The Shasta courier., 1855-08-11
The Rfghs Of ssase eearss Is NatutiliAe
L Hereignern.

The Rt8bs OI u9ote GOuFto - NatutoH2c
! Hereignerss
The papers few days since were filled with
a brief presented to the Supreme Court Of this
State, by Mr.. Foote, on the application Of one
Frank knowles. to become citizen Of the Uni
ted States.
The question is raised whether State courts
have the power under the Constitution of the
State Of California. to grant letters Of naturaza
stion. Among the powers and duties Of Con
gress, as defined in the Constitution of the Uni
ted States, is the one to provide for AN uniform
system of Naturalization" In pursuance Of that
provision Congress- did, at its first session, pass
law giving to State courts that power and
that there might be no mistake as to what courts
were invested with that power, they defined
" that all courts having eolnmenlaw jurisdiction,
"a Clerk or Prothonatory and seal'' We're in
ten led. States have been admitted under this
Constitution and under this law, and have ac-
knowledged by entering the Union, the validity
Of The act of Congress. No state rights are in
fringed, for the contract between the United
States and the state entering the Union, was
well understood before the state applied for adj
mission. I aff raftaF
But it is argued that Congress had no right to
define the dmies and prescribe the jurisdiction
Of state cotris. To this we reply, that far as
any new rights are concerned, it may be irne,
although the weight of authority, we think. is
against that proposition but certainly states
entering the Union with this law upon the stat
utes cannot flcul II. But tbenii is not clai,ned
that the law is coerciVe. II does not require orr
state courts to grast letters hf Citizenship, but
permits them to DO so. And even lift did-cven
| though the state courts had no legal power to
na'uralize foreigners as court STILL the United
States could not complain for She has given her
consent; the forei isner WHO voluntarily tool,
the oath TO renonuce all allegiance, to every
other power, and TO support onr Constitution,
could not, for the is of his own free will and
| accord So, in possible contingency do we
see iha, injury can result from the exercise of
that power by our state courts. ~
But we contend tha, the Constitutions gave to
Congress control over the subject matter, and
that in pursuance ofthat power she did provide
an uniform law on the subject; that the states
entered the Union with that law made part of
the Constitution Itself and cannot now object to
its jurisdiction. But it is argued that even adj
mittins that the state courts have the power to
naturalize, they have no power TO punish for
taking false oath This, it strikes us. is the
most ridiculous proposition ever presented to a
sensible community. AS though false oath on
one subject was not as much perjury as another.
If the state courts have power to grant letters OF
naturalization, they have, as a matter of neces-
sity, all the powers necessary or incident there
to-
California, however. by special act of her Le-
gislature, has taken upon herself this power
and there can be no doubt that she has the pow
er now vested in her state courts. by the Consti
tuition Of the United States. and the act of Con-
gress giving the permission on the one part and
she accepting it on the other.
What would be the effect of refusing or deny
ing the existence OF this right in state courts
Would it not be in so many words, saying to
citizen of Massachusetts, of Rhode Island, or Of
New York. that you should not exercise the
S""c PfNiieSeS W riSutS mere thaf you 90 al
home? Would it not, in other words, be re-
viewing the decision of the courts Of other states?
The Constitution guarantees to citizens of one
state all the rights Of citizens Of another-and
this doctrine under discussion would anurl and
entirely abrogate that wholesome provision. If
that doctrine were carried ont by all the states,
the hard earned property, which by industry,
the naturalized citizen had accumulated, with
the hope of leaving it TO his family, might be
would be the result
We ecannot believe that an intelligent judiciary
can or will render decision in direct confc,
with the settled action of every state in the Un-
ion, and IN opposition to the statutes of this state