Statutes of Minn. 1866, on resignations, etc. p. 137, sec. 1. Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States, vol. 1, page 157, and constitution of Minnesota, section 10, art. 6, and 9 Minn. Rep. 283. The Governor may remove from office for malfeasance or nonfeasance of official duty, the clerk of the district court, judge of probate, court commissioner, sheriff, coroner, register of deeds, county attorney, county commissioner, any collector or receiver of public moneys appointed by the legislature, and the Governor.-Minn. Statutes, 1866, pp. 137-8. The laws of the several states in respect to county officers are not the same in all the states -and as there are 38 states and 38 independent legislatures, the powers and duties of county officers and the nature of county governments must, in the nature of things, fluctuate with the wants and wishes of the peoplethe source of all political power, town, county, state and federal. We have given the general principles which govern the town, parish, school and county organizations, in the United States. Said organizations have capacity to sue and be sued.-The State of Minnesota has a legal capacity to sue.State v. Grant, 10 Minn. 39. The official acts of the town, school and county officers may be investigated by the Grand Jury of the proper county under the instructions of the presiding judge; for the judicial power of the nation extends to every person and everything in its territory, excepting only such foreigners as enjoy the right of extra territoriality, and who, consequently, are not looked upon as temporary subjects of the State.-Opinions of the Attorneys General United States, vol. 1, p. 5.

CHAPTER IV.-STATE GOVERNMENT.

We have said that the town is the parent of the State. We may further say that the thirteen colonies had different forms of government, which can be seen from the constitutions and charters of the colonies at the time when they adopted the articles of confederation in 1777. On the 4th of July, 1776, the thirteen colonies of North America became independent and sovereign nations or powers, and their legislatures could pass such laws and make such regulations as the welfare of the people demanded, limited by their state constitutions and charters. July 1776, the New England States and the State of New York had no constitutions-nothing more than charters from the crown. The thirteen States adopted their first constitutions, as follows: New Hampshire, 1784; Massachusetts, 1780; Rhode Island, 1842; Connecticut, 1818; New York, 1777; New Jersey, 1776; Pennsylvania, 1776; Delaware, 1776; Maryland, (the first form of government was partly by the proprietors and partly by the people) the first popular constitution was adopted in 1776; Virginia, in 1776; North Carolina, 1776; South Carolina, 1776; Georgia, 1777; Rhode Island and Connecticut acted under their colonial charters after the adoption of the constitution of the United States. The States were not subject to any higher political power, each state being sovereign.-1 Kent Comm. vol. 1, p. 208; Vattel's Law of Nations, book 1, chapter 3, pp. 8, 9, 10, 11. Book 1, chap. 1, pp. 2-3, chap. 4, pp. 12 and 13. 4 Ohio Rep. pp. 294-308. From the above, it will appear that the thirteen colonies or states, though their forms of government differed in some respects, were democratic, for they claimed that the people were the source of all political power. The principle that all political power is inherent in the people was adopted by the several state constitutions. We have said that the forms of government were different in the several colonies

at the adoption of the Declaration of Independence; the same can be said of the present state governments. The present state governments are more liberal than they were before the adoption of the constitution of the United States. For before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all of the States, except Pennsylvania, required a property qualification for the executive office, as well as for members of both houses of the legislature. Under the colonial governments of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, the governor was elected by the state legislature. The judiciary of the several States were appointed either by the legislature, the governor and council, or by the governor by and with the consent of the senate and in some States by the governor and assembly and in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia by the legislature on joint ballot. Some of the old States still clung to the old system of appointing the judiciary, but New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and most of the Western States elect their judges. We have in another place said that New England had established church and state and that religion was supported by the taxes of the people, and that in some States education was compulsory.De Tocqueville, p. 23. In 1693, the Episcopal religion was established by law in the province of New York.-Constitutions of the States, p. 142. Virginia established the Church of England, and the parsons collected tithes, the same in South Carolina.-Constitutions of States, 266. Naturalization laws were passed by the several states before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In Pennsylvania, the act of the British Parliament passed in the 13th year of the reign of George II, Chapter VII, furnished the rule for the naturalization of "all persons being Protestants, etc., who resided for the space of seven years or more within the province by taking the abjuration oath shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be the king's natural-born subjects of this province, to all intents." (See Dallas, ed. Penn. Laws, vol. 1. This law excluded the Catholics from the privileges of naturalized citizens or subjects. In New York it was provided that naturalized citizens should take the following oath, to wit: "To abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjugation to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and state in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil." This, says Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, vol. 2, p. 73, was intended to exclude Roman Catholics from the benefits of naturalization, who acknowledged the spiritual supremacy of the pope.-Kent's Com. vol. 2, p. 73. The State of Maryland passed the following act on the subject of naturalization, in July, 1779. "Be it enacted by the general assembly of Maryland, that every person who shall hereafter come into this State from any nation, kingdom, or state, and shall repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion, and take, repeat, and subscribe the following oath, to wit: 'I do swear that I will hereafter become a subject of the State of Maryland, and will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to said State, and that I do not hold myself bound to yield allegiance or obedience to any king or prince or any state or government,' shall thereafter be adjudged, deemed, and taken to be a natural-born subject of this state." By act of the assembly of Georgia, Feb. 7, 1785, an alien "who hath resided at least twelve months in the same, and after the expiration thereof, doth obtain from the Grand Jury of the county where he resided, a certificate, purporting that he hath deneaned himself as an honest man, and a friend of the government of the State," may become a citizen of the State by taking the oath of allegiance provided that no such person (alien-born,) thus made a citizen, shall be a member of the general assembly, or of the executive council, or shall hold any office of trust or profit, or vote for

