He sure didn't seem to know about what Rawle or St. George Tucker had to say.
So he quotes Bates, who directly contradicts him, but then puts forth his (Morse's) idea of what US law is anyway, in contradiction to all of the above authorities.
Thanks for finding and noting that.
"This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2"
2. ”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be "within the jurisdiction"'].”
Holy bananas, Batman!
So does Morse directly contradict himself in his own treatise, or has his treatise simply been misread by birthers?
Much like Judge Morrow.
“Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases. But these observations are, obviously, addressed to the policy of the rule, and not to its interpretation. The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority. It may be that the executive departments of the government are at liberty to follow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship which arise between this and other countries, but that fact does not establish the law for the courts in dealing with persons within our own territory.” Judge Morrow, North District of California, Wong Kim Ark