In re Rodriguez

• Decision Date: 03 May 1897
• Parties: In re RODRIGUEZ.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

81 F. 337

In re RODRIGUEZ.

United States District Court, W.D. Texas.

May 3, 1897

At the May term, 1896, of this court, Ricardo Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, filed an application, in due form, by which he sought to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Two affidavits, embodying the essential requisites prescribed by the naturalization laws, accompanied the application, and also a copy of the affidavit made by the applicant, and filed in the county court of Bexar county, Tex., January 25, 1893 in which he declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States.

At the hearing of the application, two attorneys of the court, Mr A. J. Evans and Mr. T. J. McMinn, appeared for the purpose of contesting the same, and filed a paper setting forth the ground of their opposition, of which the following is a copy 'Come now the undersigned, as amici curiae, and respectfully suggest to the court that the applicant, Ricardo Rodriguez, is ineligible to citizenship, for this, to wit that he is not a white person, nor an African, nor of African descent, and is therefore not capable of becoming an American citizen, and of this they ask the judgment of the court ' In addition to the supporting affidavits filed with the application, the testimony of the applicant and J. G. Fisk was taken in open court. From the proofs on file it appears that the applicant is a citizen of Mexico by birth, having been born in the state of Guanajuato, about thirty-seven years ago. He is a very ignorant and illiterate man, not being able to read or write either English or Spanish. He speaks the latter tongue as it is spoken by others of his class and humble condition of life. It appears from his own statement that he traces his descent from neither the Spaniards nor Africans. As to color, he may be classed with the copper-colored or red men. He has dark eyes, straight black hair, and high cheek bones. He knows nothing of the Aztecs or Toltecs. He is not an Indian, and his parents informed him that he was a Mexican, and he claims to be 'a pure-blooded Mexican.' To extract from the applicant what knowledge he possessed concerning himself, counsel propounded, among others, the following questions: 'Q. Do you not believe that you belong to the original Aztec race in Mexico? A. No, sir. Q. Do you belong to the aborigines or original races of Mexico? A. No, sir. Q. Where did your race come from? Spain? A. No, sir. Q. Where did your race come from? A. I do not know where they came from. Q. Does your family claim any religion? What religion do they profess? A. Catholic religion. ' The supporting affidavits show upon their face that the applicant is 'attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. ' The inability of the applicant, made manifest upon his examination, to explain the nature of those principles, may well be attributed to his illiteracy. The testimony of J. G. Fisk, in support of the application, is here inserted at length: 'Q. I see by your affidavit that you are acquainted with this applicant. A. Yes, sir. Q. And have been acquainted with him for how long? A. I couldn't say exactly, but it has been in the neighborhood of ten years. Q. Well, do you know anything about his ancestry? A. No, sir; no more than judging by his appearance, and about what he had told me previously,-- that he was of pure blood. Q. I see that you make an affidavit in which you say he is of good moral character, and attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States. A. Well, I have known the man for a good while. Q. What reasons did you have for saying that he was attached to the principles of the constitution? What induced you to say that he was attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States? Did you have any intimation that he had any knowledge of the principles of the constitution of the United States? A. Not exactly, but I know the man. I know that he is a good man, and know that if, whatever the principles of the constitution of the United States might be, that he would uphold them if he knew what they were. Q. You say that you have known him for about ten years? A. In the neighborhood of ten years. Q. Has he been a peaceable citizen? A. Yes, sir; a very good man. Q. A hard-working citizen? A. Yes, sir. Q. Any children,-- a man of family? A. A wife; no children. Q. Do you know what his occupation has been? A. He has been working for the city a greater part of the time; that is, working on the ditches, cleaning the ditches and river. Q. A man of good moral character? A. Yes, sir. Q. A good, law-abiding citizen? A. Yes, sir; to a remarkable degree.'

Brief of T. M. Paschal:

As a member of the committee to whom has been referred by the court the application of Ricardo Rodriguez, a citizen of the republic of Mexico, to be granted final letters of citizenship, for an opinion touching the eligibility of the applicant under the constitution and laws of the United States and the testimony offered in support of said application, I beg leave to submit the following preparatory observations, views, and conclusions in the premises, the same having been formed and arrived at without previous conference, consultation, or comparison with my associate brothers of the committee, deeming it more likely that conclusions thus independently reached would be more nearly correct than would those actuated, more or less, by a desire for mere unanimity, such as preconcert usually inspires:

I believe I speak within a record for official action and public and official utterance when I suggest to this court that I realize the peril that confronts the free republican institutions of our country by a loose, indiscriminate--indeed, a criminally negligent-- administration of our extraordinarily liberal and lenient naturalization laws. To say that the peril becomes more grave with each succeeding year is to affirm that which must be apparent to every thoughtful, intelligent, and patriotic citizen, natural or naturalized. In fact, under a system of government where the people make, interpret, and execute the laws, their reasonable intelligence, education, and virtue are indispensable prerequisites to the preservation and transmission of civil liberty and republican institutions. Patriotism, in its highest and truest sense, in a republic, cannot exist unless resting securely upon this trio of cardinal qualities. It is true that a low form, or germ, of patriotism, that leads primitive man to defend his home, however humble or rude, may exist, and, under a monarchy more or less absolute, would suffice, without the qualities referred to, in so high a degree, at least; but where wise and just laws are to be framed to-day, to meet the complex existing conditions of a mighty republic, and to-morrow must needs be modified or repealed, to meet still more complex industrial, economic, or political changes, and yet avoid a conflict with organic state or federal law, it will readily be conceded that no graver responsibility rests upon jurist, legislator, or citizen of that republic than to see to it, within their several spheres, that the greatest practicable amount of intelligence, education, and morality is diffused among those who are charged with the tremendous responsibility of handing down to posterity, untarnished, our free institutions and best traditions, and, to this end, equally their duty to guard the 'outer and inner door' of the sanctuary of American citizenship, lest those unworthy to wear it should enter.

When our form of government is considered in connection with the duties and functions of citizenship therein, we will find a polar star by which we may be guided in our interpretation of every clause of our naturalization laws, where judicial interpretation, legislative enactment, or diplomatic recognition has left the same in doubt, if not in fact obnoxious to criticism. It is the right of each nation to establish the forms and requisites for the naturalization of aliens, and to determine what acts must be done in order to acquire the new nationality. To fix the conditions in accordance with which an individual may be admitted to form part of a society cannot be the attribute of any power except the rules of such society, and it is, for the same reason, the natural and peculiar privilege of each nation to point out who may be naturalized, and by what means. Martin's Case, before Mixed Commission on Mexican & American Claims Treaty of July 10, 1868.

Citizenship may be acquired in one of the following ways, and no other (1) By birth; (2) by compliance with our naturalization laws; (3) by constitutional amendment; (4) by collective naturalization, as where a country or province becomes incorporated in another country by conquest, cession, or free gift, and the treaty which ratifies such annexation usually provides for allowing the residents within the annexed territory a certain time within which to decide and take steps to preserve the nationality of his origin, and thus to defeat naturalization by annexation. J. C. Bancroft Davis, 1 Phillimane Internat. Law, p. 382; Pasch. Ann. Const. p. 222; 13 Ops.Attys.Gen. 397, Akerman. Illustrations of naturalization collectively or by treaty are found in the cases of those who were born in the colonies, or who resided here prior to 1776, and who adhered to the cause of independence. Again, in 1819 (October 24th) the inhabitants of Florida who adhered to the United States, and remained in the country, were by treaty of that date made citizens. All persons who were citizens of Texas at the date of annexation, December 29, 1848, became citizens of the United States by virtue of collective naturalization effected by the act of that...