The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-10-27
THE QUESTION OF NATURAL
IZATION.
What is "District Court Under the
Law.
Opinion Of J. p. BENJAMIN and Others as
Expressed in 1856.

on the powers Of the Second District Court t
issue naturalization papers, has created con
siderable commotion in the community.
There is no one that for an instant doubt
that Field knows better, and that it is stric.l
partisan expression Of views, into which b
has been forced by the exigencies Of the cas-
and the opportunities Of the leaders of hi
party. But it is believed that notwithstandin!
the opinions of eminent lawyers in conflict, il
fact, in direct opposition to his, that the Stat
Supervisor will scratch off the books Of regis
tration the names of all naturalized citizen
whose papers issued from the Second Distric
Court.
Field decides against the right Of the Sec
ond District Court on the ground that it il
not court of common law, that is, not wha
he would consider court Of commonllaw, &C
cording to the meaning and intent Of tn,
naturalization act of Congress Of 1902.
On this subject We propose to give the
opinions Of certain gentlemen Of the bar, who
although they were not possessed OF as great
legal minds as Field nor one-half his legal
knowledge, were yet Of sufficient standing tc
entitle their views to some consideration.
In 1854, when the Know Nothings and the
Democrats were having one of their great bat.
ties, the questions arose
l. Have the several district courts Of the
State of Louisiana the power to admit persons
to the rights of citizenship where the requi-
sites of the naturalization laws are complied
with?
g. Have the District Courts of New Or
leans the power to admit persons to the rights
of citizenship during vacation-that is to say,
from the fourth Of July to the first Monday
in November?
g. Has the First District Court of New Or
leans the right to admit persons to the rights
Of citizenship? and a
4. Question as to the rights of the Commits
sioners OF Election, under certain circun-
stances, to challenge votes.
In accordance with resolution adopted by
the Democratic Central Committee, of which
Thos. J. Ssmmes, Esq, was chairman, the
questions were submitted to the most emf.
nent lawyers Of the time, and among them j.
P. Benjamin, who answered as follows:
NEW ORLEANS, Oct. 8, 1855.
Thos. j. Semmes, ESQ.,:
Sri cheerfully comply with the request Of
the Democratic Central Committee as COM
municated to me in your note Of the 5th inst,
and reply as follows to the several questions Of
the committee:
/. The District Courts of this State possess
the power to naturalize foreigners.
This power is given in express words in the
LIST section of the Act of 1902 to the ''Supreme,
Superior, District or Circuit Courts of the
States" These plain words settle the ques-
ton.
understand, however, that suggestion is
made that the Sd section of the law limits
these words so as to confne the power to
courts of common law jurisdiction.
That this suggestion is erroneous, will be
obvious on an examination of the language Of
the Sd section, which is in these words:
"Whereas doubts haze arisen mhether certain
courts of record in some Of the States included
in the description Of District or Circuit Courts;
Be it further enacted that any Court of Record
in any individual State, having common law juris-
diction and a seal and Clerk or Parliamentary,
shall be considered as a District Court ,cithin the
meaning Of this Act; and every alien, ,cho may
hare been ndtur0itzed IN any such Court, shall
enjoy from and after The pa sage Of ht1s Act, the
same rights and privileges, as if he had been
United States"
ing OF the Sd Section apparent.
In 1890 and 1895, under Gen. Washington's
Administration, naturalization laws had been
passed granting the power in question to the
s.Supreme, Superior, District or Circuit Court of
the States"
In some of the States there were no District
or Circuit Courts the inferior Courts OF
Record were called Courts Of Common Pleas,
etc.
These courts had undertaken to naturalize
foreigners, believing themselves to be in
cluded within the meaning Of the words
"District or. Circuit Courts, but doubts Lad
arisen as to their power, therefore the third Sec
ton was inserted in the law of 1902, expressly
to remove doubt. 1t says: 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 it enacted. etc.
OF course no doubt could have arisen
whether District Courts were included in the
description "District or Circuit Courts. The
doubt was whether County Courts, the Courts
of Common Pleas, etc, were Included IN that
description, therefore Congress said: Every
court mo matter what the name was) having
common law jurisdiction and seal and clerk,
shall be considered as District Court within
the meaning of this act"
The Sd section does not apply to Louisiana
where our courts are named District Courts, |
md therefore are included in the lst section
# the law. 1t applies to other States as New
York and Massachusetts, for instance where
'ome Of the Superior Courts OF Record are
,alled courts of common pleas, and where
this name, they are by |
'irtue of this section considered as District
courts within the meaning of this act.
{ If however, this section were applicable to
he District Courts of Louisiana, the result
would be the same. The First District Court
las criminal jurisdiction. This is peculiarly
common law jurisdiction so much so that
wen its forms Of proceedings are directed by
aw to be constructed according to and IN
onformity with the common law Of England,
tc.
The opinion then states 'the courts pos
ess this power the whole year" No matter
low few or restricted the purposes for which
be State orders its courts to remain open all
be year," the courts are none the less open
ourts and when SO open, they take Jurlsdlc-
= .r co+rro1;1ino forai yuorS. MT under the |