The second section of the act of Congress "to establish an
uniform system of naturalization," passed in 1802, requires that
every person desirous of being naturalized shall make report of
himself to the clerk of the district court of the district where he
shall arrive, or some other court of record in the United States,
which report is to be recorded and a certificate of the same given
to such alien, and
"which certificate shall be exhibited to the court by every
alien who may arrive in the United States after the passing of the
act, on his application to be naturalized, as evidence of the time
of his arrival within the United States."
James Spratt arrived in the United States after the passing of
this act, and was under the obligation to report himself according
to its provisions. The law does not require that the report shall
have been made five years before the application for
naturalization. The third condition of the first section of the
law, which declares that the court admitting an alien to become a
citizen "shall be satisfied that he has resided five years in the
United States," &c., does not prescribe the evidence which
shall be satisfactory. The report is required by the law to be
exhibited on the application for naturalization as evidence of the
time of arrival in the United States. The law does not say the
report shall be the sole evidence, nor does it require that the
alien shall report himself within any limited time after arrival.
Five years may intervene
between the time of arrival and the report, and yet the report
be valid. The report is undoubtedly conclusive evidence of the
arrival, but it is not made by the law the only evidence of that
fact.
James Spratt was admitted a citizen of the United States by the
Circuit Court for the County of Washington in the District of
Columbia, and obtained a certificate of the same in the usual form.
The act of the court admitting James Spratt as a citizen was a
judgment of the circuit court, and this Court cannot look behind it
and inquire on what testimony it was pronounced.
The various acts on the subject of naturalization submit the
decision upon the right of aliens to courts of record. They are to
receive testimony, to compare it with the law, and to judge on both
law and fact. If their judgment is entered on record in legal form,
it closes all inquiry, and like any other judgment, is complete
evidence of its own validity.
The act of the Legislature of Maryland of 1791, which authorizes
the descent to alien heirs of lands held by aliens under "deed or
will" in that part of the District of Columbia which was ceded to
the United States by the State of Maryland does not authorize the
descent to such heirs of land in that part of the district, which
was purchased by an alien at a sale made under an order of the
court of chancery and for which no deed was executed before the
purchaser became a citizen of the United States or before his
decease.
Page 29 U. S. 394
The plaintiff, Thomas Spratt, instituted in the circuit court an
action of replevin, the defendant, as the administratrix of James
Spratt, having levied a distress on the property of the plaintiff
for rent claimed to be due for a house occupied by him in the City
of Washington and to which he claimed title in himself and in the
brothers and sisters of James Spratt, deceased. It was agreed by
the counsel that the title to the house and lot of ground upon
which the same is erected should be determined upon the following
stated facts:
Thomas Spratt, Andrew Spratt, Sarah Spratt and Catharine Spratt
are brothers and sisters of the whole blood of James Spratt the
intestate, and are natives of Ireland and subjects of the King of
Great Britain, and were not, before the institution of this suit,
naturalized as citizens of the United States, and but one of them,
Thomas Spratt, and the deceased, James Spratt, ever came to the
United States. James Spratt was also a native of Ireland, and came
to the United States sometime before 18 June, 1812, from which time
he continued to reside in the United States until March, 1824, when
he died without issue, leaving Sarah Spratt his widow, who became
the administratrix to his estate.
James Spratt, on 17 May, 1817, appeared in the Circuit Court of
the District of Columbia for the County of Washington, and before
the court made the declaration on oath required by the first
condition of the first section of the Act to Establish an Uniform
System of Naturalization, &c., passed 14 April, 1802, which
proceeding was recorded in the minutes of the court's proceedings,
and a certificate thereof, under the hand of the clerk and the seal
of the court, on the same day given to James Spratt; he having, on
14 April then next preceding, made report of himself to the clerk
of the circuit court, as stated in the certificate; which report
was recorded in the office the said clerk, and the certificate of
such report and registry, and of the declaration on oath, having
been granted by the clerk to him. On 11 October, 1821, James Spratt
made application to the said circuit court to be admitted a citizen
of the United States, and was on the same day admitted
Page 29 U. S. 395
by the court to become a citizen of the United States, as
appears by the record of the proceedings of the court upon the
matter of the said application, a certificate whereof, under the
hand of the clerk and the seal of the court, was afterwards given
by the clerk to him and is part of the case.
