Opinion of the Court.

rights belonging to citizens, is sufficient to warrant a jury in inferring that he had been duly naturalized as a citizen. Blight v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 535, 546; Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U. S. 773, 778. And by the constitution of Ohio of 1851, none but white male citizens of the United States were entitled to vote, or to hold office. Art. 5, sec. 1; art. 15, sec. 4; Charters and Constitutions, 1472, 1478.

Such being the settled law, we can have no doubt that the fact that the respondent's father became a naturalized citizen of the United States before October, 1854, is well pleaded in the allegation in question, and is therefore admitted by the demurrer. The allegation "that prior to October, 1854, his father did in fact complete his naturalization in strict accord. ance with the acts of Congress known as the naturalization laws so as to admit and constitute him a full citizen of the United States thereunder," necessarily implies that he had been duly naturalized before a court as required by those laws. Specific allegations of the time and place at which, and of the court before which, he was so naturalized, or setting forth a record of his naturalization, would have been superfluous, and, in view of the respondent's imperfect information, as manifest upon the face of the allegation, of a transaction taking place so long ago, hardly possible.

Under this allegation, and the earlier allegations leading up to it, if traversed, a jury would have been warranted in inferring that the respondent's father became a citizen of the United States before October, 1854, and consequently that the respondent himself was likewise a citizen.

For this reason, without regard to any other question argued in the case, the respondent was entitled to judgment upon the demurrer.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE GRAY and MR. JUSTICE BROWN Concur in the conclusion of the court upon the latter course of reasoning only.

All the justices, except MR. JUSTICE FIELD, unite in holding that this court has jurisdiction of the case, and that upon this record James E. Boyd had been for two years, next preceding

Dissenting Opinion: Field, J.

his election to the office of governor, a citizen of the United States and of the State of Nebraska.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Nebraska is reversed, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in according to law and in conformity with this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissenting.

I dissent from the judgment just rendered. I do not think that this court has any jurisdiction to determine a disputed question as to the right to the governorship of a State, however that question may be decided by its authorities. I agree that the States of the American Union are not in all respects independent political communities; I agree that they do not possess that supreme political authority which would entitle them to be called sovereign States in the full sense of those terms, as they are often designated. They are qualified sovereignties, possessing only the powers of an independent political organization which are not ceded to the general government or prohibited to them by the Constitution. But, except as such powers are ceded to the general government or prohibited to them, the States are independent political communities. This is not a matter of argument or inference, but is the express declaration of the Tenth Amendment. As forcibly stated by Mr. Justice Nelson, speaking for this court, "the general government, and the States, although both exist within the same territorial limits, are separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and independently of each other, within their respective spheres. The former in its appropriate sphere is supreme; but the States within the limits of their powers not granted, or, in the language of the Tenth Amendment, 'reserved,' are as independent of the general government as that government within its sphere is independent of the States." The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 124. In no respect is this independence of the States more marked, or more essential to their peace and tranquillity, than in their absolute power to prescribe the qualifications of all their state officers, from their chief magistrate to the lowest official employed in the administration of their

Dissenting Opinion: Field, J.

local government; to determine the manner of their election, whether by open or secret ballot, and whether by local bodies or by general suffrage; the tenure by which they shall hold their respective offices; the grounds on which their election may be contested, the tribunals before which such contest shall be made, the manner in which it shall be conducted; and the effect to be given to the decision rendered. With none of these things can the government of the United States interfere. In all these particulars the States, to use the language of Mr. Justice Nelson, are as independent of the general government as that government within its sphere is independent of the States. Its power of interference with the administration of the affairs of the State and the officers through whom they are conducted extends only so far as may be necessary to secure to it a republican form of government, and protect it against invasion, and also against domestic violence on the application of its legislature, or of its executive when that body cannot be convened. Const. Art. IV, sec. 4. Except as required for these purposes, it can no more interfere with the qualifications, election and installation of the state officers, than a foreign government. And all attempts at interference with them in those respects by the executive, legislative or judicial departments of the general government are in my judgment so many invasions upon the reserved rights of the States and assaults upon their constitutional autonomy.

