The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-10-28
WIN. r. WHITAKER ON
NATURALIZATION.
NEW ORLEANS, Oct. 26, 1874.
Election Committee:

New ORLEANS, Oct. 26, 1874.
Election Committee
My Dear Sir-You ask NV onin;on relative
to the power of the Second District Court ot
the parish Of Orleans to naturalize foreigners.
and as to the duties of officers of registration
and election with reference to persons who
have registered as voters under certificates Of
naturalization issued by that Court
SO much has been already published in the
way Of legal opinion upon the former part of
your interrogatory, that have been, and am,
somewhat reluctant to express my views, and
shall do SO with no intention to share in any
discussion of the subject. I have given the
matter q careful investigation. with the aid OF
such authorities as were within my reach.
The decisions Of Federal and State tribu-
nails relative to naturalization do not appear to
have been numerous, and upon at least one
point OF importance, affecting particularly the
courts Of Louisiana, have thus far failed to
find any authoritative decision.
The acts of Congress regulate the whole
matter OF naturalization, prescribing who may
be naturalized, by what courts it may be ef-
fected, and in what manner it shall be done.
It is claimed that the Second District Court
is not of common law jurisdiction, within the
meaning of section 3 of the Act of Congress
of 1902, and therefore cannot na.urslize.
The question is, then, presented is this
section 3 to be interpreted as restrictive def
milton, limiting the meaning of the word "dis-
trict in the first section of the act, or are we
to understand section 8 to be an essentially
substantive additional piece of legislation.
authorizing naturalization in courts not men
toned in the first section, and leaving the
word " district in the first section to be in
terpreted precisely as it would have been if
the third section did not form part Of the
law? The first section says State District
Courts may naturalize. The third section is
as follows:
"SEc. g. And whereas, doubts have arisen
whether certain courts of record in some of
the States are included within the description
OF district or circuit courts: Be 1t further
enacted, That every court of record, in any
individual State, having common law juris-
diction, and seal and clerk or prothonotary,
shall be considered as district court within
the meaning of this act; and every alien who
may have been naturalized in any such court
shall enjoy, from and after the passing of the
act, the same rights and privileges as if he
had been naturalized in district or circuit
court of the United States"
The reason far the enactment of the third
section is set forth in its preamble, and plain
ly indicated in the concluding clause Aliens
known as "Circuit or District Courts" and
the validity Of such naturalization was doubt
ed. It was questioned if the designations
"circuit or district" could be legally held to
include these other courts. No one will dis
pute that by this third section C ongress legal.
ICES these questioned naturalizations, and de-
clares that the class of courts in which they had
taken place should thereafter be permitted to
naturalize; but does Congress 60 further, to
say that the district and circuit courts
shall not continue to nsturalize, as they had
been authorized to do by the act of 1895, the
language of that act, in this particular, having
been precisely that employed in the first Sec
ton Of the act Of 1902? Power to naturalize
had been offered to all State district courts in
the act Of 1895. Is this jurisdiction denied
to any of the district courts by the provision
that certain courts, concerning which doubts
had arisen, not known as "circuit or district"
should thereafter be considered as district
courts within the meaning of the act?
The third section gives the reason for its
passage, and it does not say Whereas, GER
tain Of the District and Circuit Courts are not
Of common law juris lotion" or " have no seal
or clerk, and therefore none but q certain
description Of courts shall be considered dis
trict courts within the meaning of this act "
It does not set forth that any doubt has arisen
as to the naturalizations effected in any dis
trict court, and that therefore a limitation
among courts Of that designation became nee |
essary.
Is it not clear that, by the third section,
Congress intended to enlarge the opportunity |
for access to the rights of American citizen !
ship, and to legalize what had hitherto been |
done Of doubtful character in the way of |
in the interest of liberal |
policy looking to public convenience in this
matter?
What was the purpose of Congress in de-
signaling the Supreme, Superior, District or
Circuit Courts of States as the tribunals to |
exercise this important function? Was there
anything in that intent rendering general
law jurisdiction essential?
Was it not the sole purpose to secure courts
Of record, Of sufficient standing and dignity,
for the execution Of grave matter of public
policy-of moment in connection with inter-
national relations, in the interest of the de-
velopment Of national resources-of the char
acter of future population, of the persons
the tide of immigration constantly
pouring upon our shores from the then war
continent of Europe?
To execute that purpose, if a court had the
requisite standing asa District or Circuit Court
general common law jurisdiction would afford
40 advantage, for, Of course, naturalization is
not one of the subjects of that jurisdiction.
But the existence of Courts, other than CTR
,uit or District" of such power as indicated
oy the expression common law jurisdiction"
md having the requisite means of admins
ration and for the preservation Of its records,
vas duly recognized by Congress, and they were
permitted, as public convenience,
o share in the work of naturalization, as an
wering the requirements Of the originators of
'ur naturalization system.
This Interpretation Of the law, based upon
Is history and purpose, is consistent with its
trict letter. and leads directly to the conclu'
ion that a State District Court, with or with
ut general common law jurisdiction, may
aturalize aliens.
Since writing the above, Gov. Hyams has
'een good enough to call my attention to the
pinions of several eminent Louisiana lawyers
ouching the very matter at issue, which
pinions appeared in the columns OF the
do,'ier, of this city, Of the dates Of 18th and
9Th of October, 1856.
find that Messrs J. P. Benjamin, 81. NJ. |
1yams, VIM. Dunbar, Isaac E. Morse, Charles