The disability of alienage was not removed by the new law from the niece, and her being alive at the time of the decedent's death, excluded from the inheritance her children, though naturalized citizens, and who, had she been dead, would have been the heirs of the decedent. Thus, in consequence of a provision professedly intended to remove a harsh rule of the common law, the estate passed from those in whom the decedent had a direct interest to a remote relative, whose very existence was probably unknown to the person whose heir the law proclaimed him to be. In another case decided in the Court of Appeals, in 1856, it was held that the Statute (1 Revised Statutes, p. 754, § 22), does not enable a person to take an estate by inheritance who deduces title by descent through a liv ing alien relative of the deceased, who would himself inherit the estate were he a citizen. Accordingly, where the decedent left surviving him a sister and a niece, her daughter, the former an alien and the latter a citizen, the niece did not take the real estate by inheritance. (McLean and wife v. Swanton, New York Reports, vol. XIII (Kernan, vol. III), p. 535.)* * No better answer could be given than is afforded by the case of McCarthy vs. Marsh, to the suggestion that a repeal of the alien disabilities might tend to create confusion in titles. Many foreigners, it is said, especially from Ireland, where there are not, as on the continent of Europe, official registries of births and marriages, whose genealogy is obscure, emigrate to the State of New York, and there acquire real estate. On their death, it was added, claimants might appear from abroad and enter on the estate and convey it, and their titles, to the prejudice of their It is scarcely necessary to observe, that, allowing foreigners to hold land, in nowise affects the rule of descent, which is always that of the country where the real estate is situated. Thus, if an American purchases real estate in England, it will, while the law remains as it is, pass, in case of intestacy, to his eldest son. On the other hand, if an Englishman buys land in the United States, it will descend, according to the law of descent in the State in which it lies, which now everywhere gives it, in case of intestacy, equally among all the children. In France, the law which disposes, by a fixed rule, of the succession to real, as well as personal, property, leaving only a portion of it subject to the tes tament of the decedent (code Civil, Arts. 913, 919), is as applicable to the real estate of a foreigner in France as to that of a French citizen. It is proper here to guard against the misapprehension under which the Senate of the State seem, at their last session, to have acted, as to the motive for the proposed law. Neither in pleading the cause of natural affection, nor in suggesting the necessity of conformity of the law of real estate to treaties, has there been grantees, might be subsequently divested by the appearance of nearer relatives. We cannot attach much force to this specious objection, as opposed to the weighty reasons for the abrogation of all the incidents of the droit d'aubaine. But whatever importance might otherwise be given to it, the case in question shows that under the law, as it now exists, not only is there equal embarrassment in ascertaining the genealogy of a naturalized citizen as of an alien, but there is superadded the further difficulty of determining whether the alien ancestors of the former were living or dead at the time of the decedent's death. any intention to enter into a discussion of the gen eral policy, independently of the naturalization conventions, of allowing foreigners to acquire and transmit land, however clear our own conviction may be of the truth of the great doctrines of economical science on this subject, now nowhere questioned, save in some of the States of the American Union. Nor shall we attempt to determine, from the conflicting opinions cited in our letter, the constitutional question, how far it is competent for the federal power to interfere by treaty, where foreigners are concerned, with the tenure of land in a State. The object has been merely to point out the unjust discrimination between the descendants of male and female citizens, and the anomalies, caused by the legislation of Congress, and by the conventions with foreign powers, in the existing law of New York; and to show that they can best be removed by adopting substantially the recent English statute, that is to say, by an abrogation of all alien disabilities. State laws have no control over the political status of its inhabitants, and the Expatriation Act of Congress and the naturalization conventions, while repudiating the doctrine of double allegiance, permit a person to change his nationality as often as he pleases. As a consequence of these measures, it is almost impossible to determine, at any given time, whether a party is an alien or a citizen, and therefore, as long as alien disabilities continue, all titles to real estate must be exposed to infinite confusion. Moreover, the foreigner, exceptionally authorized to hold real estate in New York, has a privilege denied to the American parent, native or naturalized, of transmitting his property, in conformity with the dictates of natural affection, and, according to the latest decision of the Court of Appeals, this may be done, as will ap pear in the sequel, by an alien, under the act of 1845, even when he has not filed the deposition prescribed by the Revised Statutes, declaring that he is a resident, and that he has taken the initiatory steps to be a citizen of the United States. LETTER TO GOVERNOR HOFFMAN. OCHRE POINT, NEWPORT, R. I., To his Excellency JOHN T. HOFFMAN, Governor of the State of New York: Dear Sir: When I had the pleasure of seeing you here last summer, I took the liberty of soliciting your attention to the anomalous condition in which the laws of the State of New York, as to the holding and transmission of real estate, placed the descendants of American women married abroad, and you were kind enough to say that you would take into consideration, with a view to their submission to the Legislature, such suggestions as I might have it in my power to make to you on the subject. At the same time, I referred to the conventions between the United States and several foreign coun tries, which, without a total abrogation of the "droit d'aubaine," or the disabilities imposed by the common law on the descent of lands, might affect, not merely political rights, but, in a manner little anticipa ted, the transmission of property according to the claims of consanguinity as hitherto recognized. I may be permitted to premise that it is a wellsettled principle of the common law, which in this respect, is still in force in New York, that an alien cannot derive title to real estate by descent or mere operation of law. The general rule, however, was that if an alien purchased land, or it was devised to him, he might take and hold it until office found. The statute carries the disability further, and provides that " every devise of any interest in real property to a person who, at the time of the death of the testator, shall be an alien not authorized to hold real estate, shall be void." In such case the land does not, except in default both of heirs and residuary devisees competent to take, escheat to the State, "The interest so devised," the statute adds, "shall descend to the heirs of the testator; if there be no such heirs competent to take, it shall pass under his will to the residuary devisees therein named, if any there be, competent to take such interest.” (Revised Statutes, vol. II, p. 58, § 4.)* * "In the case of a devise to a alien, who is not authorized, by any general or particular statute to hold real estate, such devise is declared by |