Sarah Spratt was also a native of Ireland and a native-born
subject of the King of England; she emigrated to the United States
before James Spratt, and has continually from the time of her
emigration resided in the United States, and before his
naturalization was lawfully married to him, and lived with him as
his lawful wife from their marriage till his death in March, 1824,
and was his wife at and before the time of his said naturalization,
but has not been naturalized as a citizen of the United States
pursuant to the act of Congress unless so naturalized by the
naturalization of her husband.
On 9 June, 1825, the plaintiff and his brothers and sisters,
claiming as heirs at law of James Spratt, brought their action of
ejectment in this Court against Sarah Spratt to recover possession
of sundry of the lands and tenements whereof James Spratt died
seized in fee, not including the messuage and tenement in this
suit, in which suit (the same having been duly prosecuted and put
to issue) such proceedings were had that the title of Thomas Spratt
was duly submitted to the consideration and judgment of the court
upon a case agreed and stated between the parties, to be taken and
considered as a special verdict, upon which the court gave judgment
for Sarah Spratt, whereupon a writ of error was sued out to the
Supreme Court of the United States, where the judgment was
reexamined as appears in
26 U. S. 1 Pet.
343, which is part of the case.
In the matter of a suit in the Circuit Court of the County of
Washington by one of the creditors of Simon Meade, deceased, Joseph
Forrest was appointed to make sale of certain real estate of Simon
Meade, and after having set up the same for public sale, to return
the sale to the court for confirmation, and having on 21 May, 1821,
set
Page 29 U. S. 396
up the estate on terms specified, by which the purchase money
was to be paid in four installments at six, twelve, eighteen, and
twenty-four months, and that a conveyance of the property should be
made to the purchaser on the ratification of the sale by the court.
The house and lot in question in this case were purchased by James
Spratt, and on 21 October, 1821, the trustee returned the sale to
the court. On 24 December, 1822, an interlocutory order was made
for the ratification of the report of the sale, and in January,
1824, a final ratification of the sale was passed by the court.
James Spratt, after his naturalization and not before, paid the
purchase money for the property by the installments, with interest,
but no deed of conveyance of the same was ever executed to him, and
he died invested with no other title to the premises in controversy
but what he acquired by the sale at auction, the written
memorandum, report, and ratification thereof, and the payment of
the purchase money.
In the statement of the case thus agreed, there was inserted the
following memorandum, which was signed by the counsel for the
parties in the cause:
"It is understood, however, that the plaintiff does not admit,
but denies, that the proceeding and evidence touching the
naturalization of James Spratt, or any part of the same, do purport
to be or to show a due and legal naturalization of James Spratt as
a citizen of the United States, and maintains that the manner and
process of such pretended naturalization appears from such
proceedings and evidence to have been irregular and void, unless
such proceedings and evidence, or any part of the same, be held by
the court to be conclusive in this case, that he was duly and
legally naturalized as such citizen. While the defendant and
avowant, on the other hand, maintains that no defect or
irregularity appears in the manner and process of such
naturalization; that the manner and process of the same in its
preliminary stages are not examinable in this case, but that the
admission of James Spratt to become a citizen of the United States,
as it appears in the record and certificate thereof, is either
substantively or in connection with the other evidence
Page 29 U. S. 397
thereof, conclusive of his due naturalization as such citizen,
all which matters are understood and agreed to be involved in the
question of title and to be accordingly reserved for the
consideration and judgment of the court upon the premises."
