These propositions and arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff in error are plausible and cogent. They might well have challenged debatepossibly they might have changed the course of legislation and of actionif they had been presented to the Supreme Court one hundred years ago. At this late day. however. after the courts of the States have for more than a century. with the uniform acquiescence and consent of all the departments of the National Government and of the State governments. exercised this authority to naturalize aliens granted to them by the acts of Congress. there is one answer which is equally fatal to both the propositions which counsel for the plaintiff in error here presents. It is that the contemporaneous interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution relative to this subject by those who framed it. the concurrence of statesmen. legislators. and judges In that construction. the acquiescence and uninterrupted practice of all the Departments of the Government in the same interpretation for more than one hundred years. conclusively determine their meaning and effect. and place them beyond the realm of doubt or question. (Stuart v. Laird. 1 Cranch. 298. 308. 2 L.
Keywords matched
naturalize