Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1855-01-04
From the Ohio State Journal
The Naturalization Laws.

Since the discussion originated by the Ameri-
can movement, it sc ems to be generally conce-
ded that, to effect the qualifications of voters,
there will have to be change in the State
Constitution, each Slate making a rule to suit
itself This is an anomaly resulting from the
complex structure OF our Government, which
makes the qualifications Of electors for Federal
officers the same as that 6xed by each State
for the most numerous branch of the State
Legislature; while it at the same time provides
that the qualifications of citizenship must be
uniform. In other words, man may be q
citizen, and not necessarily voter. MIR. Mad
ison, in the 4ed No. ofthe Federalist, notices a
similar confusion arising from the language Of
the fourth article Of the old confederation,
which read, the free inhabitants of each Of the
States y shall be entities to all privileges
and immunities of free cilizens in the several
States.' from whichit would follow that the
free inhabitants of State, although not citi-
gems of such State, might have greater priv
ileges in another State, than they possessed in
their own. u
The enforcement then, of our present natural-
ization laws, becomes a matter OF great interest
10 prevent the frauds, which, from their lax
construction, have been too often perpetrated.
The decision of Judge Dean, the lately appoin.
ted Democrats Supreme Judge in New York,
THAT declaration of intention cannot be made
before the Clerk, but must be in open Court,
as in any other judicial proceeding, is nothing
new, as it is in accordance witha former decis.
/ ion Of the United States Court on the circuits
noticed by Mr. Saunders, in his report to Con-
gress on the Naturalization Laws, in 1916. In.
deed the contary practice has prevailed in Ohio
| in some of the counties, from following the ab-
stract of the Naturalization laws published in
! Swans collated Statutes, instead of turning to
| the law in full when 1t would have been at once
seen that the section of the law referred to by
Swan, only makes good, declarations made,
bona fine, before the Clerk, prior to its passage,
and does not authorize any new declaration
The section Of the act of May 26 1924, referr
| ed to in Swan, is given here, in full so thai
Clerks Of Courts not having copy. may be
cautious how they attempt to issue first papers
in future; =
SEC. 5. And he it further enacted. That the
declaration required By the first condition spec.
Lifted in the first section of the act to which this
is an addition. shall. If the same HAS BEEN bona
1 ide made before the Clerk Of either of the
Courts in the said condition named, be as vail!
as if it had been made before said Courts re
spectively.
r The design Of this act was evidently to pro
tect those who, By mistakes or otherwise, had
lin good faith, made the declaration required b,
the old law before the Clerk, and was not in
tended to extend an abuse which was attemp
ted thus to be cured by post fact to remedia
act
There is yet-a more serious judicial questio
lying back Of this. which has vet to be decided
and that is, whether the act Of Congress is nc
Unconstitutional in as far as il attempts to con
fer power on State Courts 10 naturalize at al
and whether the Federal Courts have not o.
elusive Jurisdiction Of the matter Ihas bee