members of the general assembly, for the term of seven years, and until the legislature shall, by special act for that purpose, enable such person so to do. And provided also, that all such aliens, or persons aforesaid, shall be subject and liable to pay such alien duties as have been heretofore, or may hereafter be imposed by the legislature.-See Watkin's Digest Laws of Georgia, pp. 312-3. It was provided in North Carolina "that every foreigner who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or, by other just means, acquire, hold, and transfer land, or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free citizen." In Massachusetts, an act was passed, in 1777, that persons born abroad and coming into the State after 1776, and before 1783, and remaining there voluntarily, were deemed citizens of the state.-2 Pick. Rep. 394. The supreme court of Connecticut adopted the same rule without the aid of the legislature. It was held, that a British soldier, who came over with the British army in 1775 and deserted, and came and settled in Connecticut, in 1778, and remained there afterwards, became a citizen of the United States.--5, Day's Rep. p. 169. Held by the Attorney General of the United States, Wm. Wirt, in 1821, that all free white persons born and residing in the United States are citizens of the United States.-Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States vol. 1, pp. 382, 383, 384.-2 Kent's Comm. p. 1. We insert a few extracts from the decisions of the courts of Massachusetts on the subject. "An alien is one born without the allegiance of the commonwealth.--Anslie v. Martin. 9 Mass. R. p. 459. "A person, born within the territory, of which the commonwealth of Massachusetts is now sovereign, although he were born before the Declaration of Independence, cannot be considered an alien unless he have been expatriated by virtue of some statute judgment at law; for by his birth he owes allegiance to the commonweaith, as the successor of the former sovereign, who had abdicated his throne."-Martin v. Woods, 9 Mass. Rep. 377. "A native of Massachusetts, leaving his county after the commencement of hostilities with Great Britain in 1775, and voluntarily remaining with the British until after the close of the war, thereby became an alien."-Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. Rep. 179. A person leaving this country after the commencement of the revolutionary war and going to the British territories, and residing therein for several years, and afterwards returning to the United States, before the treaty of peace, without having been legally disfranchised by judgment of court, retains his right as a citizen of the United States." Kilham v. Ward & al. II. Mass. R. 236. Gardner v. Ward & al. II. Mass. R. 244. "The act of April 30, 1779, for confiscating the estates of absentees, does not take away the rights of citizenship from a person, who has not been prosecuted and convicted under it."-Ibid. "A person, who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state, for commercial purposes, is to be considered, to all civil purposes, as much an alien enemy, as if he were born there."-Hutchinson v. Brock, 9 Mass. R. 119. "Where a person, who was born in the colony of Connecticut, before the commencement of the revolutionary war, removed to the British dominions, where he remained until after the treaty of peace, he was considered an alien."-The Inh. Manchesterv. Inh. Boston. 16 Mass. 230. "The statutes of the United States--7 Congr. 1 sess. c. 23, sec. 4. provides that the children of all such persons, as now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall be citizens, whether born within the United States or not." This provision does not extend to children born of parents, who had quit this country before the Declaration of Independence; as the term, citizens of the United States, must be understood to intend those who were citizens of a state, as much, after the Union had commenced, and the several states had assumed

