The weekly American banner. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1855-18??, 1856-08-29

Nntur0ll1n(G0m LAWS.
We puhlisf. today; - abzlr&Q d ttedeclsioh
upon tile naturalization laws nade b tbe SUI
prenls Court Of Californta, II re case ~ parfS
|Knopls. 1fthelaw % there correctly defined.
The probable consequences ere truly startling.
papcFs heretofore obtained have
all been absolutely void, except IN one ont Of mil
lions Of cases. They are void whenever obtained
from ainferior courts. Of limited powers, which
are made courts 81 record By statute, and having
not common law. but only statute jarisliction;'
or from Courts which, under The State Constitu-
tions "are exclusively appellate Such courts
have probably granted naturalization in thousands
of cases without argument or objection. But
even when granted by courts Of that class which
the suniiorm rule Of naturalization" fixed upon,
to be invested with jurisdiction of such applica-
tioas the naturalization papers are void unless
the State, In which they were obtained has, ''by
her legislation, determined to admit foreigners to
the right Of citizenship under the uniform rnle es-
tablished By Congress" It is believed that this
has not been done BY any State except California,
and her legislature seem to have done 1t by mare
accident in establishing mere fee bill for cleri-
cal duties performed under the naturalizatonlaws.
Probably not one member dreamed that the clause,
quoted by Mr.. Justice Heydenleldt, conferred ju-
risdiction; or doubted that Jurisdiction had been
alrerdy conferred by the acts Of Congress relating
to naturalization.
On the hypothesis that the decision is correct,
l. u
never been obtained 10 the United Suites, except
in the District Courts Of California. Then no
foreigner, who has obtained bis papers from any
other tribunal, Is really an adopted citizen, or
qualified voter, atleast in those States viii h re-
quire citizenship. We cannot say that we would
weep over this result; but every true hearted
American would deeply regret it, in consequence
the neglect Of the individual States to provide
for naturalization under the supiferm rule" estab
lished by Congress, the aliens, who supposed them
selves naturaized citizens, should suffer with re-
spect to the rights Of property. In the absence Of
State legislation enabling aliens to hold and trans
nit real estate, would not the earrings of their
! honest industry escheat to the State? And would
NV GA dtiSs W ColaeS uStttSl eiCtii
. either by descent or purchase, be void, aud thu
$ owners be liable to be dlspossessed, unless made
e secure by some statute Of limitations? The sub
ect is at least worth considering, and it might b
well for the States to pass laws confirming title
in such cases, if, indeed, such laws would be va
. against adverse claimants.
J. Another decision of the same court, in TA
People v. Gerke, ct al, would obviate the difficult
as to the property of some Aliens in case the ma
{ ton to which they belong had, by treaty, remov
le ed their disability to inherit in the Uted State
d This decision turned upon the consttutionality
II the clause in the convention of 1928 between til
United States and the Kingdom of Prussia, v hie
at provides that "when, on the death of any perso
ne holding real estate within the territory of the Oh
u party such real estate would, by the laws of Il
SC land descend on citizen or subject OF the othe
= we're be not disqualified by alienagc, such citze
:, or subject shall be allowed reasonable time
> sell the same and to withdraw the pracceds wit
:. out molestation.' TART, l4,) The court he
US that it is proper subject of treaty according
$ international law, and the usage or practice ofci
of Ized nntions, aud il not prohibited by any oft
IN limitations in the Constitution; and is thereto
n valid.
"a -------~~-- -~>-~4~~--~--->-