User:Arne Eickenberg/Chester Arthur: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Arne Eickenberg
imported>Arne Eickenberg
Line 29: Line 29:


====Legal situation: ''Ius sanguinis'' and foreign subject====
====Legal situation: ''Ius sanguinis'' and foreign subject====
Neither the law nor any federal court ruling in the United States has ever determined whether a natural-born British subject like Chester Arthur can at the same time also be a [[Natural born citizen of the United States|natural born citizen of the United States]],<ref>The concepts of ''natural-born subject'' and ''natural born citizen'' were however specificially differentiated in ''[[United States v. Rhodes]]'' (27 Fed. Cas. 785, 1866). This distinction was later reiterated in ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'' (v.i.):<blockquote>All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country… since as before the Revolution.</blockquote></ref> which is one of the constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice-President.<ref>However, in ''[[Minor v. Happersett]]'' the Supreme Court stated that there were doubts that a child is a natural born citizen, if he is born on U.S. territory of foreign parentage, i.e. with additional non-U.S. allegiance while born under U.S. jurisdiction ([http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html ''Minor v. Happersett''], 88 U.S. 162, 1874):<blockquote>The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.</blockquote></ref> It is equally unclear whether Arthur was even a U.S. citizen at birth, because until the [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]] there had been no federal citizenship rule for U.S. territory. He may have been born a ''subject of Vermont'' with British citizenship under the common law of the state,<ref>''See above'': ''Constitution of Vermont'' XXXVI.</ref> but the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], which introduced [[Jus soli|''ius soli'']] into the [[United States Constitution]], was ratified and adopted not until forty years after Arthur's birth. Even if applied retroactively, the 14th Amendment only covers born and naturalized citizens under complete U.S. jurisdiction<ref>Cf. [[Lyman Trumbull]] & [[Jacob M. Howard]] in: ''Congressional Globe'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 pp. 2893–95]:<blockquote>The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.</blockquote>Cf. the ruling in 14 Op. U.S. Attorney General, 300:<blockquote>The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.</blockquote></ref> in accordance with Section 1992 of the [[United States Revised Statutes]],<ref>United States Revised Statutes, [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=422 Title XXV] Section 1992, "Citizenship: Who are Citizens":<blockquote>All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power […] are declared to be citizens of the United States.</blockquote></ref> whereas Arthur's status at birth was governed by British common law.
Neither the law nor any federal court ruling in the United States has ever determined whether a natural-born British subject like Chester Arthur can at the same time also be a [[Natural born citizen of the United States|natural born citizen of the United States]],<ref>The concepts of ''natural-born subject'' and ''natural born citizen'' were however specificially differentiated in ''[[United States v. Rhodes]]'' (27 Fed. Cas. 785, 1866). This distinction was later reiterated in ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'' (v.i.):<blockquote>All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country… since as before the Revolution.</blockquote></ref> which is one of the constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice-President.<ref>However, in ''[[Minor v. Happersett]]'' the Supreme Court stated that there were doubts that a child is a natural born citizen, if he is born on U.S. territory of foreign parentage, i.e. with additional non-U.S. allegiance while born under U.S. jurisdiction ([http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html ''Minor v. Happersett''], 88 U.S. 162, 1874):<blockquote>The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.</blockquote></ref> It is equally unclear whether Arthur was even a U.S. citizen at birth, because until the [[Civil Rights Act of 1866]] there had been no federal citizenship rule for U.S. territory. He may have been born a ''subject of Vermont'' with British citizenship under the common law of the state,<ref>''See above'': ''Constitution of Vermont'' XXXVI.</ref> but the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], which introduced [[Jus soli|''ius soli'']] into the [[United States Constitution]], was ratified and adopted not until forty years after Arthur's birth. Even if applied retroactively, the 14th Amendment only covers born and naturalized citizens under complete U.S. jurisdiction<ref>Cf. [[Lyman Trumbull]] & [[Jacob M. Howard]] in: ''Congressional Globe'', 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 pp. 2893–95]:<blockquote>The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.</blockquote>Cf. the ruling in 14 Op. U.S. Attorney General, 300:<blockquote>The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.</blockquote></ref> in accordance with Section 1992 of the [[Revised Statutes of the United States|Revised Statutes]],<ref>United States Revised Statutes, [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=422 Title XXV] Section 1992, "Citizenship: Who are Citizens":<blockquote>All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power […] are declared to be citizens of the United States.</blockquote></ref> whereas Arthur's status at birth was governed by British common law.


