mitted to United States citizenship. On other occasions, the President and the Senate, in the exercise of their treaty-making power may provide that citizenship shall be conferred upon the inhabitants of territory acquired by the United States. Second, the general and more usual method of naturalization is that prescribed by the revised statutes in sections 2165 and following, which provide that an alien must reside five years in the country before being finally admitted to naturalization. Two years before receiving citizenship he must make a preliminary declaration of intention to apply and at the end of that time (2 years after the declaration) he may make his final application for citizenship. Both the preliminary declaration and the application are made before a United States court or a State or territorial court of record. Among other formalities the applicant must renounce allegiance to any foreign power and must give up all claims to any title of nobility which he may have possessed. He must swear his fealty to the United States Constitution and laws and must present evidence of good moral character and of the necessary period of residence in the United States. Not every alien may be naturalized under the general law. For example, no provision has been made for Asiatics. In fact, only two classes of persons have been provided for under the general naturalization act which, in section 2169 of the revised statutes declares: "The provisions of this title (of naturalization) shall apply to aliens being free white persons, and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." Since no mention is made of persons of Malay race or descent it is held that they cannot be naturalized except by special act of Congress or by treaty.1 When any naturalized citizen resides for two years in a foreign State from which he came, he loses his American citizenship, unless he makes a declaration before a Consular or diplomatic officer retaining his citizenship. Wives take the citizenship of their husbands, but upon the termination of the marriage relation, they may recover their original citizenship or nationality, by making a declaration to that effect. A child born outside of the United States but living here becomes entitled to American citizen ship if its parent later is naturalized during its minority. The children born abroad of American citizens are entitled to American citizenship if they continue to reside abroad, providing that upon reaching the age of 18 they register with an American Consul their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States, and providing that upon reaching the age of 21 they take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Implied Powers.-Surprisingly few of the subjects daily discussed by Congress are expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Congress enacts irrigation, meat and food inspection, corporation 1 An exception has been made in favor of Hawaiians, Samoans, and Fili pir accounting laws, and many other measures; but the Constitution has nothing to say on such points. Where then did Congress secure the authority? The general rule for interpreting all the powers of Congress is given in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution; nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." In short Congress has only the powers given it by the Constitution; all others are reserved to the States and to the people. For every law passed by Congress there must be some basis in the powers granted by the Constitution, either in the express powers, those given by the direct terms of the Constitution, or the implied powers, those which are not specifically mentioned but are derived or inferred from the express powers. For example, the power to build a post office is expressly given in the words of Section 8, Article I, Congress shall have power "to establish post offices and post roads;" the authority to prohibit the passage of objectionable literature in the mails is an implied power. It is inferred from the expressly granted authority over post offices and post roads. Furthermore the Constitution confers on Congress the authority to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all others power vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This provision of Section 8 of Article I gives a still firmer basis for the implied powers. If Congress has the authority to provide a navy it must of necessity have also the right to take all steps which are "necessary and proper" to that end. Is the establishment of a training academy at Annapolis necessary and proper for the maintenance of a navy? Would a commercial or consular school for the training of officials be a fitting means of regulating commerce? Could Congress purchase and operate railways and roads as a regulation of commerce? Can Congress order battleships built in government yards instead of private plants? Can it regulate the manufacture of articles, intended to circulate in interstate commerce? In fact most of the interesting and important national questions of our time involve the implied powers. The answer to these questions depends upon the exact meaning of the terms "necessary and proper." Chief Justice Marshall, the great expounder of the Constitution, in his famous decision on the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316, 1819, ruled that the National Government had the power to create a banking corporation as a "necessary and proper" means of collecting and caring for the funds derived from taxation. The State of Maryland had contended that such action by the United States was unconstitutional, and that an implied power was "necessary" only when it was absolutely required, to carry into effect some express power. If the express power could be executed in any other way, then the implied power was not necessary, and hence it was unconstitutional. In overruling this contention and deciding that Congress had the power to incorporate a bank, Marshall said, "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported. The exigencies of the nation may require that the treasure raised in the North should be transported to the South, that raised in the East conveyed to the West, or that this order should be reversed. Is that construction of the constitution to be preferred which would render these operations difficult, hazardous, and expensive? Can we adopt that construction (unless the words imperiously require it) which would impute to the framers of that instrument, when granting these powers for the public good, the intention of impeding their exercise by withholding