Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/117

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

BOSQUE ?. UNITED STATES. Stanton*, of tl? ? BOSQUE ?. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. No. 1??. Submitted Janum? 29, 1O0?--Dooidod Msneh ?, 1008. Under the Treaty of Paris of 1898, between the United Stat? and Spain, a Spanish resident of the Philippine lzlands, who lelt there in May, 1899, without making any declaratioa of intentioa to preserve hb alle- giance to Spain sad remained sway until after the expiration of eighteen months after the ratification of the treaty continued to be a 8panierd, and did not, even though he intended to return, beeome a citisen of tim bd?.ls under the now sovereignty, ? thereore b not eligible to sdmb- and civil a?thorltles of the I'Mlipp?ne Islands. The laws applicable to other foreigners referred to in Article XI? of the new ?overeiguty. Sl?Uhrds on/y became foreigners -rter the eelore � The right to practice law is not property wlth/u the protection of Article �II or the tresty. 1 PMlippino Pep. 88, sffu'med. I?A?PP in error applied to the Supreme Court of the ?t?Upp'me Isl?ds in February, 1901, to be ?tmittod to prac- rice law in the PHlippine courts. His petition was supportod by various certificates as to profe?onal qu?ficat?ons and good character, and set forth that petitioner w?8 a graduate o� the Uni?er?ty of ?anil;,; and pr?ct?cod law in the ?hilip- p'me Islands from 1892 until the ces?tion of the Spanish courts; "t?t he is of good character, and has not been i?rit?l in the record of Sl?mish nationality, in consequence whereof I ha?e lcet this, i? accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of 1%ris, ?nd therefore ! am neither a subject nor citizen o! a?y foreign government, find consequently, in my opinion, have the condition required by ?eneral Order No. 29, 3uly 19. 15?, of the United States Military GoYerument in these lands for continning the practice of my profes.?ion." ?niy 27, l?01, the petition was denied by the Supreme Court, v?thout opinion, on the ground that the applicant "doe8 not