not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government till Florida shall become a state."

In Tannis v. Doe ex dem. St. Cyre, 21 Ala. 449, it was held by the Supreme Court of Alabama, in 1852, that a free negro, who was an inhabitant of Florida at the date of the treaty by which Spain ceded that territory to the United States, lost the character of an alien by the operation of that treaty. See, also, Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135.

e. Treaty of February 2, 1848, with Mexico.

The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, signed February 2, 1848 (9 Stat. at L. 922), effected a collective naturalization of all (Mexicans) inhabitants of California and other territory ceded by that treaty who remained in and adhered to the United States. Article 8 of the treaty provided that "Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico;" and which were to "remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty," should, if remaining in such territories, elect within a year from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty whether they would "retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States," but that those who remained "in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans," should "be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States."

Under the provision of this treaty that Mexicans residing in the ceded territory should acquire United States citizenship, it was decided, in United States v. Lucero, 1 N. Mex. 422, that Pueblo Indians, who were "Mexicans," under Mexican law, became citizens of the

United States. See, also, U. S. v. Santistevan, 1 New Mex. 583.

The 8th section of the treaty is inapplicable to persons who, before the revolution in Texas, had been citizens of Mexico, and who, by that revolution, had been separated from it. McKinney v. Saviego, 18 How. 235, 15 L. ed. 365.

Two claimants, natives of Mexico, who had remained in New Mexico after the ratification of the treaty without having indicated an election to "retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens," complained of acts committed by the authorities of the United States prior to the date of the conclusion of the treaty. It was held by the commissioners, without reference of the question to the umpire, that the claimants in question had no standing as Mexicans before the commission. Melquiades and Josefa Chavez v. United States, United States and Mexican Claims Commission, Convention of July 4, 1868, 15 Stat. at L. 679, Moore, International Arbitrations, 2510.

A., a native of Mexico, where he was born in 1833, was taken by his father, in 1851, to California, whither the latter had gone in March, 1848. It was held by the Commissioners that the phrase, "Mexicans now established," as employed in article 8 of the treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo, applied only to those who were established in the ceded territories at the date of the conclusion of the treaty, and not to those who came subsequently; and that neither the father, nor consequently the son through him, acquired, under the treaty, the citizenship of the United States. Jesus M. Ainsa v. Mexico, United States and Mexican Claims Commission, Convention of July 4, 1868, 15 Stat. at L. 679, 3 Moore, International Arbitrations, 2510.

The constitution of California of October 1, 1849, Art. 2, Sec. 1, provided: "Every white male citizen of the

United States, and every white male citizen of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States, under the treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at Queretaro on the 30th day of May, 1848 [9 Stat. at L. 922], of the age of 21 years, who shall have been a resident of the state six months next preceding the day of the election, and of the county or district in which he claims his vote thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law." The Commissioners held that neither this article, nor anything in the Act of Congress admitting California into the Union, helped claimant's case.

"The umpire considers that the claimant must be considered to be a Mexican citizen, the contrary not having been proved by the defense. The witnesses testify that he was born in Mexico, and it is not shown that he had divested himself of that nationality. The umpire does not think that article 8 of the treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo applied to the claimant, though he might have been a resident of Texas at the time of the conclusion of that treaty and for a year afterward. Texas was not, in the meaning of that article, one of the territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remained for the future within the limits of the United States. Texas had been independent since 1836, and a state of the Union since 1845. It was claimed by the United States that the strip of territory between the rivers Nueces and Bravo was a part of Texas, and had always been so. It must therefore be supposed, nothing to the contrary having been proved, that the claimant was a Mexican citizen residing in Texas." Thornton, Umpire, July 7, 1876, Convention of July 4, 1868, 15 Stat. at L. 679; Agapito Longoria v. United States, United States and Mexican Claims Commission, 3 Moore, International Arbitrations, 2510, 2511.

The right of election secured to Mexican citizens of the territory of New Mexico by the treaty with Mexico, to retain their citizenship or to become American citizens, was not required to be exercised in any particular mode, but could be exercised and proved in any manner appropriate to the nature of the case. A declaration of intention by a Mexican citizen to retain Mexican citizenship, by signing his name to a list authorized to be kept by the clerks of the prefects' courts by a proclamation of the military governor of New Mexico, is a sufficient exercise of such right of election, and is not affected by a subsequently declared intention to withdraw such signature, which is not shown to have been acted on. Quintana v. Tomkins, 1 N. M. 29.

A declaration of intention to retain Mexican citizenship, made before a probate court, in accordance with the proclamation above referred to, was a binding and valid exercise of the right of election reserved to Mexican residents of the territory of New Mexico by Article 8 of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (9 Stat. at L. 922). Carter v. Territory, 1 N. M. 317.

In the case of Tobin v. Walkinshaw, McAll. 186, Fed. Cas. No. 14,070, the United States Circuit Court held that the principle that the allegiance of the inhabitants of territory ceded is transferred with the territory, unless the treaty of cession provides otherwise, applies only to natural-born citizens of the country making the cession. In this case one Forbes, a native of Great Britain, was, at the date of the treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo, a naturalized citizen of Mexico. He continued to reside in California after the execution of the treaty, and never made any declaration of intention to retain the rights of a Mexican citizen. It was contended that these facts, with the subsequent admission of California into the Union, fixed at once and by mere operation of

law the status of American citizenship upon him. The treaty stipulated, as to those Mexicans who should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, that they might either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of American citizens; but declared that they should be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty, and those who should remain after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexican citizens, should be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States. The court said that birth binds man by the tie of natural allegiance to his native soil, and such allegiance gives to the country in which he was born the right to transfer this natural allegiance, subject, however, to the right of election in the party whether he will retain his allegiance to his old sovereign, or pay allegiance to the new. Said the court: "The object of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was to regulate the exercise of this right of election by such parties as by the principles of international law were subject to their jurisdiction as contracting parties. The Mexican government stipulated for a right for Mexicans residing in the territory to elect at any time within a year after the date of the treaty to retain their title and rights as Mexicans; the government of the United States guarded against the abuse of the right, by limiting the time within which it was to be executed, and stipulating that, if the election was not made within the time limited, they should be considered as having elected to become citizens of the United States. The right of the two governments thus to stipulate in relation to native-born Mexicans, under the law of nations, is unquestionable. It was evidently proper that the status of all such should be fixed. If