Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-11-11
POWERS ON CITIZENSHIP.

JUDGE POWERS ON CITIZENSHIP
Appfy-Something for the Nor
mon Foreigners to
/ Ponder Upon.
In the First Judicial District Court al
Provo on Monday Danishman named
Neils Hansen, OF San Pete, applied fol-
naturalization papers. In answer to the
questions of the Court, Hansen said he
thought the practice of polygamy was
right and he could not bring in verdict
of guilty against person charged with
such an ofense. Judge Powers refused
the alien the desired papers, and to make
his position thoroughly understood on
this important question, he yesterday
filed the following opinion:
In the First Judicial District Court, Utah
Territory.
In the matter OF the application of Neils
Hansen to become citizen of the
United States.
The Court In the exercise of its judicial
| functions, has felt compelled to take a.
position relative to the rights of persons
to become citizens OF the United States,
| of SO much Importance that it is proper
to place upon the files of the Court the
reasons for the action taken.
One Neils Hansen, a resident of the
county of San Pete, in Utah Territory.
applied to the Courtfor admission as cit
iZen. He had resided here the statutory
length of time and had declared his inten-
tons, as required by the statute. He stated
l q q oft hnd To 4ho - Z
our Constitution and of the laws of our
country. He also stated that he proposed
to obey all our laws, those relating to
polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, as
well as others, but that he believed it right
for man to have living and undivorced
more than one wife, and that this belief
would prevent him from rendering YER
dict OF guilty in a polygamy case if he was
called as juror in such case, even if
the proof should show the prisoner to be
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt There
upon the Court declined to admit him as
citizen, for the reason that he was not
competent to assume the burdens of citi-
zenship. He admitted that he would vio-
late the sanctity of his oath as juror, on
account of his private belief. He satisfied
the Court that he was not attached to our
laws, or to the principles of our Constitu-
ton. The Court is satisfied that the allie
glance that he would render to the Gov
eminent would be qualified allegiance.
While all will admit that he is entitled to
his individual belief. when it became APP
parent to the Court that
HIS BELIEF WOULD BE PARAMOUNT,
And his fidelity to the laws and the Gov
eminent secondary, it became the duty of
the Court to refuse to admit him as cit |
izen
The power to naturalize, by virtue of
the act of Congress, is judicial in its ma
ture. 1t is judicial power, because up
on evidence conclusion has to be at
tanned, resulting from the exercise of the !
judgment of the Court This is simple |
and clear enough without resorting to au-
thority. Nevertheless, l will call atten-
ton to the opinion of Chief Justice Mar !
shall, in Spratt VS.. Spratt, Peters, 400, |
and also to the case of er purte Knowles, |
5 Cal, 302. The power to naturalize be- |
ing judicial, it follows that something
more is required of an applicant than that
he has resided within the United States
the statutory period. The blessings be-
slowed by our Government are not to be
given to one who is unworthy. Citizen
ship is privilege which no man has
right to demand, and in constituting the
acts of Congress upon the subject of nat
the Courts ought not to go be-
yond what is plainly written. In re Ca
mile, 6 Sawyer, 214.
eve adopt as citizens those belonging
to our race, who coming from other lands
manifest attachment to our institutions
and desire to be incorporated with u.s."
In re Look Tin Sing, West Coast Rep,
1858.
Before an applicant can be natural
lied, the Court must be satisfied as to his
character Campbell vs.. Gordon,
Cranch 1872
The Court is vested with a discretion,
and if it is convinced that the applicant
is not attached to the principles of our
Constitution, and is not we'll disposed to
the good order and happiness of the same,
it should not naturalize him. 1t has been
claimed that all the inquiry that the Court
can make is as to tie applicants behav-
ior; that the words of the statute that he
has behaved as man of good moral
attached to the principles of the
Constitution of the United States, and
well disposed to the good order and hap
piness of the same," limits the inquiry of
the Court to the mans behavior. But
can this be true? Is this correct inter-
probation of the statute in it's letter and |
spirit?
AN IDIOT OR LUNATIC
May have behaved properly, but can it be
contended that, therefore, the court must |
him, Notwithstanding his condi-
ton of mind? think not.
think that man who is so firm be- |
lever in the doctrine that crime is
right. that upon applying for naturaliza-
ton he announces under oath that he
would, as a juror, violate his oath and
render verdict of not guilty in GRIM
inal case, when the proof showed the |
prisoner to be guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, is untitled to become citizen.
He is not qualified to assume one OF |
the burdens OF citizenship = namely, |
Jury duty. 1t would, it seems to me,
be a judicial farce to bestow the
inestimable gift of citizenship upon such |
a man.
Moreover, "courts are bound to take. |
notice of the political and social condi-
ton of the country which they judicially |
rule" Irwin vs. Phillips, 2 Cal. 146;
MERGED Mining Company VS.. Fremont,
Cal. 325.
What is the political and social condi-
ton of this Territory land how does it bear
upon the matter under consideration? A
large percentage of the people are violators
of the law; large and overwhelming ma
jority of the people openly advocate the
violation of the law. People teach the
doctrine that there
ARE HIGHER LAWS