A certificate by a competent court that an alien has taken the
oath prescribed by the act respecting naturalization raises a
presumption that the court was satisfied as to the moral character
of the alien and of his attachment to the principles of the
Constitution of the United States, &c. The oath, when taken,
confers the rights of a citizen. It is not necessary that there
should be an order of court admitting him to become a citizen.
The children of persons duly naturalized before 14 April, 1802,
being under age at the time of the naturalization of their parent,
were, if dwelling in the United States, on 14 April, 1802, to be
considered as citizens of the United States.
The case was stated by WASHINGTON, J. in delivering the opinion
of this Court as follows:
"The object of the bill was to rescind a contract made between
the appellant and Robert Gordon, the appellee, for the sale of a
tract of land by the latter to the former, upon the ground of a
defect of title. The facts in the case, which are not disputed,
appear to be as follows. The land which forms the subject of
dispute belonged to James Currie, a citizen of Virginia, who died
seized thereof in fee on 23 April, 1807, intestate, and without
issue. James Currie had one brother of the whole blood named
William who, prior to 14 October, 1795, was a subject of the King
of Great Britain, but who emigrated
Page 10 U. S. 177
to the United States, and on the day last mentioned, at a
district court held at Suffolk, in Virginia, took the oath
prescribed by the act of Congress for entitling himself to the
rights and privileges of a citizen. At the time when this oath was
taken, William Currie had one daughter, Janeta, the wife of the
appellee, who was born in Scotland. She came to the United States
in October, 1797, whilst an infant, during the life of her father,
and hath ever since continued to reside in the State of Virginia.
William Currie died prior to the 23d of April, 1807. "
Page 10 U. S. 181
WASHINGTON, J. after stating the case as before mentioned,
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
The title of the appellees to the land in question being
disputed only upon the ground of the alienage of the female
appellee, the Court takes it for granted that there is no other
objection to its validity. It is contended by the counsel for the
appellant that Janeta, who claims as heir to James Currie, is an
alien inasmuch as she has by no act of her own entitled herself to
the rights and privileges of a citizen, and cannot claim those
rights in virtue of her migration to the United States and of any
acts performed by her father. first because her father was not duly
naturalized, and secondly because if he were, she was not, at the
time of her father's naturalization, dwelling within the United
States.
Page 10 U. S. 182
In support of the first objection, it is contended that although
the oath prescribed by the second section of the act of Congress
entitled "An act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and
to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject," passed 29
January, 1795, was administered to the said William Currie by a
court of competent jurisdiction, still it does not appear by the
certificate granted to him by the court and appearing in the record
that he was by the judgment of the court admitted a citizen, or
that the court was satisfied that during the term of two years
mentioned in the same section he had behaved as a man of good moral
character, attached to the Constitution of the United States and
well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.
It is true that this requisite to his admission is not stated in
the certificate, but it is the opinion of this Court that the court
of Suffolk must have been satisfied as to the character of the
applicant, or otherwise a certificate, that the oath prescribed by
law had been taken would not have been granted.
It is unnecessary to decide whether, in the order of time, this
satisfaction as to the character of the applicant must be first
given, or whether it may not be required after the oath is
administered, and if not then given, whether a certificate of
naturalization may not be withheld. But if the oath be administered
and nothing appears to the contrary, it must be presumed that the
court before which the oath was taken was satisfied as to the
character of the applicant. The oath, when taken, confers upon him
the rights of a citizen, and amounts to a judgment of the court for
his admission to those rights. It is therefore the unanimous
opinion of the Court that William Currie was duly naturalized.
The next question to be decided is whether the naturalization of
William Currie conferred upon his daughter the rights of a citizen
after her coming to and residing within the United States, she
having been
Page 10 U. S. 183
a resident in a foreign country at the time when her father was
naturalized.
Whatever difficulty might exist as to the construction of the
third section of the Act of 29 January, 1795, in relation to this
point, it is conceived that the rights of citizenship were clearly
conferred upon the female appellee by the fourth section of the Act
of 14 April, 1802.
This act declares that the children of persons duly naturalized
under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of
21 years at the time of their parent's being so naturalized, shall,
if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the
United States. This is precisely the case of Mrs. Gordon. Her
father was duly naturalized, at which time she was an infant, but
she came to the United States before the year 1802, and was at the
time when this law passed dwelling within the United States.
It is therefore the unanimous opinion of the Court that at the
time of the death of James Currie, Mrs. Gordon was entitled to all
the right and privilege of a citizen, and therefore that there is
no error in the decree of the Circuit Court for the District of
Virginia, which is to be
Affirmed with costs.