====Evidence for Chester Arthur's Presidential ineligibility====
====Evidence for Chester Arthur's Presidential ineligibility====

Revision as of 17:41, 10 September 2009

Concerns about Arthur's Presidential eligibility

Allegations of a foreign birth

Arthur P. Hinman: The initial controversy

During Chester Arthur's Vice-Presidential campaign alongside James A. Garfield, Arthur P. Hinman, an attorney who had been hired by members of the Democratic party, explored the "rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency."[1] When Hinman's initial claim of a birth in Ireland failed to gain traction,[2] he maintained instead that Arthur was born in Canada and lobbied the press for support while searching in vain for Arthur's birth records. Hinman's allegations were widely known due to several national publications.[3] In 1881 the New York Sun maintained after an independent inquest that Hinman's claims were unsubstantiated.[4]

XYZ: The other theory

Hinman's new theory: Chester Abell Arthur

After Arthur had become President due to Garfield's assassination, Hinman resumed his research and published a booklet that was aimed at casting doubt on Arthur's presidential eligibility during his re-election campaign.[5] Since President Arthur was disowned by his party and did not run for a second term, Hinman's pamphlet went widely unnoticed.[6]

XYZ: Content of Hinman's book

Historiography

There are no official records of Arthur's birth in Vermont because neither the state nor the town of Fairfield began receiving and archiving birth records before 1857.[7] The Arthurs' family bible provides the only information that Arthur was born in Fairfield, Vermont, and the majority of his biographers has never argued or assumed otherwise.[8]

Vermont Historical Society debate.

Presidential biographer Richard L. Tobin reported on Hinman's accusations and stated that it is "conceivable that Chester Alan Arthur was […] literally ineligible for the office".[9] Thomas C. Reeves dismissed Hinman's theory, but noted that

1829 accepted (Reeves, family bible: 1829, but no Chester Abell Arthur, only doctor, p. 435)

Legal situation: Ius soli and foreign birth

Naturalization Acts 1790 & 1795

William Arthur's certificate of naturalization

British subjecthood

Due to the public focus on the unprovable allegations regarding Chester Arthur's foreign place of birth, it remained unknown that Arthur was nevertheless a natural-born subject of the British monarch by ius sanguinis,[10] because his British-Irish father William Arthur did not naturalize as a U.S. citizen until August 1843, when Chester Arthur was thirteen years of age,[11] and had only been a denizen of the State of Vermont at the time of Arthur's birth.[12]

Legal situation: Ius sanguinis and foreign subject

Neither the law nor any federal court ruling in the United States has ever determined whether a natural-born British subject like Chester Arthur can at the same time also be a natural born citizen of the United States,[13] which is one of the constitutional requirements for the offices of President and Vice-President.[14] It is equally unclear whether Arthur was even a U.S. citizen at birth, because until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 there had been no federal citizenship rule for U.S. territory. He may have been born a subject of Vermont with British citizenship under the common law of the state,[15] but the Fourteenth Amendment, which introduced ius soli into the United States Constitution, was ratified and adopted not until forty years after Arthur's birth. Even if applied retroactively, the 14th Amendment only covers born and naturalized citizens under complete U.S. jurisdiction[16] in accordance with Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes,[17] whereas Arthur's status at birth was governed by British common law.

Evidence for Chester Arthur's Presidential ineligibility

Collins, contemporary legal opinion.[18]

(1) Arthur still Prez; according to Collins' own arguments, Prez Arthur would have been ineligible; but he didn't mention him, so he can't have known about his British subjecthood (2) Natural born citizens are not the same as natural born subjects (3) Framers followed the law of nations, which stated in vattel xyz

In 1885, as Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas F. Bayard ruled that a person born in the United States and subject to a foreign power was not a U.S. citizen under the Constitution or a federal statute,[19] which not only indicates that Secretary Bayard knew nothing about President Arthur's foreign subjecthood at birth, but which also shows that Arthur would have been deemed ineligible for the office of President under the contemporary laws and the policies of the United States Department of State, had his citizenship status been known.

