The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-10-28


The authorities differ as to what extent OF
common law Jurisdictions necessary to enable
court to naturaliZe, under the perm ssiOn OF
the third section of the act of 1902. There is
no court of strictly common law jurisdiction
in Louisiana, unless we can accept, as sufii-
GENTLY rigid definition Of that jurisdiction,
the liberal language Of the Supreme Court of
California, in naturalization case: "The
term common law jurisdiction is capable of no
other meaning than jurisdiction to try and
decide cases, which were cogn!zable by the
courts OF law under the common law of Eng
land" $50 Cal. 9S.) In that sense Of the
words, we have common law courts here.
The Supreme Court OF the United States
has declared that we have. Has, then, the
Second District Court common law jurisdic-
ton, as that jurisdiction is thus defined? 1t
has the right to try actions which the ecclesi-
i! astical and chancery courts of England could
not undertake, but which were within the
province of the law courts, according to the
English system in 1902. In other words, it
has special common law jurisdiction beyond
that OF "the probate of wills, the granting Of
administrations, and the suing for legacies, :"
forming the three branches, according to
Blackstone, of the jurisdiction Of testamentary
causes belonging to English ecclesiastical
courts.
The scope Of its authority is extensive as to
the character of the actions it may try and de-
termine in connection with the matters pecu-
liarly confded to it. If the defendant be a
succession, there are numerous law proceed
ing that this court may be called upon to ad-
minister. The same action for money that
would be commenced against living person
in one of the other district courts by virtue of
his residence, might be brought against his
executor OF administrator in the Second Dis
trict Court. The common law jurisdiction of
the other district courts is limited by the
amount at issue, the residence of the defend
ant, the exclusive powers Of the Second Dis
trict Court, and the special jurisdiction in
certain actions, and with reference to certain
parties, of the Superior District Court.
If common law jurisdiction in the third
section of the act of 1902 means jurisdiction
in law actions so general as to be without
bounds, except as to the nature Of the actions,
then we have no Louisiana courts Of that
jurisdiction. All on, civil district courts have
common law jurisdiction; in all, this jurisdic-
ton has metes and bounds that are statutory;
and that of the Second District Court is
ample as to the kind of remedy, and the pos
sible parties and subjects of controversy, to
entitle it to the designation of common law
court. Now, if we, for the sake Of the argu-
ment, abandon its claims to the jurisdiction
conferred by the first sections this extent
of law jurisdiction sufficient to bring this
court within the definition of the third Sec
ton?
The Knox county case Gam. Law Times
Rep, 461), insists on general and not linn
tied Law jurisdiction. This is not the doctrine
by other State Supreme Courts
that have investigated the subject. In the
case OF Burkhardt (16 Texas, 400, it was held
that County Court with extremely limited
common law jurisdiction, with only probate
powers and the right to try appeal cases from
Justices courts, and with no original law juris-
diction, could properly naturalize. In The
People VS.. Pease go Barb, n. T., 5SS), it was
held that County Courts in New York, having
only special common law jurisdiction and
the cognizance of appeals from justices, could
naturalize.
County courts in California are permitted to
under the decision already referred
to, although their common law jurisdiction is
not general but special, and is limited to
appeals from justices Of the peace and record
ers and to certain actions specially assigned
by statute. In this case the Supreme Court
says, that court need not have the |
whole common law jurisdiction to execute the
laws. The contrary doctrine |
had been advanced, as an obiter dictuna, by the |
same court, in ca parte Knowles Is Cal. 3OO;
but it was positively overruled in the Conner
case go Cal. 98) as untenable.
The police court in Lowell was declared by |
The Massachusetts Supreme Court to be COM
petent to naturalize, and its common law ju-
risdiction in civil matters did not embrace
larger amounts than one hundred dollars.
This case e rAIetcalf, 1851 was referred to by
,lded, although its jurisdiction could not be
regarded as particularly extended. The case
reported in 44th Illinois, 1874, turned upon the
question as to whether the naturalizing court
vas court Of record, matter of no interest
n our present inquiry, as there can be no
loubt as to the sutfciency of the status of the
second District Court in that regard
If the foregoing be not fallacious, your first
question is fully answered. I have stated
easons for believing that, as State district
court, the Second District Court for the parish
# Orleans has authority to naturalize.
rave further sh own that, if the third section
# the act of 1902 limits the number of dis
riot courts empowered to naturalize to those
laving common law jurisdiction, that court has
mple common law jurisdiction to qualify it
o perform that function
Then, the duties of the officers of registra-
ration and election, with reference to persons
egistered under that courts naturalization,
re perfectly plain. The status of these per-
ons has been decided by court of compe-
emit jurisdiction, by formal judgment, which
complete evidence of its own validity, and
annot be set aside at the dictun of nom
judicial officer, or by any one else except the
roper legal tribunal after due proceedings.
his status has been acknowledged by the
egistration officers, and the names Of these
'.rsons have been duly inscribed upon the
egistration books as qualified electors.
The Assistant Supervisors have made such
ecisions as the letter Of the State law
uthorizes. An opinion from any member of
be legal profession, no matter how exalted
is official station, how profound his acquire
tents, Or how fair his purposes, cannot set
side the judgment, undo the registration. or
elieve from personal responsibility any officer
tho violates the clear rights of the person
tho has been registeredas a properly qualified
lector. 1t is true that the law prescribes a
svision of the registration books, and pro-
ides for the erasure of names therein recorded
5 voters but it clearly designates the mode
f such revision, and all the instances in