The Empire County argus., 1855-06-16
For the Empire County Argus.
PLACERVILLE, j

PLACERvILLE, June 1lth, 1855.
Mr.. EDITOR The agitation of questions per-
tanning to the rights ard privileges of foreigners in
this county has led me to make a slight examna-
tion into the mods operandi of converting persons
of foreign birth into citizens of the United States
and of the powers in that respect of certain Courts
heretofore in the practice of granting letters of cit
izenship. 1t is well known that in this county but
few applications for naturalization are made to any
other than the County and Probate Courts most
generally to the latterand for the purpose Of de-
termining whether those Courts have legal and
constitutional powers in the premises as exercised
by them | will refer yourself and readers to the
laws of Congress, the Constitution of this State,
and the decisions of our Supreme Court. Section
third of the act of Congress entitled IAN act to
tablish uniform rule of naturalization and to
repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
(approved, April Ia, 1902 reads as follows: And
whereas doubts have arisen whether certain Courts
of record in some of the States included within
the description of District or Circuit Courts: Be it
further enacted that every Court of record in any
individual State hauing common-law jurisdiction.
and a seal and clerk prothonotary shall be con-
this act, &C." Now are those Courts Courts of
record having eommon-law jurisdicton and a seal
and clerk or prothonotary1 l think not. 1t is
true they have each a clerk and seal, and are
Courts of record, but certainly fail to have common
law jurisd,ciOn. By reference to the sixth article
section eighth, of the Constitution of this State
you will find the following: 'Thcrc shall be elected
in each of the organized counties Of this State one
County Judge. who shall hold his Office for four
years. HIS shall hold the County Court, and per-
form the duties Of surrogate Probate Judge' Now
if the performance of the duties of surrogate or
Probate Judge. involves the exercise of ccmmon-lar
jurisdicton lawyers protesting learning have great
ly misnformed me. Again, section ninth of the
same article provides: The County Courts shall
have such jurisdiction in arising in Justices
Courts. and in special cases. as the Legislature may
prescribe, but shall have no original civil jurisdc-
ton, except in such special cases." and the Su-
preme Court in the case of Parsons VS. Tuolumnc
Water Company. say I'VE think that the term
special cases was not meant to include any class
of cases for which the Courts of general urisdic-
tion had always supplied a remedy The special
cases therefore. must be confined to such new
are the creation of statutes and the pro-
cccdngs under which are unknown to the general
framework of Courts Of commonldw and equity"
They decide in effect (as Mr.. Bounderly would say.
mot to put too fine point on it, that County
Courts have not constitutional common-Lac iurisdic-
ton. If then the Supreme Court is correct. it fol-
lows that County Courts cannot legally grant
papers of naturalization and it occurs to ME that
County Court Judge who knowing the law attempts
to force upon community for citizens those who are
not legally such, has either great political bias
quite an elastic conscience perhaps both. This
brings mo to another suggestion not intended on
the outset Section twenty-ninth Of our election
law in regard to challenges reads: IF such person
shall still insist that he is entitled to vote, and the
shall not be withdrawn, the hoard of
judges in their discretion, may administer an oath
or affirmation to the voter, &c" Now if the board
Of judges have no discretion contendcd for by
partizans and must (not may, the language Of the
act,) administer the oath prescribed, to any who
may demand it. how is foreigner who honestly
swears by the faith he puts in democratic County
Court, to be prevented from exercising the right of
suffrage, right belonging alone to actual citizens:
and how is he to be made responsible for the impro-
per oath taken by him in good faith T! No sir, the
board Of judges and not the voter, are by the law
the sole judges for the time being of his qualifca
tions; to them belong the right to pronounce upon
the legality Of the rendered and for that pur-
pose they may in their discretion administer the
oath, or they may require better evidence. You
may hear from me again; until then,
remain, respectfully yours,
A VOTER