John C. Eastman on the original meaning of 14A etc.[20]

Chester Arthur's responses and actions

Vice-Presidential campaign: The Brooklyn Eagle debate

During his Vice-Presidential campaign Arthur continuously gave false information on his family's history, thereby obscuring the circumstances and chronology of his own birth. Arthur knew of Hinman and his allegations and defended himself against the original claim that he was not a native-born citzen[21] by stating that his father "came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married",[22] whereas in reality his father William emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. Arthur further claimed that "his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country—a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue."[23] In a second interview he repeated some of the historical revisions and further stated that his father had been forty years of age at the time of his birth,[24] which was revealed by Hinman to be a lie.[25]

Forged year of birth

Somewhere between 1870 and 1880 Chester Arthur had created 1830 as a false year of his birth, which caused considerable biographical confusion, because it has been quoted in several publications to this day and had also been engraved on his tombstone (see image). Arthur's motivation for the one-year change from 1829 to 1830 is unknown, but he had four possible reasons:

  1. The confusion about the correct year of birth kept Arthur's later biographers occupied with the imperfections of his biography and obscured his father's citizenship history.[26]
  2. The change from 1829 to 1830 was made out of vanity.[27]
  3. Abell connection
  4. jurisdiction/denizenship connection

Presidency: Chester Arthur, Justice Horace Gray and Wong Kim Ark

In 1882 Chester Arthur nominated Horace Gray as U.S. Supreme Court Justice. A few months after George D. Collins had published his legal treatise on U.S. citizenship (v.s.), the Supreme Court ruled in Elk v. Wilkins that a person born in the United States and subjected to a foreign power was not a U.S. citizen.[28] Only one month later Chester Arthur addressed the topic of citizenship in his 1884 State of the Union address, where he reminded the legislature to revise the existing naturalization laws. He directly mentioned sections 1992 and 2172 of the Revised Statutes and thereby covertly described his own problematic citizenship status by pointing out that the statute granting citizenship to minors of naturalizing parents was "ambiguous", and that the rule of naturalization did not yet define "the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power".[29] Since Chester Arthur was himself a natural-born subject of the British monarch, his remarks before Congress prove that he considered himself to be a naturalized U.S. citizen at best.

It remains unknown if Horace Gray at some point learned about Chester Arthur's secret ineligibility problem, and if he ever attempted to retroactively legitimize his appointment as Supreme Court Justice, but a few years later Gray nevertheless about-faced on his previous decision in Elk v. Wilkins by writing the highly contested ruling and majority opinion in the seminal case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which used the citizenship regulations in British common law to redefine the meaning of "subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment, severed the previously joined concepts of territorial and complete political jurisdiction, and thereby managed to extend the right of 14th Amendment citizenship to children born on U.S. territory of foreign subject parents, who have permanent residence and domicile in the United States.[30] If Arthur, already by appointing Gray, ever intended to sanitize his own eligibility problems, he failed posthumously, because the court under Justice Gray only ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, while Gray in fact indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born.[31]

Aftermath: The lost records

Missing military & marriage records. (Reeves)

Shortly before his death Arthur caused several Presidential materials, which had been in his private possession, to be destroyed,[32] while other historical documents pertaining to Arthur's life and presidency were lost for unknown reasons.[33]