The declaration for naturalization made by James Spratt, was in
the following terms:
"James Spratt, a native of Ireland, aged about twenty-six years,
bearing allegiance to the King of Great Britain and Ireland, who
emigrated from Ireland and arrived in the United States on 1 June,
1812, and intends to reside within the jurisdiction and under the
government of the United States, makes report of himself for
naturalization according to the acts of Congress in that case made
and provided 14 April, anno domini 1817, in the clerk's office of
the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia for the County of
Washington, and on 14 May 1817, the said James Spratt personally
appeared in open court and declared on oath that it is
bona
fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States
and to renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign
prince, &c."
"W. BRENT, Clerk"
The record of the proceedings of the circuit court on the
naturalization of James Spratt is in the following terms:
"At a Circuit Court of the District of Columbia begun and held
in and for the County of Washington at the City of Washington on
the first Monday of October, being the 1st day of the same month in
the year of our Lord 1821, and of the independence of the United
States the forty-sixth."
"James Spratt, a native of Ireland, aged about thirty years,
having heretofore, to-wit, on 14 May, 1817, declared, on oath in
open court that it was
bona fide his intention to become a
citizen of the United States and to renounce forever all allegiance
and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty whatever, and particularly to the King of the united
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
"And it now appearing to the satisfaction of the court by
Page 29 U. S. 398
the testimony of two witnesses, citizens of the United States,
to-wit, Samuel N. Smallwood and Jonathan Prout, that the said James
Spratt hath resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of
the United States for five years at least last past and within the
County of Washington one year at least last past, and that during
the whole of that time he hath behaved as a man of good moral
character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the
United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of
the same -- the said James Spratt is thereupon admitted a citizen
of the United States, having taken the oath"
" That he will support the Constitution of the United States,
and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state,
or sovereignty whatever, and particularly to the King of the united
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to whom he was before a
subject."
"11 October, 1821."
A certificate in due form, corresponding with this record, was
given to James Spratt.
Page 29 U. S. 403
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This case depends entirely on the title of the defendant in
error to the premises in the avowry mentioned, who is one of the
brothers and heirs of James Spratt, deceased.
James Spratt was a native of Ireland who arrived in the United
States previous to 18 June, 1812, and resided therein until his
death. On 14 April in the year 1817, he made report of himself to
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the
District of Columbia in the County of Washington, which report was
recorded, and, on 17 May thereafter he appeared in the same court
and made the declaration on oath required by the first condition of
the first section of the act "to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization," &c., passed 14 April, 1802, which proceeding
was recorded and a certificate thereof granted in the following
words:
"District of Columbia, to-wit: James Spratt, a native of
Ireland, aged about twenty-six years, bearing allegiance to the
King of Great Britain and Ireland, who emigrated from Ireland and
arrived in the United States on 1 June, 1812, and intends to reside
within the jurisdiction and under the government of the United
States, makes report of himself for naturalization according to the
acts of Congress in that case made and provided, 14 April, 1817, in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
for the County of Washington, and on 14 May, 1817, the said James
Spratt personally appeared in open court and declared on oath that
it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States and
to
Page 29 U. S. 404
renounce all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign
prince,"
&c.
This certificate was given under the hand and seal of the clerk.
On 11 October, 1821, James Spratt again appeared in open court and
took the oath required by law, and was admitted as a citizen. The
certificate of his admission states that the three first conditions
required by the Act of 14 April, 1802, had been complied with.
The said James Spratt intermarried with the plaintiff in error,
Sarah Spratt and departed this life in March, 1824, without issue
and intestate. The plaintiff in replevin is a native born subject
of the King of Great Britain and Ireland, and was not naturalized
at the time of the institution of this suit.
In the year 1791, the State of Maryland passed an act entitled
"An act concerning the Territory of Columbia and the City of
Washington," the sixth section of which provides
"That any foreigner may, by deed or will, to be hereafter made,
take and hold lands within that part of the said territory which
lies within this state in the same manner as if he was a citizen of
this state, and the same lands may be conveyed by him and
transmitted to and be inherited by his heirs or relations as if he
and they were citizens of this state."
This act continues in force.
