treaty, is well worthy of perusal. Contested elections 1834, 1835, 2d Session, 38th Congress, 41.

E. Texas.

By the annexation of Texas, under a joint resolution of Congress of March 1, 1845, and its admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, December 29, 1845, all the citizens of the former republic* became, without any express declaration, citizens af the United States. 5 Stat. at L. 798; 9 Stat. at L. 108; McKinney v. Saviego, 18 How. 235, 15 L. ed. 365, Cryer v. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170; Barrett v. Kelly, 31 Tex. 476; Carter v. Territory, 1 N. M. 317; 13 Ops. Atty. Gen. 397.

*"The citizens of Texas thus adopted into the citizenship of the United States were of three classes.

"1. Persons who came within the following description in Section 10 of the general provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Texas [viz.]: 'All persons (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence [March 2, 1836] shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges as such;' and who did not forfeit their citizenship by the acts defined in the 8th section of said provisions, which is in the words following: 'All persons who shall leave the country for the purpose of evading a participation in the present struggle [the war between Texas and Mexico for Texas independence], or who shall refuse to participate in it, or shall give aid or assistance to the present enemy, shall forfeit all rights of citizenship and such lands as they may hold in the Republic. . . .'

"2. Persons born in that Republic during its independence,—that is, between the dates of March 2, 1836, and December 29, 1845.

"3. Persons naturalized in the Republic of Texas.

"The provision for naturalization in that Republic was Section 6 of the general provisions of the Constitution [of Texas], and in the words following: 'All free white persons who shall emigrate to this Republic, and who shall, after a residence of six months, make oath before some competent authority that they intend to reside permanently in the same, and shall swear to support this Constitution, and that they will bear true allegiance to the Republic of Texas, shall be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship.'" 13 Ops. Atty Gen. 397.

F. Powers of Congress over Territories.

Chief Justice Fuller, in delivering the opinion in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S., at p. 169, 36 L. ed. 112, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, freely quoted above, said: "It is too late at this day to question the plenary power of Congress over the territories. As observed by Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court in Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44, 29 L. ed. 47, 57, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747: 'It rests with Congress to say whether, in a given case, any of the people, resident in the territory, shall participate in the election of its officers, or the making of its laws; and it may, therefore, take from them any right of suffrage it may previously have conferred, or at any time modify or abridge it as it may deem expedient. The right of local self-government, as known to our system as a constitutional franchise, belongs, under the Constitution, to the states and to the people thereof, by whom that Constitution was ordained, and to whom by its terms all power not conferred by it upon the government of the United States. was expressly reserved. The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the Congress of the United States. . . . If we concede that this discretion in Congress is limited by the obvious purposes for which it was conferred, and that those purposes are satisfied by measures which prepare the people of the territories to become states in the Union, still the conclusion can not be avoided, that the Act of Congress here in question is clearly within that justification.'

"Congress having the power to deal with the people. of the territories in view of the future states to be

formed from them, there can be no doubt that, in the admission of a state, a collective naturalization may be effected in accordance with the intention of Congress and the people applying for admission.

"Admission on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever, involves equality of constitutional right and power, which can not thereafterwards be controlled; and it also involves the adoption, as citizens of the United States, of those whom Congress makes members of the political community, and who are recognized as such in the formation of the new state. with the consent of Congress."

When a state is admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, all residents thereof who are endowed by Congress with political rights and privileges, or who, with the consent of Congress, are permitted to participate in the formation of the new state, become citizens of the United States by adoption, even though, being foreigners, they have never complied with the requirements of the naturalization laws. Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 36 L. ed. 103, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375.

Nebraska.

The Nebraska enabling Act (13 Stat. at L. 47, Chap. 59) declared that all persons qualified to vote for representatives of the territorial legislature should be eligible to election as members of the convention, and should be entitled to vote upon the acceptance or rejection of the constitution. By the existing laws of the territory, foreigners who had declared an intention to become citizens of the United States were entitled to vote at elections, and this provision was carried into the constitution of the new state, as ratified by Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Boyd v.

Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 36 L. ed. 103, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, that upon the admission of the state into the Union, all persons of this class became citizens of the United States.

A citizen of France, a resident and inhabitant of the Territory of Nebraska, who had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, became a citizen of the United States upon the admission of Nebraska into the Union as a state. Bahuaud v. Bize, 105 Fed. 485.

(a) By naturalization in a foreign state.

(b) By taking the oath of allegiance to a foreign state.

(c) By residence in a foreign country.

Instructions of the Department of State.

Exceptions.

(A) When residence abroad is due to ill health or finan

cial condition.

(B) Agents of American enterprises.

(C) Missionaries.

(d) By marriage.

2. By desertion.

3. Military or Naval service in foreign country.

4. Accepting public office under foreign government.

A. Definition.

Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance.

B. Right of Expatriation.

While the naturalization laws of the United States have from the beginning been based on the principle that the right to change one's allegiance is a natural and inherent right, there was considerable difference of opinion in this country, prior to 1868, on the question whether the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance obtained here. The right of a citizen to devest himself of his allegiance to the United States without the consent of the government was denied by able American jurists, but the political branch of this government uniformly held that the doctrine of indelible allegiance was not in force in the United States.

The question was definitely settled in this country by