a choice of means? . . . "The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and those who contend that it may not select any appropriate means, that one particular mode of effecting the object is excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing that exception. . . . "This provision was made in a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which the government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. To have declared that the best means shall not be used, but those alone without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances. If we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it. . . "For example, the power to establish post-offices and post-roads. This power is executed by the single act of making the establishment. But from this has been inferred the power and duty of carrying the mail along the post-road, from one post-office to another. And, from this implied power, has again been inferred the right to punish those who steal letters from the post-office, or rob the mail. It may be said, with some plausibility, that the right to carry the mail, and to punish those who rob it, is not indispensably necessary to the establishment of a post-office and postroad. This right is, indeed, essential to the beneficial exercise of the power, but not indispensably necessary to its existence. So, of the punishment of the crimes of stealing or falsifying a record or process of a court of the United States, or of perjury in such court. To punish these offences is certainly conducive to the due administration of justice. But courts may exist, and may decide the causes brought before them, though such crimes escape punishment. . . "We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. . . Delegation of Legislative Power.-Can Congress confer its powers upon any other authority such as the President, or the interstate commerce commission, or a State? The first clause of Section I, Article I, of the Constitution provides that "All legislative power herein granted is vested in a Congress. This means that legislative power, if used, must be exercised by Congress and cannot be delegated to others. Congress cannot permit a State government to make congressional laws, nor can it authorize the President to pass laws that repeal them. In many of the cases in which it has done so, its action, if brought into the court, would have been declared illegal. But Congress can establish a general principle or legislative rule and authorize the President to apply this rule when the conditions require it, or upon a contingency arising which Congress foresees. This is not a delegation of legislative power but is merely an instruction to the President as to how a legislative rule shall be applied. It was early urged against the powers of the interstate commerce commission that the power to fix railway rates was legislative and that Congress could not delegate this power. If this view had been accepted by the courts, our entire policy of regulation of public service companies by excutive commissions would have fallen; but in repeated instances the Court has held that the Commission in making rates is merely taking a general principle fixed by the law itself, viz. that rates shall be "just and reasonable" and is applying this principle to new cases. This is not making law, but executing it. In Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, the Marshall Field department store of Chicago protested against the payment of a duty on certain imported goods, claiming that the tariff act which imposed the duty, passed October 1, 1890 was unconstitutional on the ground that it authorized the President to suspend free trade in sugar, coffee, tea and hides and impose a duty on these articles coming from any country which imposed unequal or unreasonable duties on the products of the United States, and that this was accordingly a delegation of legislative power. Congress, by this act, attempted to secure reciprocity. In order to do so, it fixed the higher rates to be levied upon articles coming from countries which would not grant reciprocity to the United States; it instructed the President, whenever he discovered such conditions, to impose the higher rates fixed by Congress upon the imports in question. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a grant of legislative power but was merely the fixing of a legislative rule and that the President was only permitted to ascertain facts, namely, the inequality or unreasonableness of duties imposed on American products by other countries, and thereupon to apply the rule set by Congress. REFERENCES Annual Report of Bureau of Insular Affairs. The Governor of the Panama Canal Zone, Annual Report. The Organic Acts governing the Philippines, Hawaii, Porto Rico and the Canal Zone. ROWE: Porto Rico and the United States. The Government of Dependencies, The Annals, May, 1912. The Naturalization Act of the United States with Amendments, Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office. VAN DYNE: Naturalization in the United States. PROBLEMS THE DEPENDENCIES 1. Resolved that the National Government has the constitutional power to acquire and govern dependencies. Defend the affirmative, and cite the appropriate clauses of the Constitution. 2. Explain how each of our present dependencies has been secured. 3. Prepare an essay or report on the government of the Philippines, showing the constitutional powers of Congress, the more important points in the organic acts governing the Philippines, and some of the chief problems in the administration of that dependency. 4. Prepare a similar report on the government of Hawaii, and explain why it is more liberal than that of the other dependencies. 5. A similar report on the government of Porto Rico. 6. The Philippine legislature is about to pass a bill which may be disastrous to the interests of the island. What can the President do to prevent its passage? 7. What can Congress do? 8. If the President believes that the administration of the Philippine laws is not being properly carried out what can he do? 9. Give your impressions as to the fundamental needs in our dependencies and their government. 10. What would be your attitude toward a large loan to the islands from the national treasury, for schools and roads? II. Explain the chief changes in the principles of taxation introduced by the American government in our new dependencies. 12. How are new States admitted? 13. Can Congress admit a new State under conditions? Examples. 14. If a clause is placed by Congress in the constitution of a new State as a |