A decree was made by the circuit court for the sale of the
estate of Simon Meade, deceased, to satisfy his creditors on
certain conditions therein specified. In pursuance of this decree,
Joseph Forrest, who was appointed to carry the same into execution,
did, on 21 May, 1821, offer the real estate of the said Simon Meade
for sale on the terms and conditions following, to-wit, that the
purchase money should be paid in four equal installments, at six,
twelve, eighteen, and twenty-four months, respectively, from the
day of sale, with interest, and that a conveyance of the property
in fee simple should be made to the purchaser upon the ratification
of the sale by the court, and the payment of all the said
installments of the purchase money with interest. At this sale, the
said
Page 29 U. S. 405
James Spratt became the purchaser of the lot in the avowry
mentioned. On 15 October, 1821 the said Joseph Forrest made his
report to the court, and on 24 December, 1822, an interlocutory
decree was made for confirming the sale, and on 26 January, 1824,
the final decree of confirmation was passed. No deed was executed
during the lifetime of the said James Spratt. The bidding at the
sale was made while the said James Spratt was an alien, but before
any other step was taken, he became a citizen.
Upon this state of facts, the circuit court gave judgment for
the plaintiff in replevin, which judgment has been brought before
this Court by writ of error.
This cause has been argued very elaborately by counsel. It
appears to the court to depend essentially on two questions.
1. Was James Spratt a citizen of the United States?
2. If he became a citizen, did the premises in the avowry
mentioned pass to his alien relations who are his next of kin?
1. The first question depends on the act of 1802, for
establishing an uniform rule of naturalization. The act declares
that an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United
States "on the following conditions, and not otherwise." The act
then prescribes four conditions, the three first of which were
applicable to James Spratt, and were literally observed.
The second section enacts
"That in addition to the directions aforesaid, all free white
persons, being aliens, who may arrive in the United States after
the passing of this act shall, in order to become citizens of the
United States, make registry and obtain certificates in the
following manner, to-wit, every person desirous of being
naturalized shall, if of the age of twenty-one years, make report
of himself, &c."
The law then directs what the contents of the report shall be,
orders it to be recorded and that a certificate thereof shall be
granted to the person making the report
"which certificate shall be exhibited to the court by every
alien who may arrive in the United States after the passing of this
act, on his
Page 29 U. S. 406
application to be naturalized, as evidence of the time of his
arrival within the United States."
As James Spratt arrived within the United States after the
passage of the act of 1802, he is embraced by the second section of
that act, and was under the necessity of reporting himself to the
clerk, as that section requires. Must this report be made five
years before he can be admitted as a citizen?
The law does not in terms require it. The third condition of the
first section provides "that the court admitting such alien shall
be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five
years at least," but does not prescribe the testimony which shall
be satisfactory. This section was in force when James Spratt was
admitted to become a citizen, and was applicable to his case. But
the second section requires in addition that he shall report
himself in the manner prescribed by that section, and requires that
such report shall be exhibited, "on his application to be
naturalized as evidence of the time of his arrival within the
United States." The law does not say that this report shall be the
sole evidence, nor does it require that the alien shall report
himself within any limited time after his arrival. Five years may
intervene between his arrival and report, and yet the report will
be valid. The report is undoubtedly conclusive evidence of the
arrival, and must be so received by the court; but if the law
intended to make it the only admissible evidence and to exclude the
proof which had been held sufficient that intention ought to have
been expressed. Yet the inference is very strong from the language
of the act that the time of arrival must be proved by this report
and that a court, about to admit an alien to the rights of
citizenship, ought to require its production.
But is it anything more than evidence which ought indeed to be
required to satisfy the judgment of the court, but the want of
which cannot annual that judgment? The judgment has been rendered
in a form which is unexceptionable. Can we look behind it and
inquire on what testimony it was pronounced?
Page 29 U. S. 407
The act does not require that the report shall be mentioned in
the judgment of the court or shall form a part of the certificate
of citizenship. The judgment and certificate are valid, though they
do not allude to it. This furnishes reason for the opinion that the
act directed this report as evidence for the court, but did not
mean that the act of admitting the alien to become a citizen should
be subject to revision at all times afterwards, and to be declared
a nullity if the report of arrival should not have been made five
years previous to such admission.