No clause of the Constitution can be named which in any respect gives countenance to such invasion. The fact that one. of the qualifications prescribed by the State for its officers can only be ascertained and established by considering the provisions of a law of the United States in no respect authorizes an interference by the general government with the state action. Because an officer of a State must be a citizen of the United States it does not follow that the tribunals of the United States can alone determine that fact, and that the decision of the State in respect to it can be supervised and controlled by the Federal authorities. Nor is there any decision of this court that sanctions any such interference. There is a mere dictum in Missouri v. Andriano; 138 U. S. 496, 499, but no decision. to that effect.

Dissenting Opinion: Field, J.

That case involved a contest between the parties for the office of sheriff of a county in Missouri. Among other things the constitution of that State declared that no person should be elected to any office in the State who was not a citizen of the United States. The relator claimed to have been in possession of the office since 1884 and entitled to continue until his successor was elected, commissioned and qualified; and that the respondent was not entitled to the office because he was not a citizen under the Constitution of the United States, having been born in Germany, and not having been natural ized. To this the respondent replied, admitting his foreign birth, and that he had never been naturalized under the laws of the United States, but claiming that under the act of Congress of 1802 he became and was a citizen by the naturalization of his father, that act providing that the children of citizens of the United States should, though born out of their limits and jurisdiction, be considered as citizens.

Under that act the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the respondent was a citizen of the United States. The case com ing to this court, it was decided that when a decision of a state court was in favor of a right or privilege claimed under a statute of the United States, this court had no jurisdiction to re view it, and the writ of error was accordingly dismissed. In the opinion delivered by the justice of this court it was said that had the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri been adverse to the claim of the respondent there could be no doubt of his right to a writ of error from this court to review its ruling a question which was not in judgment, and what, therefore, was said respecting it was a mere dictum, without authoritative force.

The office of sheriff was not a right or privilege claimed under a law of the United States, but was a right or privilege claimed by the election under the laws of Missouri. The mere fact that it was necessary that the incumbent of the office should also be a citizen of the United States did not of itself give him a right to that office. It would, indeed, be a strange ruling to declare that an office which required the votes of the people of a State or of one of its districts was a right or privi

Dissenting Opinion: Field, J.

lege under a law of the United States, because one of the qualifications of the incumbent was that he should be a citizen of the United States. The necessity of referring to a law of the United States to ascertain what constituted citizenship did not make the respondent's right to the office dependent upon that fact in any such sense as to bring it within the cognizance of the Federal courts. Equally might it be said that a contested claim to a seat in the legislature of a State could be brought under their cognizance when the ground of contest happened to be the disputed citizenship of one of the contestants. It is true the answer to the attempted exercise of jurisdiction by the courts in the latter case would be, that it is the settled law of legislative bodies, and hitherto recognized in all our State constitutions, that each house shall be the exclusive judge of the election and qualification of its members. But no less settled, and hitherto universally recognized in this country, is the law which vests exclusive jurisdiction in each State over the election, qualification and installation of its chief executive. There seems to me to be the same inappropriateness and want of authority in proceeding in the Federal courts for the office in the one case as in the other.

My objection to the decision is not diminished by the fact that there is no power in this court to enforce its decision upon the State of Nebraska should resistance be made to it. Should the incumbent declared by this court not to be entitled to the office, refuse to surrender it and the state authorities should stand by him in such refusal, what could be done about it? He might well say, "I have been declared by the duly constituted authorities of the State, who alone have the right to inquire into the matter, to be entitled to the office, and I deny the authority of the general government, or any department of it, to interfere with my possession of the office." How could this court in such case enforce its order? The presence of the marshal with a posse to attempt it would be a painful exhibition of weakness. Would the court call upon the general government to send an army into the State to force upon it a governor who has been declared by its duly constituted authorities not to be entitled to the office and to