ralization. Persons thus naturalized are citizens of the United States as aliens naturalized in England or by the law of 1740 were subjects of the King anywhere in the realm or when abroad. But the States may and do confer privileges, such as the suffrage on aliens for local purposes. This corresponds in a way to the local colonial naturalization. This local construction materially affected the privileges of the alien naturalized in the colony, as by the 12 & 13 Car. II, ch. 2, the term English subject was explained to mean persons born in Great Britain, Ireland, or the Plantations, and those naturalized in England. This excluded aliens naturalized in the colonies from the usual trading privileges, which were confined to English subjects by the Acts, or rather would have had the Acts been enforced or had the colonists recognized the distinction. Aliens thus naturalized, who were tried in the courts of admiralty for illegal trading plead the acts of colonial legislatures for their naturalization in extenuation and "the American courts of justice," Chalmers, in his Political Annals, complains "with a still grosser spirit supported their pretensions in opposition to the Acts of Navigation"* It is on this ground of power to trade illegally that most of the bills which met with disallowance at all, were vetoed. The colonists in attempting naturalization drew from their English models. Denization was the first form adopted in the colonies, the letters patent being issued by the governor, under the mistaken opinion that such power was his as the King's deputy. It is found in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and continued until its prohibition at the end of the seventeenth century. The cost of denization was greater than other forms of naturalization. Lord Bellemont complained in 1699 that he could obtain but 12 shillings for his denizations, while his predecessor in New York, Governor Fletcher, received £10 for himself and £5 for the attorney-general. Fees for naturalization in general ranged from 2 to 50 shillings. Cut off from denization, a hybrid species, neither denization nor naturalization was tried. This took the form of naturalization by letters patent issued by the governor, and for which there exists not the slightest warrant, as the governor could have no authority, communicated or otherwise, for naturalization. *Political Annals, pp. 315-317. + Documents relating to Colonial History of New York, IV, 520. Special legislation is found as early as 1666 in Maryland, but the colonies in general did not begin to use it until the beginning of the next century. It continued to be used more and more, supplanting other processes, until at the time of the Revolution it is the only recognized method. Special bills are found in all the colonies but Massachusetts-Bay and South Carolina. In Maryland, foreigners who have been denizated are found applying to the assembly for a naturalization, evidently to preclude the possibility of the disinheritance of their children. It was impossible that all the aliens who took up lands should be sufficiently informed regarding the land laws to seek a naturalization first. There resulted from this practice such a number of defective titles that it was found necessary to remedy the matter by general bills settling their titles en masse. The first remedy was of a rather peculiar nature, being none other than the naturalization of the alien after his decease. The ex post facto nature of this soon brought it into disuse and simple confirmation of title was substituted. No persons were excluded from naturalization in the colonies but Catholics, and even these were naturalized in Rhode Island. Jews had provision made for them in the bills by the usual omission from the oaths of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and Quakers were allowed to affirm. One illustration of another kind of naturalization is found in America-naturalization after conquest. This takes place either by provisions in the treaty or "by act and operation of law." The Dutch and Swedes included in the grant to the Duke of York became English subjects in this manner in 1665. Action in naturalization differs in each colony, yet a similarity exists in each of the three groups, the New England, the Middle, and the Southern. The causes of the homogeneity of the population in New England, climatic, religious, and political, need little mention. Perhaps more effective than all in excluding foreigners was the fact that large grants of land were impossible under the township system. The foreigner was not attracted thither, and had he been, would not have been welcomed. In Massachusetts there is practically no naturalization. Eleven were naturalized by the only law found in the province, that of 1731, and but four can be found who were naturalized under the English law of 1740. Rhode Island, with characteristic independence, seems to have made the admission as freemen a substitute until she adopted special legislation. Connecticut naturalized almost none at all until the other colonies were prohibited in 1773, after which special bills are found. The only naturalization of an Indian is found in Connecticut, in 1695. It was enacted in favor of Abimelech, the grandson of Uncas, the Mohegan chief who had been such a staunch friend of the first Connecticut settlers. It was passed that he might have the protection and use of the courts in a controversy concerning some lands. The bulk of naturalization fell to the Middle colonies, for both there and in the South were found the exact opposites of the features which rendered New England unattractive. New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania naturalized large numbers, and all the methods are illustrated. Maryland was the first colony to extend a welcome to foreigners, in the proclamation of Lord Baltimore in 1648. Naturalization was begun almost immediately and continued without interruption in one form or another, until 1773. In Maryland is found the curious naturalization of children born of foreign parents in the province. Curious, because by the standard by which allegiance was adjudged, i. e., by birth on the royal domain, and also by the terms of the charter, children born in the province were English subjects. It is yet another illustration of the precautionary measures taken to avoid disinheritance of children of an alien. White people of any description were at a premium in the South and foreigners were eagerly welcomed and naturalized except in North Carolina, where little or no naturalization is found. This is peculiar because she had every inducement to do so. The foreigners in the colony were of unexceptionable character; power had been given to the assembly to naturalize in the Articles of Agreement, and at least on one occasion instruction is given by the home authorities to naturalize some foreigners sent there. Furthermore, it was in constant use in the colonies on either side. None, however, is found except an isolated special act and a few in Orange and Rowan counties under the law of 1740. Naturalization in the colonies kept pace with the trend of the state toward republican institutions. It was gradually transferred from the executive to the legislative branch until the only change to be made under the Constitution was from the several legislatures to the national legislature. As in many other instances of colonial legal practice, the feudal features did not take root in American soil. Denization has no place in a republic, but is still one of the prerogatives of the Queen. Naturalization under the Constitution makes the foreigner before the law exactly as if naturally born. Technically, such complete unrestricted naturalization did not exist before the Revolution, though in the colonies the liberality of the colonists or the evasion of English law gave him all the privileges of the native colonist. The disapproval of the latter of the measures taken in England to exclude foreigners from the New World after 1760 was strong enough to find statement among the grievances set forth in the Declaration. Public sentiment was ripe for the foundation of the cosmopolitan state. To one fresh from the study of the development of Teutonic institu. tions through the Anglo-Saxon race, the fact comes as a surprise that a cosmopolitan state was founded and not an England in petto. A more intimate knowledge, however, of the foreign strata of colonial society partially removes this, and leaves a doubt whether a due prominence has hitherto been given in elementary American history, at least, to the fact that such a foundation was possible only by reason of the presence, and strong influence on American institutions of other peoples than the English. One cannot but feel, after studying the naturalization in the colonies, that the present policy of discrimination in nationality, or that any policy of exclusion other than that demanded by the preservation of autonomy, is a departure from the original intention of the founders. They were not exclusively English in origin, and it was not as "We the English in America," but as "We, the people of the United States," that they set about their work and put into verbal form the first cosmopolitan state. |