foster, Secretary of State, to Mr. Thompson, Minister to Turkey, February 9, 1893, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 486.

Mr. Gresham expressed the opinion that naturalization in the United States has no international effect on the allegiance of the wife and children of the naturalized person while they continue to reside in the country of origin. Secretary Gresham to Mr. Watrous, January 23, 1905, 3 Moore's Int. Law Digest, 487.

And Secretary Olney, in 1896, in a report in response to a resolution of the Senate, expressed the view that the naturalization of a Turkish subject in the United States does not operate to naturalize his wife, who has never been in the United States, and who is at the time dwelling in a foreign country. He said: "The naturalization laws of the United States being obviously framed to permit the bestowal of the franchise of citizenship upon certain persons of alien birth who are within its jurisdiction, and the application, of these statutes being intrusted to the judicial branch, it is clear that they can

not operate to naturalize by indirection or by executive interpretation a person who is an alien by birth and origin, who has never been within the jurisdiction of the United States, and who at the time may be dwelling within a foreign jurisdiction." S. Doc. No. 83, 1st Session, 54th Congress.

Secretary Olney added, however, that the Turkish government had, on several occasions permitted the emigration of the wives and children of Turkish subjects who had come to the United States and here acquired citizenship, leaving their families behind them; had even permitted the emigration of other kinsmen of a degree not within the purview of the naturalization laws of the United States; and had also, asserting a discretionary power in the premises, refused to permit the emigration of the families of naturalized Armenians, even within the marital or filial degree. He continued: "The good offices of the United States Minister are uniformly exerted on all proper occasions to assist the emigration of such persons, upon permission properly secured from the Turkish authorities, and when funds have been assured to pay the journey, he has assisted their departure. He has likewise assisted the coming to the United States of the wives of citizens of Armenian origin, who, being in this country at or subsequent to the naturalization of their husbands, have returned to Turkey; and of the children of such citizens born abroad subsequent to the naturalization of the father, or who may have acquired American citizenship by actual presence in the United States subsequent to the father's naturalization, and in such instances permission for the families to emigrate has been demanded as of right? For. Rel. 1895, Part II, 1472.

E. Nature of Citizenship Acquired.

What is meant by the phrase, "shall be deemed a citizen," in the section of the Revised Statutes under consideration?

« PreviousContinue »