66

66

theirsovereignties."-Inh. Manchester v. Inh. Boston, 16 Mass. R. 230. "An alien can purchase real estate, and can hold against all, except the commonwealth, and can be divested only by office found, and until office found, can convey."-Sheaffe v. O'Neil, 1 Mass. R. 256. Storer v. Boston, 8 Mass. R. 431. Fox v. Southack & al. 12 Mass. R. 143. "An alien, other than a British subject, is not capable of holding and conveying lands.--Commonwealth v. Sheaffe, 6 Mass. R. 441. Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial District, 7 Mass. 523. But by the ninth article of the treaty of 1794, which seems to be a stipulation, which cannot be dissolved by any subsequent event, British subjects, who then held lands within the United States, might continue to hold them, according to the nature and tenure of their estates and titles therein; and might grant, sell or devise the same to whom they would, in like manner as if they were natives."-Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, Fox v. Southack & al. 12 Mass. 143. "An alien is liable to taxation; but, by the payment of taxes, he acquires no political right whatever."-Opinion of the Justices of the Sup. Jud. Court, 7 Mass. R. 523. Thus, if a person, born an alien, be naturalized, he will be placed upon the same ground, as if born a citizen."-Ibid. "So, if a person, born within the allegiance of the King of England, and without the allegiance of the Commonwealth, were an inhabitant of the Commonwealth, at the ratification of the treaty of peace between Great Britain, in 1783, he will be entitled to the privileges of citizenship."-Ibid. "So, if a person be a citizen of some other of the United States, he will be entitled, by the Federal constitution, to the privileges of citizens within the state."-Ibid. "Natural born citizens may inherit and make their titles by descent, from any of their alien ancestors, lineal or collateral."-Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179. "If an alien be found within this state, he will be liable to be sued in the courts of the state, upon his personal contracts, wherever they may have been made."-Barrett v. Benjamin, 15 Mass. Rep. 354. "The citizens of any of the United States have the same rights and privileges in the courts of this state, which belong to its own citizens.-Ibid. We here give extracts from the rulings of the supreme court of the United States as to who are and who are not aliens.-" One born in England before the year 1775, and who always resided there, and never was in the United States, is an alien, and could not, in 1795, take lands in Maryland by descent from a citizen of the United States."-Dawson's Lessee v. Godfrey, 4 Cranch, 321. 7 Wheaton, 535. Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 7 Cranch, 603. "The allegiance which was formerly due from the people of this country to the sovereign of Great Britain, was transferred by the American revolution to the government of their own country. On the 4th of October, 1776, the state of New Jersey being an organized and independent government, had a right to compel the inhabitants of the state to become citizens thereof; and the legislature asserted this right by an act passed on the 4th of June, 1777. A person, therefore, born in New Jersey before the year 1775, and residing there until the year 1777, and then joining the British army, and ever afterwards claiming to be a British subject, may take lands by descent in New Jersey State, that having a right to his allegiance, and the power to compel his services as a citizen."-McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209. "The treaty of peace of 1783, between the United States and Great Britain did not so operate upon the condition of a person in the above predicament as to make him become an alien to the State of New Jersey, in consequence of his election then made to become a subject of the king, and his subsequent conduct confirming the election; the laws of the state which had made him a citizen being still in full force, and not repealed, or in any manner affected by the treaty."—Ibid. "The concessions in the treaty of

peace of 1783, on the part of his Britannic Majesty, amounted to a formal renunciation of all claim to the allegiance of the citizens of the United States; but the question, who were at that period citizens, was necessarily left to depend upon the laws of the respective states, who, in their sovereign capacities, had acted authoritatively upon the subject. It left all such persons in the situation it found them, neither making those citizens who had by the laws of any state been declared aliens, nor releasing from their allegiance any who had become and were claimed as citizens."-Ibid. Persons who, having been born in this country, left it before the Declaration of Independence and never returned, are aliens, and incapable of taking land by descent.-Inglis v. the Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Peters 99. "The English and American courts have, however, established different rules as to the time at which American antenati ceased to be British subjects. The American rule is to take the date of the Declaration of Independence; the English rule is to take the date of the treaty of peace, prima facie, and as a general rule, the character in which American ante nati will be considered by our courts, must depend upon the situation of the party, and the election made by him, at the date of the Declaration of Independence. But this general rule must be controlled by special circumstances attending particular cases. To say that the election must always have been made before, or immediately at the Declaration of Independence, would render the right nugatory."-Ibid. "A person born in the city of New York before the 4th of July, 1776, and remaining there an infant under the custody of his father, during the period of its occupation by the British troops, and who, after the treaty of peace, was carried by his father, an American loyalist, to England, and never returned to the United States, must be considered as an alien, and incapable of inheriting land in the State of New York." -Inglis v. The Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Peters 99. "If such person had been born after the 4th of July, 1776, and before the 15th of September, when the British troops took possession of the city and adjacent places, his infancy would have incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character would follow that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority."-Ibid. "A. S. was born in South Carolina before the Declaration of Independence: her father at the time, and remaining until his death, in 1782, a citizen of that state, she married J. S., an officer of the British army at that time in possession of Charleston. Upon the evacuation of this city in 1782, she went with her husband to England, and there remained until her death in 1806. Her age and death of her father did not appear. Held, that she was capable of taking land by descent from her father in 1782, the time of his death. If she was under age, she might be deemed under the circumstances of the case, to hold the citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, and continuing while under age in the family of the father partake of his national character. If she was of age, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. The possession of Charleston by the British was not of a character to change the allegiance of its inhabitants; nor could the marriage of A. S. with an alien produce that effect; marriage changes the civil rights, but does not effect the political character of a feme."-Shanks et als. v. Dupont et als. 3 Peters 242. "The removal of A. S. to England with her husband, after the death of her father, operated as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance to South Carolina, and fixed her future allegiance to the British Crown by the treaty of peace of 1783. Being a British subject, at the time of the peace of 1783-at least, within the view of the British Government-she was embraced by the provisions of that treaty,