Notes

  1. ↑ Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss. The Life and Times of Chester Alan Arthur, Newtown 1991, p. 202 sq.
  2. ↑ "The Week", The Nation 31, 08-19-1880, p. 123.
  3. ↑ E.g. in the New York Tribune in June 1880, in The New York Times (cf. "Material for a Democratic Lie", in: The New York Times, 12-22-1880), and in the Cincinnati Enquirer ("Gath", 09-05-1881); see below for Arthur's own responses in the Brooklyn Eagle debate.
  4. ↑ "Gen. Arthur's Birthplace", The Sun, 09-21-1881.
  5. ↑ Arthur P. Hinman, How a British Subject Became President of the United States, New York 1884.
  6. ↑ Only a short summary was printed in the Brooklyn Eagle (cf. "In the Interest of Blaine. The Circulation of a Book Concerning Arthur's Birthplace. [Special to the Eagle.]", Brooklyn Eagle, 06-02-1884, p. 4).
  7. ↑ Cf. statements by Vermont State Archivist Gregory Sanford and Fairfield Town Clerk Amanda Forbes in: John Curran with Rhonda Shafner, "Obama birthplace flap evokes Chester Arthur debate", Associated Press, 2009-08-17)
  8. ↑ Cf. i.a. Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss. The Life and Times of Chester Alan Arthur, Newtown 1991; Gregory J. Dehler, Chester Alan Arthur. The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Hauppauge 2006; "Chester A. Arthur. 21st President", in: William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents, New York 1993, p. 307–18), although many biographers used Arthur's forged year of birth (v.i.).
  9. ↑ Richard L. Tobin, Decisions of Destiny, Cleveland 1961, p. 120.
  10. ↑ William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England I.10 ("Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives"), Oxford 1765-1769:

    all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;

    British common law with regard to patrilineal ius sanguinis and natural-born subjects of foreign birth was later codified in the British National and Status of Aliens Act of 1914.
  11. ↑ Cf. William Arthur's certificate of naturalization (v.s.), State of New York, 08-31-1843, in: The Chester A. Arthur Papers, Library of Congress, Washington; first noted in: Leo C. Donofrio, "Supplemental Brief in Support of Application for Emergency Stay and/or Injunction", Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court of the United States), 08A469, 11-25-2008, based on research by Leo C. Donofrio (supervising attorney), Gregory J. Dehler (author of Chester Alan Arthur. The Life of a Gilded Age Politician and President, Hauppauge 2006) et al.
  12. ↑ According to Reeves (Thomas C. Reeves, XYZ), the family settled near Fairfield, Vermont, in XXXX. Therefore Arthur's father William would have become a denizen in XXXX, one year later, and one year prior to Arthur's birth; cf. The Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), XXXVI:

    Every [foreigner] person, of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen [of this State;] thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this State; except that he shall not be capable of being elected governor, lieutenant-governor, treasurer, councillor, or representative in assembly, until after two years residence.

    XYZ: Date of settlement: see Reeves
  13. ↑ The concepts of natural-born subject and natural born citizen were however specificially differentiated in United States v. Rhodes (27 Fed. Cas. 785, 1866). This distinction was later reiterated in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (v.i.):

    All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country… since as before the Revolution.
  14. ↑ However, in Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court stated that there were doubts that a child is a natural born citizen, if he is born on U.S. territory of foreign parentage, i.e. with additional non-U.S. allegiance while born under U.S. jurisdiction (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 1874):

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
  15. ↑ See above: Constitution of Vermont XXXVI.
  16. ↑ Cf. Lyman Trumbull & Jacob M. Howard in: Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, pp. 2893–95:

    The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    Cf. the ruling in 14 Op. U.S. Attorney General, 300:

    The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.
  17. ↑ United States Revised Statutes, Title XXV Section 1992, "Citizenship: Who are Citizens":

    All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power […] are declared to be citizens of the United States.
  18. ↑ George D. Collins, "Are Persons Born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens Thereof?", in: The American Law Review Vol. 18, September/October 1884, p. 831 sqq..
  19. ↑ On Bayard's ruling cf. "A Question of Citizenship", The Nation 59 (1521), 08-23-1894, p. 134 sq.:

