Anda di halaman 1dari 7
BX PARTE.— FRANK KNOWLES. ‘rin power to aatoratze mate a focal power by Aet of Congress congress cannot center any fotlla! power upon 4 Bate Court, ‘rue provision af the Constitetion of the United tates, which given Coogee the ipower fo estates countreed to mens, {hat the role when of ‘Bader the Act of Congress of 1802, “every Court of Record Ip any tndividar! ‘tate, having common law forledeton and « sea, and clerk ot prothonotary, Sal! be coosidered ax a Distect Court withia (86 meaning of thle Act” end {Be Courta have power to oataratie evog excuse appellate Juradlction, bes no ‘The Teelalature of California has by exprete enactment, conferred furidietion fon the District Courte of thle State to grant satraliation, according to the len eatabiahed by Cooeres. An other Courta of this Stats, beng Courte of faferlor and fimtted powers. and iUrhoogt some are. Coarte of Record, yet havlag enly atatutors, and nat com tnow law foradletion, they ave bo power to grant natoratieation, and any Attempt of the lad by them would be Coram sen foog, and “Hrrorernor, J, delivered the opinion of the Court. Munnar, 0. 3,, and Bara, J., concurred. "Thin isan appliention on the part of an alien to become mnturatized ‘under the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States JULY TERN, sn Ut has boen made dircetly to this Court, and has been resisted by sev- eral cininent members of the Bar, in the character of amici curie, fon the ground that State Courts have no jurisdiction of the subject matter, | might be a sufficient answer to the applicant to declare what is the settled decision of this Court,— that itis, under the State Consti- tution, an appellate tribunal, and can take no original juriediction, however conferred. . But the importance of the question which has been argued at the bar, and the Jearning and research which have been evinced in its ex- mination, induce us, in departure from our usual habit, to consider fn determine the proper construction which should be given to the ‘Constitution and laws of the United States, in respect to the question of naturalization. ‘Two propositions which have been made by the counsel opposed to the anplicant, will first be disposed of. ‘These are: First — That the power to naturalize by virtuo of the Act of Congress ‘of 1802, is n jndicinl one; and Second — That Congress has no power to confer jurisdiction upon the Courts of e State. Upon both of theeo propositions we affirmatively concur, It is judicial power; because upon evidence # conclusion has to be attained, resulting from the exer- cise of the judgment of the Court, ‘This is simple and clear enough, without resorting to authority. But neverthel ill refer to the caso of Spratt v, Spratt, 4 Peters, 406, where it is distinctly so settled by Chiet Justice Marshall. Congress has no power to confer jurisdiction upon the Courts of « ‘State: because, First, the Constitution gives it no such power; and, Secondly, the Constitation expressly declares that “ the judicial power of tho United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” Bee § 1, Art 8, Const. U. 8, ‘The Constitution having thus fixed where the judicial power shall ve veated, it cannot be vested elsewhere, ‘There have been various adjudications maintaining this view, which it will he sufficient simply to cite, Seo Martin v. TTunter’s Leesco, 1 Whenton, 304. The State of Maryland », Thomas Butler, reported ane JULY TERM in 12 Niles’ Register, p. 115; United States r, Lathrop, 17 fohnson R, 4. Stato e, McBride, ico R, 400. It was urged in the course of the argument, and some authorities were cited, to the effect, that although Congres could not confer juris- ietion on a State so as to compel ite exercise, yot it would be legiti- ‘mate if the Court sas willing to accept it. ‘This is to me a soleein, A court is a creatnre of the Constitution and Inws under which it exis(s. To exercise any power not dorived from such Constitution and laws, would necessarily be a usurpation. It gounds curions to say, “Congress has no authority to give this power to the Court. yet the Court exercises this power by virtue of the authority of Congress.” I come now to the consideration of the main question, whether the State Courts of California, and if 60, what State Courts, have the power to naturalize?—And T have come to the conchrsion thnt this ‘question is but little affected hy the propositions whieh 1 have licen al- rendly led to consider, on account of the ecoming importance altached to them by the learned counsel, am the able manner in which they were presented. In § 8, Art. I, of the Constitution, enimmerating the powers of Con -rress, is the following separate clause: ‘To ostablish wn wnifaruy of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of baukruptey throwzhout the United States.” Ry metaphysienl refinement, iu ox- mining the form of our government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. Tut constant usnge — arising from convenience, and perhape necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confedernoy — has given substantial exist= cence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one af the States of the Linion, is heli to be, and called a citizen of the United Sinies, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. ‘To conecive a citizen of the United Stntox who is not a citizen nf some fone of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and ineowsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as usesl in the Constitution, which must be deduced from ite various ‘other provisions. ‘The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States,