difficulty with the States of South America, as well as for the naturalization of aliens and the readmission to the rights of British nationality of British subjects who had become "statute aliens." It may be proper to mention in this connection, as bearing on the actual conditions, under the New York laws, of the descendants of American women married to foreigners, that not only may a widow, being a natural born British subject, who has become an alien in consequence of her marriage, at any time during widowhood, obtain a certificate of readmission to British nationality, but the children of such widow, who during infancy may have been resident with her in the British dominions, shall, as in the case of a father, who has obtained a certificate of readmission, be deemed to have resumed their British nationality.*

But the enactments as to naturalization, whatever might be their bearing in countries where the title of property depends on citizenship, are now only important to Englishmen as affecting their political status, inasmuch as all difficulties arising from the members of a family belonging to different nationalities, in the inheritance and succession of property, are removed by the general abrogation of the disabilities of aliens.

No naturalization treaty has been made with France, but it may not be irrelevant here to mention that, by

*The British naturalization entire act will be found in the Appendix A, II, iv, (2).

the Consular Convention of 23d February, 1853, the government of the Emperor accorded to the citizens of the United States the same rights within the territory of France, in respect to real and personal property and to inheritance, as are enjoyed by her own citizens. There is indeed "a reservation of the ulterior right of establishing reciprocity, in regard to possession and inheritance," but the law for the total abrogation of the droit d'aubaine by the National Assembly, after having been modified as regards reciprocity by the Code Napoleon, was unqualifiedly restored by the law of 14th July, 1819; and such is now the sentiment of Europe on the subject that there is little probability of an exercise by France of the reserved right. On the faith of the treaty and of the French law millions have been invested by American citizens in real estate in Paris. The stipulation on our part is, that "as to the States of the Union, by whose existing laws aliens are not permitted to hold real estate, the President engages to recommend to them the passage of such laws as may be necessary for the purpose of conferring this right." (United States Statutes at Large, vol. X, p. 996.)

The naturalization treaties make no reference as to the effect which the political status that they create may have on the title to property within the States. Indeed, whether the treaty-making power of the general government is competent to enter into stipulation with foreign powers, affecting the transmission of real estate and other matters generally considered to be of State

cognizance, has been made a question in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Though that tribunal had previously recognized as the supreme law of the land the treaty of 1794 with England, by which, according to Attorney General Cushing,* "all impediment of alienage was absolutely leveled to the ground, despite of the States" (Fairfax's Lessee v. Hunter's Lessee, Cranch's Reports, vol. VII, p. 627), yet, in the case of Frederickson v. The State of Louisiana (Howard's Reports, vol. XXIII, p. 445), it abstained, even though the question before it

* Though Attorney-General Cushing, in an elaborate opinion, in 1857, came to the conclusion that the Government of the United States has constitutional power to enter into treaty stipulations with foreign governments, for the purpose of restricting or abolishing the property disabilities of aliens or their heirs in the several States. (Opinions of AttorneysGeneral, vol. VIII, p. 445.) Attorney-General Wirt gave, in 1819, an opinion that it is not in the power of the general government to alter, either by law or by treaty, the laws of the particular States, in reference to the inheritence of land. (Ibid, vol. I, p. 275.)

It would seem that the only judicial decision in a State court, to which Mr. Cushing referred (The People v. Gerke), was virtually overruled by a case (Siamessan v. Bofer) in the next volume of California Reports.

The case of The People v. Gerke (California Reports, vol. V, p. 381), was an information filed by the Attorney-General, against the grantee of an alien, who claimed his title under the 14th article of the treaty of 1828 with Prussia; and the Court there held that treaties made by the United States removing the disabilities of aliens to inherit are valid and within the intent of the Constitution of the United States. But, in a subsequent case (Siamessan v. Bofer, Ib., vol. VI, p. 250), it was decided that the treaty between the United States and the Hanseatic towns has not enlarged the rights of the natives of those towns, so that they can maintain ejectment, but that the treaty only gives the right of disposing of land, which they are prevented from inheriting by their character as aliens. The Chief Justice (Murray), who delivered the opinion of the Court, said; "I did not participate with the majority of the Court in the decision of People v. Gerke, and entertain great doubts of its correctness. The treaty

referred merely to personal property, from expressing an opinion as to the competency of the Government of the United States to regulate, by treaty, testamentary dispositions or laws of inheritance within the States.

In affirming in a previous case, arising under the convention of 1853 with France, a judgment from Louisiana, with reference to a tax on the property of decedents not domiciled in the State or citizens of the United States, Taney, Chief Justice, adds: "It is proper to say that the obligation of the treaty and its operation in the State and after it is made depends on the laws of Louisiana. The treaty does not claim for the United States the right of controlling the succession of real or personal property in a State, and its operation is expressly limited to the States of the Union whose laws permit it, so long and to the same extent as those laws shall remain in force; and as there is no act of the Legislature of Louisiana repealing this law and accepting the conditions of the treaty, so as to secure to her citizens similar rights in France, this court might feel some difficulty in saying that it was repealed by this treaty, if the State Court had not so expounded its own law, and held that Louisiana was one of the States in which the proposed arrangements of the treaty

making power can only be coeval with the express grant of power to the federal government, and can never be extended by implication to the reserved powers on matters which belong to State Sovereignty or to the right, which appertains to each State, to govern her own domestic concerns and establish her own police regulations. But, he said, that it was not necessary to decide this point, as the treaty might be fulfilled, without an action of ejectment, sales of parties out of possession being allowed by the laws of California."

were to be carried into effect." (Prevost v. Greneaux Howard's Reports, vol. XIX, p. 7.)

Nor has the treaty-making power always been consistent with itself. To the treaty of 1794 with England I have alluded. The treaty of 1778 with France was made before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. That of 1800, which accorded the reciprocal right of disposing of goods movable and immovable, contained a clause providing for the case of the laws of either State, restraining foreigners from the exercise of the rights of property with respect to real estate. To the Consular Convention I have already sufficiently referred. The only treaties, since that of 1794 with England, in which the right of inheriting real estate without the obligation of disposing of it is contained, are those of December 12, 1846, with New Granada, and of 2d January, 1850, with San Salvador. (United States Statutes at Large, vol. IX, p. 886; vol. X, p. 893.)

Several of the treaties made by the United States for the abolition of the droit d'aubaine, are confined to personal property; but there is a large class of them, beginning with the treaty with Prussia, which, though renewed in 1828, is the same as the original treaty of 1783, which provide that when land within the territory of one of the parties would descend to a citizen or subject of the other, were he not disqualified by alienage, he shall either have a reasonable time or a definite number of years in which to dispose of it. (Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. 1863, p. 238.) This provision inserted,