similar purposes, in favor of the people of another territory?" Id. 192, 193.

His conclusion was that the applicant must be considered a citizen of the State of Louisiana and entitled to all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the United States.

In 1813, in United States v. Laverty, 3 Mart. (La.) 733, Judge Hall of the district court of the United States held that the inhabitants of the territory of Orleans became citizens of Louisiana and of the United States by the admission of Louisiana into the Union; denied that the only constitutional mode of becoming a citizen of the United States is naturalization by compliance with the uniform rule established by Congress; and fully agreed with the decision in Desbois's case, which he cited.

In an Alabama case, it was held, however, that an alien moving into the territory of Louisiana after it was ceded to the United States, and residing there until after its admission into the Union, as a state, does not thereby become a citizen of the United States. State v. Primrose, 3 Ala. 546.

C. States Carved Out of Northwest Territory.

1. In General.

By the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory, of July 13, 1787 (1 Stat. at L. 51, note), it was provided that, as soon as there should be 5,000 free male inhabitants of full age in the district thereby constituted, they were to receive authority to elect representatives to a general assembly, and the qualifications of a representative in such cases were previous citizenship of one of the United States for three years and residence in the district, or a residence of three years in the district and a fee simple estate of 200 acres of land therein. The qualifications of electors were a freehold.

in 50 acres of land in the district, previous citizenship of one of the United States, and residence, or the like freehold, and two years' residence in the district. And it was also provided that there should be formed in the territory not less than three, nor more than five, states, with certain boundaries, and that, whenever any such state should contain 60,000 free inhabitants, such state should be admitted by its delegates in Congress on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, and should be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and state government, provided it should be republican and in conformity with the articles of compact. 1 Stat. at L. 51, note; Rev. Stat. 2d ed. Organic Laws, 13, 14.

2. Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

Reference to the various Acts of Congress creating the Indiana and Illinois territories (2 Stat. at L. 58, Chap. 41; 2 Stat. at L. 514, Chap. 13); the enabling acts under which the state governments of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois were formed (2 Stat. at L. 173, Chap. 40; 3 Stat. at L. 289, Chap. 57; 3 Stat. at L. 428, Chap. 67); and the act recognizing and resolutions admitting those states (2 Stat. at L. 201, Chap. 7; 3 Stat. at L. 399; 3 Stat. at L. 536); and to their original constitutions, establishes that the inhabitants or people who were empowered to take part in the creation of these new political organisms and who continued to participate in the discharge of political functions, included others than those who were originally citizens of the United States. And that the action of Congress was advisedly taken is put beyond doubt by the language used in the legislation in question.

3. Michigan.

In case of the admission of Michigan this was strikingly shown. By the Act of Congress of January 11, 1805

(2 Stat. at L. 309, Chap. 5), a part of the Indiana Territory was constituted the Territory of Michigan, and a government in all respects similar to that provided by the ordinance of 1787 (1 Stat. at L. 51a), was established. The Act of February 16, 1819 (3 Stat. at L. 482, Chap. 22), authorized that territory to send a delegate to Congress, and conferred the right of suffrage on the free white male citizens of the territory who had resided therein one year next preceding the election, and had paid county or territorial taxes. The Act of March 3, 1823 (3 Stat. at L. 769, Chap. 36), provided that all citizens of the United States having the qualifications prescribed by the Act of February 16, 1819, should be entitled to vote and be eligible to office. By an Act of the territorial legislature of January 26, 1835, the free white male inhabitants of the territory, of full age, who had resided therein three months preceding "the 4th day of April next in the year 1835," were authorized to choose delegates to form a constitution and state government. Mich. Laws, 1835, 72, 75. Delegates were elected accordingly, and a constitution completed January 29, 1835, and ratified by a vote of the people November 2, 1835, which provided that every white male citizen above the age of 21 years, who had resided in the state six months next preceding any election, should be entitled to vote at any election, "and every white male inhabitant of the age aforesaid, who may be a resident of the state at the time of the signing of this constitution, shall have the right of voting as aforesaid." 1 Charters and Constitutions, 983, 984. This constitution was laid before Congress by President Jackson in a special message December 9, 1835, and a bill was introduced for the admission of Michigan into the Union. While this was under consideration an amendment to the provision that on the assent being given by a convention of the people of Michigan to certain boundaries defined in the bill, the

state should be admitted, to strike out the words, "people of the said state," and insert, "by the free male white citizens of the United States over the age of 21 years, residing within the limits of the proposed state," was voted down; as was also another amendment proposing to insert after that part of the bill which declared the constitution of the new state ratified and confirmed by Congress the words, "except that provision of said Constitution by which aliens are permitted to enjoy the right of suffrage." The Act was passed June 15, 1836 (5 Stat. at L. 49, Chap. 99), and the conditions imposed having been first rejected and then finally accepted, the state was admitted into the Union by the Act of January 26, 1837 (5 Stat. at L. 144, Chap. 6).

In all these instances citizenship of the United States in virtue of the recognition by Congress of the qualified electors of the state as citizens thereof was apparently conceded, and it was the effect in that regard that furnished a chief argument to those who oppose the admission of Michigan. As to that state, the state Constitution of 1850, as amended in 1870, preserved the rights as an elector of "every male inhabitant, residing in the state on the 24th day of June, 1835." And in Atty. Gen. ex rel. Conely v. Detroit, 78 Mich. 545, 7 L. R. A. 99, 18 Am. St. Rep. 458, 44 N. W. 388, the Supreme Court of Michigan assigned, as one of the reasons for holding the registry law under consideration invalid, that no provision was therein made for this class of voters, nor for the inhabitants who had resided in Michigan in 1850, and declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who had the right to vote under the Constitution of 1850.

D. Florida.

The 6th article of the treaty of 1819 with Spain (8) Stat. at L. 256) contained a provision to the same

effect as that in the Treaty of Paris (8 Stat. at L. 200), and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said (American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 542, 7 L. ed. 242, 255): "This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. It is unnecessary to inquire whether this is not their condition, independent of stipulation. They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government, till Florida shall become a state. In the meantime, Florida continues to be a territory of the United States; governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory, or other property belonging to the United States.""

At the second session of the 27th Congress, in the case of David Levy, who had been elected a delegate from the Territory of Florida, where it was alleged that he was not a citizen of the United States, it was held by the House Committee of Elections that "it matters nothing whether the naturalization be effected by Act of Congress, by treaty, or by the admission of new states; the provision is alike applicable."

The question turned on whether Mr. Levy's father was an inhabitant of Florida at the time of its transfer to the United States, as the son admitted that he was not a native-born citizen of the United States, but claimed citizenship through that of his father effected by the treaty while he was a minor. The argument of the report in support of the position that "no principle has been more repeatedly announced by the judicial tribunals of the country, and more constantly acted upon, than that the leaning, in questions of citizenship, should always be in favor of the claimant of it," and that liberality of interpretation should be applied to such a