    In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’“.
  20. ↑ John C. Eastman, "Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11" (testimony), Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty”, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, 09-29-2005, Washington.
  21. ↑ Arthur P. Hinman, Letter to the Editor: "Is Mr. Chester Arthur an Irishman by Birth?", Brooklyn Eagle, 08-11-1880, reprinted in: "Revived. The Question of President Arthur's Birthplace", in: Brooklyn Eagle, 09-21-1881, p. 2.
  22. ↑ "Is Mr. Chester A. Arthur a Native Born Citizen?", in: Brooklyn Eagle, 08-13-1880, p. 2.
  23. ↑ Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss. The Life and Times of Chester Alan Arthur, Newtown 1991, p. 202 sq.
  24. ↑ "Eligible. Mr. Chester A. Arthur to the Office of Vice President", in: Brooklyn Eagle, 08-15-1880, p. 4.
  25. ↑ Arthur Hinman, "The Contest: Mr. Hinman Replies to General Arthur", in: Brooklyn Eagle, 08-19-1880, p. 4.
  26. ↑ For example, the false year is given in the official genealogical and family records of Vermont (v.s.), in an early biography of Presidents Garfield and Arthur (Burton T. Doyle & Homer H. Swaney, Lives of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur with a Brief Sketch of the Assassin, Washington D.C. 1881, p. 183, in "The Ex-President's Life. How Chester Alan Arthur Became Famous, The New York Times, 11-19-1886, and John J. Duffy, Samuel B. Hand, Ralph H. Orth (eds.), The Vermont Encyclopedia, Lebanon 2003, p. 42.
  27. ↑ "No doubt out of simple vanity" (cf. Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss. The Life and Times of Chester Alan Arthur, Newtown 1991, p. 5). However, Reeves failed to explain why Arthur would then change his birthdate by only one year.
  28. ↑ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884).
  29. ↑ Chester A. Arthur, Fourth Annual Message to the Congress of the United States, 12-01-1884:

    Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. […] Section 2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, is ambiguous in its terms and partly obsolete. […] "An uniform rule of naturalization" such as the Constitution contemplates should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization.
  30. ↑ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
  31. ↑ Justice Gray distinguished between citizens who acquired their citizenship by natural birth and those who acquired it under the ruling in Wong Kim Ark:

    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens… Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate… and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…'
  32. ↑ Miriam A. Drake, Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science: Lib-Pub, New York 2003, p. 2365; cp. Chester A. Arthur III, personal letter, in: The Chester A. Arthur Papers, Introduction to the Index, Library of Congress, Washington, p. i:

    You may be sure that I am as interested as you are in having the Arthur papers finally come to rest in the Library of Congress. The ones that I have in my possession have traveled a good deal—over to Europe, back to Colorado, California, and now here. During his lifetime, my father would never let anyone see them—not even me. When they finally came into my possession I was amazed that there were so few… Charles E. McElroy, the son of Mary Arthur McElroy who was my grandfather’s First Lady, tells me that the day before he died, my grandfather caused to be burned three large garbage cans, each at least four feet high, full of papers which I am sure would have thrown much light on history.
  33. ↑ Cf. The Chester A. Arthur Papers, Introduction to the Index, Library of Congress, Washington:

    For many years President Arthur was represented in the Manuscript Division by a single document… Beginning in 1910 and continuing to the present, successive chiefs of the division have done what they could do to assemble surviving Arthur manuscripts. For the first of these chiefs, Gaillard Hunt, who in that year intitiated the search for the main body of Arthur Papers, there was little but discouragement as a result of his inquiries. However, his persistence and what he was able to learn were to encourage his successors. He wrote first to Col. William G. Rice and learned the address of Mrs. John E. McElroy, Arthur’s sister and official hostess during his administration. Mr. Hunt wrote to her and learned from her that Chester A. Arthur, Jr., controlled the papers. After several attempts, Mr. Hunt learned Mr. Arthur’s address and wrote to him. The reply—written on March 13, 1915, five years after the search began—provided the first concrete but frustrating evidence:

    "I beg you will excuse my tardiness in replying to your letter of November 4th [1914]. The question of my father’s papers is a very sore subject with me. These papers were supposed to be in certain chests which were stored on their receipt from Washington, in the cellar of 123 Lexington Avenue. After my father’s death, they were removed, I believe, by direction of the executors to a store house recommended by Mr. McElroy at Albany. Several years ago on making my residence in Colorado, I sent for these chests of papers and found in them nothing but custom house records of no particular value or importance. Where the papers they were supposed to contain have vanished, is a mystery."
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User:Arne_Eickenberg/Chester_Arthur&oldid=667231"