The Nevada journal., 1855-08-17
Decisions of the Supreme
Court. Il
Application for
Naturalization

] Court.
Er Pdrte, Application for
Frank Knowles. Naturalization.
Opinion by the Court-Heydenfeldt, j
This is an application on the part of an al
len to become naturalHed, under the provisions
Of the Constitution and laws eof the United
4 States.
1t has been made directly TO this court, and
has been resisted by several members of the
Bar, in the character Of "Amieus curie." on
the ground that State Courts have no jurisdic-
ftion Of the subject matter. lz :
1t might be q sufficient answer to the appli-
cant to declare what is the settled decision Of
this Court, that it is under the State Consti-
tuition and appellate tribunal, and can take no
original jurisdiction. however conferred. But
the Importance of the question which has been
argued at the bar and the learning and re-
search which has been evinced in its exaniina-
ton, induce US, in departure from our usual
habit, to consider and 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 applicant, will first
be disposed Of.
i These are, frst-that the power to natural.
ize by virtue of the Act of Congress of 1902,
is q judicial one; and second. That Congress
has no power to confer jurisdiction upon the
Courts of state. Upon both these PROPOSE
tions We affirmatively concur. 1t is judicial
power, because upon evidence, conclusion
has to be attained resulting from the exercise
OF the judgment of the Court.
This is simple and clear enough without re-
sorting to authority. But nevertheless we
will refer to the case of Spratt rs Spratt,
Peters, 406 where it is distinctly so settled by
Chief Justice Marshall. Congress has no
power to confer jurisdiction upon the Courts
OF a state, because, first, the Constitution
gives it no such power; and secondly, the
1 Constitution expressly declares that ''the ju-
diciai power of the United States shall be vest.
ed in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish See sec, l, art. 3,
Const. United States. There have been vari-
Gus adjudi cations maintaining this view, which
it will be sufficient simply to cite.
/ See Martin Us Hunter, Lessee, Wheaton
The state of Maryland VS.. Thos Butler. report
ed in IL Niles Register, p 115' United
States vs. Lathrop, II johnson, r. state vs.
Mcbride Rice R., p 400.
Il 1t was urged in the course of the argument,
and some authorities were cited to the effect,
that although Congress could not copfer juris-
diction on state court so as to compel its ex-
ercise, yet it would be legitimate if the Court
was willing to acceptit. This is to me sole
cism.
& A Court is a creation of the Constitution and
laws under which it exists.
, To exercise any power not derived from such
| Constitution and laws, would necessarily be a
usurpation. 1t sounds curiously, to say, "Con'
gress has no authority to give this power to
tie Court, yet the Court exercises this power
by virtue of Congress-
| come now to the consideration of the main
question, whether the state courts of Calf ornia
and what state courts, have the power to nat
uralize and have come to the conclusion
that this question is but little affected by the
propositions which have been already led to
consider, on account of the seeming import.
ance attached to them by the learned Counsel,
and the able manner in which they were pre-.
sented.
4 In the 9Th section of the Ist article of the
Constitution enumerating the powers of Con.
gress, is the following separate clause.
"To establish uniform rule of naturaliza.
J tion, and uniform laws on the subject of bank
ruptcies throughout the United States" BY
metaphysical refinement in examining the form
of our government, it might be correctly said,
that there is no such thing as a citizen of the
United Mates But constant usage arising
from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and
dating from the foundation of the confedcracy,
has given substantial existence to the idea
which the term conveys, citizen of any one Of
the states of the Union is held TO be, and called
J citizen of the United States, At the time of
| olo off fbo
had power to make citizens of aliens; does the
clause of the constitution above quoted deprive
them oft? The true rule of construction as
to the exclusiveness of the powers of Congress
is, first, tat it must be granted exclusively
Second, forbidden to the states. Third, from
the nature of the power, its exercise by both
must be incompatible and incongruous. Does
the power under review come within either of
these proportions If we examine the Ian.
guage closely, and according to the rules of
rigid construction always applicable to dele
gated powers, we will find that the power to
naturalize in fact, is not given to Congress,
but simply the power to establish uniform
rule.
4 The states are not forbidden to naturalize.
nor is there anything in the exercise of the
powers by them incongruous or Incompatible
with the power of Congress to establish a uni
/ form rule.
That the states. if they choose to exercise the
power as an original one, must abide by the
rule which congress makes, there cannot be the
slightest difference of opinion. The power
given to Congress was, according to my app
prehension, intended to provide rule for the
action of the states and not rule for the ac-
tion of the federal government, else why was
the term uniform" made to qualify "rule' if
it was designed simplyto give the power of
making citizens to Congress. Simpler modes
of expression might have been used and ought
to have required, and surely there would have
been no use for the term uniform"
"Why should the rule be uniform unless
more than one had to execute 6.he rule. It
certainly could not have been imagined that
Congress would have made rule for its own
officers, which could have operated without
uniformity. The states had the power to nat.