The act of 1816, sec. 6, has, we think, considerable influence
on this question. That act requires that the certificates of report
and registry, required as evidence of the time of arrival in the
United States and of the declaration of intention to become a
citizen,
"shall be exhibited by every alien, on his application to be
admitted a citizen of the United States, who shall have arrived
within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States
since 18 June, 1812, and shall each be recited at full length in
the record of the court admitting such alien, and any pretended
admission of an alien who shall have arrived within the limits and
under the jurisdiction of the United States since the said 18 June
1812, to be a citizen, after the promulgation of this act, without
such recital of each certificate at full length, shall be of no
validity."
James Spratt arrived within the United States previous to 18
June, 1812, and is consequently not within the provisions of the
act of 1816.
This act is not intended to explain the act of 1802, but to add
to its provisions. It prescribes that which the previous law did
not require, and prescribes it for those aliens only who arrive
within the United States after 18 June, 1812. It annuls the
certificates of citizenship which may be granted to such aliens
without the requisite recitals; consequently, without this act,
such certificates would have been valid. The law did not require
the insertion of these recitals in the certificate of James
Spratt.
The various acts upon the subject submit the decision on the
right of aliens to admission as citizens to courts of record.
Page 29 U. S. 408
They are to receive testimony, to compare it with the law, and
to judge on both law and fact. This judgment is entered on record
as the judgment of the court. It seems to us, if it be in legal
form, to close all inquiry, and, like every other judgment, to be
complete evidence of its own validity.
The inconvenience which might arise from this principle has been
pressed upon the Court. But the inconvenience might be still
greater if the opposite opinion be established. It might be
productive of great mischief if, after the acquisition of property
on the faith of his certificate, an individual might be exposed to
the disabilities of an alien on account of an error in the court
not apparent on the record of his admission. We are all of opinion
that James Spratt became a citizen of the United States on 11
October, 1821.
2. Did the property mentioned in the avowry descend to his alien
relations?
Since aliens are incapable of taking by descent, the answer to
this question depends on the enabling act of the State of Maryland
in the year 1791. That act does not enable aliens who may come into
the District of Columbia to transmit all real estate, however
acquired, to their alien relations by descent, but such lands only
as shall be thereafter acquired by deed or will. This is a
qualification of the power which cannot be disregarded. The words
are not senseless, and would not, we must suppose, have been
inserted had they not been intended to operate. They limit the
capacity of an alien to inherit from his alien ancestor residing
within this district to lands which he had taken by deed or will.
It is not for us to weigh the reasons which induced the legislature
to impose this limitation. It is enough for a court of justice to
know that the legislature has imposed it and that it forms part of
the law of the case.
If any equivalent act might be substituted for a deed, no such
equivalent act can be found in this case. The auction at which this
property was sold certainly took place while James Spratt was an
alien, but that the sale was entirely conditional, and the purchase
depended on the payment of
Page 29 U. S. 409
the installments, on the confirmation of the court, and the
final decree of the court. Before the first installment became due,
before even the report was returned to the court, James Spratt
became a citizen. He did not, therefore, while an alien, hold this
land by a deed or by any title equivalent to a deed.
In a controversy between the alien heirs of James Spratt and
Sarah Spratt,
26 U. S. 1 Pet.
343, this Court determined that land which James Spratt took and
held under the enabling act of Maryland descended to his alien
heirs, but that land which he took and held as a citizen did not
pass to those heirs.
The lot mentioned in the avowry comes, we think, within the last
description, and did not descent to the plaintiff in replevin.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause
remanded with directions to enter judgment for the
avowant.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of
Columbia holden in and for the County of Washington and was argued
by counsel, on consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged by
this Court that the judgment of the said circuit court in this
cause be and the same is hereby reversed, and that this cause be
and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court with
instructions to enter judgment in the said court for the avowant in
said cause.
