Campbell v. Gordon and Wife

Washington, J.

after stating the case as before mentioned, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

The title of -the appellees to the land in question being disputed only upon the ground of- the alienage of, the female appellee, the court take it for granted that there is no other objection to its validity. It is contended, by .the counsel for. the appellant, that Ja-, netta,.whó claims as heir to James Currie, is an alien, inasmuch as' she has, by no act-of'her. ovijn, entitled . herself to the rights and privileges of a citizen, and cannot claim those rights in virtue of her migration' to the United States, and of any acts performed by her father. First, because her father was not duly naturalized; and, secondly, because, if he were, she was not, at the time of her father’s naturalization," dwelling within the United States.

*182 In support of the first objection it is contended that, although the oath prescribed bv the second section of act of congress entitled “ An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject,” passed the 29th of January, 1795, was administered to the said William Currié, by a court of competent jurisdiction, still it, does not appear, by the certificate granted to hint by the court, and appearing in the record, that he was, by the judgment of the court, admitted d citizen, or that the court was satisfied that, during the term of two years, mentioned in the same section, he had behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to. die Constitution of tlje United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

It is true, that this requisite to his admission is not stated in -the certificate ; but it is the opinion of this court, that the court of Suffolk must have been satisfied as to the character of the applicant, or otherwise a certificate, that the oath prescribed by law had been taken, would not have been granted.

It is unnecessary to decide whether, in the order of time, this satisfaction, as to the character of the applicant, must be first given, or whether'it may not be required after the oath js administered, and, if not then given, whether a certificate of naturalization- may not be withheld. But if the oath be administered, and nothing appears- to the contrary, it must be presumed, that the court, before whom the oath was taken, was satisfied as to the character of the applicant. The oath, when taken, confers upon him the rights of a citizen, and' amounts to a judgment of the court for his admission to those rights. It is, therefore, the unanimous opinion of the court,, that William Currie was duly naturalized.

The next quéstion to be decided is, whether the naturalization of William Currie conferred upon his daughter the rights of . a citizen, after her coming to, and residing within, the. United States, shehaving been *183 a resident in a foreign country at the time when her father was naturalized.

Whatever-difficulty might exist as to the construction of the .third section of the act of the 29th of January, 1795,'in relation to this point, it is conceived that the rights of citizenship were .clearly conferred upon the female appellee, by the fourth section of the act of the 14th of April,' 1802.

This act declares that the children of persons duly' naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of 21 years at the time of their parent’s^ being so. naturalized, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as ■ citizens of the United States. This is precisely the case óf Mrs. Gordon. Her -father was duly naturalized, at which time she was an infant;

but she came to the United States before the year 1802, and was at the time- when this law passed, dwelling within the United States.- .

It is, therefore, the unanimous opinion of'the court that, at the time of-the death of James Currie, Mrs. Gordon was entitled to all the right and privilege of a citizen; and therefore that there is no error, in the decree pf thé circuit court for the district of Virginia, which is to. be affirmed with costs.