entation of the law governing the qualifications of locators of mining claims, and the effect of alienage upon the validity of titles during the various stages of transmission from the government, as the primary source, to the ultimate grantee, we are justified in presenting in general outline the laws of congress upon the subject, and the decisions of the courts construing them in cases arising under the mining laws.

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States provides that,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United "States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein 66 they reside."

The clause "subject to the jurisdiction of the United "States" means completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,-owing direct and immediate allegiance.1

They may be citizens of the United States without being citizens of any particular state.2

Neither age nor sex is involved in the definition of the word "citizen." It therefore includes men, women, and children, and, for certain purposes, as we shall have occasion to observe later on, corporations organized under the laws of the several states.* Citizenship is either

(1) By birth; or

(2) By naturalization.

Citizens by birth are those born within the United

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. 'Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall 36; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542.

1 Bouvier's Law Dict., "Citizen."

• See, post, 226.

States, or in a foreign country, if at the time of their birth their fathers were citizens.1

There are certain exceptions to this rule of natural citizenship.

Children born in the United States of ambassadors and diplomatic representatives, whose residence, by a fiction of law, is regarded as a part of their own country, are not citizens.2

Indians born members of any of the Indian tribes within the United States which still hold their tribal relations are not citizens. They are not citizens, even if they have separated themselves from their tribe and reside among white citizens of a state, but have not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as citizens by the United States, or by any of the states.3

To become citizens, they must comply with some treaty providing for their naturalization or some statute authorizing individuals of special tribes to assume citizenship by due process of law.*

The fact that the parents of a child (Chinese) born in the United States are prohibited from becoming citizens does not militate against the citizenship of the child. Such child is a citizen."

Generally speaking, citizenship by birth is the rule. Ordinarily, a married woman partakes of the husband's nationality, although marriage with an alien produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife, unless

1 Rev. Stats., § 1993; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356, 84 Am. Dec. 193; Oldtown v. Bangor, 58 Me. 353; State v. Adams, 45 Iowa, 99, 24 Am. Rep. 760.

In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41.

43 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, (1st ed.), p. 245, note 1.

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; Lee Sing Far v. United States, 94 Fed. 834; In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. 905.

Wharton on Conflict of Laws, § 11.

Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Peters, 242.

there be a withdrawal by her from her native country, or equivalent act expressive of her election to renounce her former citizenship as a consequence of her marriage.1

The law recognizes the right of expatriation; but instances of it among Americans are so rare that the subject deserves no attention here.

One not a citizen may become such by complying with the provisions of the federal naturalization laws.2

Naturalization gives the alien all the rights of a natural-born citizen. He thereby becomes capable of receiving property by descent and of transmitting it in the same way, whereas, as an alien, he might not so receive it.3

Ordinarily, naturalization is not complete until the lapse of a probationary period after a preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen. During this period, between the taking out of "first" and "second" papers, the declarant is not considered as a citizen to the extent that he may either exercise the elective franchise or hold office. He is entitled to no privileges other than those specially vouchsafed to him by the law. In the location of mining claims he is endowed with the full rights of a citizen, to the same extent as if his naturalization were completed by taking the final oath and the issuance to him of his final papers. Therefore, for all purposes within the purview of this treatise, we shall treat an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen as if he were fully naturalized; and when we employ the word "naturalization," it is to be understood as designating the act which con

1 Ruckgaber v. Moore, 104 Fed. 947; Comititis v. Parkerson, 56 Fed. 556. But see Pequignot v. City of Detroit, 16 Fed. 211.

Rev. Stats., §§ 2165-2174.

3 Jackson, ex dem. Doran v. Green, 7 Wend. 333.

fers upon the alien the right to enjoy, in common with citizens, the privilege of locating and purchasing mining claims upon the public domain.

225. Minors.-Minors born in the United States are citizens, and may locate mining claims. There is no requirement in the general mining laws that the citizen shall be of any particular age. To say that minors are not qualified locators is to say that they are not citizens. The conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that' in some instances the statutes expressly require that the citizen shall be of a particular age before he may acquire certain classes of public lands. Thus, in reference to coal lands, the provision is, that every person above the age of twenty-one years who is a citizen of the United States may enter such lands.1 A similar provision exists as to homesteads under the federal laws.2 The expression of a requirement as to age in some instances, and the omission of it in others, is significant. 3 It is quite true that minors may not transmit title during infancy with the same freedom as adults. During this minority they are incapacitated from entering into binding contracts, except for necessaries, and, generally speaking, may act only through guardians, under the supervision of the courts. But this circumstance does not prevent them from acquiring property. As was said by the supreme court of California,

"Nor is there any reason in the nature of things why a minor may not make a valid location. . . . It may "be added that, so far as we know, it is the practice in many mining communities for minors to locate "claims."'4

The fact that this is the recognized practice in many mining communities is, perhaps, not of controlling weight; but it carries with it the suggestion that a contrary rule would disturb many titles acquired in good faith, and that such rule should not be invoked without the most substantial and cogent reasons.

226. Domestic corporations.-By domestic corporations, we mean those created or organized under the laws of the several states of the union, using the term in contradistinction to foreign corporations, or those who owe their existence to the laws of foreign countries. The latter class will receive attention when we deal with the subject of aliens. A corporation is a citizen of the state which created it.1

A corporation created and existing under the laws of a state is to be deemed a citizen within the meaning of the statute regulating the right to acquire public mineral lands, and as such is competent to purchase and hold a mining claim.3

The supreme court of the United States has held that a corporation created under the laws of the states of the union, all of whose members are citizens of the United States, is competent to locate, or join in the location, of a mining claim upon the public lands of the United States in like manner as individual citizens.*

The italics in the above quotation are ours. Judge

1St. Louis v. Wiggin's Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423; Chicago and N. W. R. R. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Francis, 78 U. S. 210; Block v. Standard D. and D. Co., 95 Fed. 978; Wilson v. Triumph Cons. M. Co., 19 Utah, 66, 75 Am. St. Rep. 718, 56 Pac. 300.

Rev. Stats., § 2319.

North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Saw. 299, 316, 1 Fed. 522. See, also, Tacoma Land Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 26 L. D. 503. McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638, followed in Dahl v. Montana C. Co., 132 U. S. 264, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97; Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105, 21 Pac. 1019.