The Portland daily press., 1890-03-12

er's declaration was made. The onestion ;s
whether the police court of LYNN is comne'
ton. 0oi'o WIS ueciara-
ms question depends on the Act of Con.
sIess Of April IA, 1902 which prescribes
rnH tcoaheit,ons upon which aliens may be adj
i M 10 De citizens of the United States.
l., Inc first Of those conditions allows the pre-.
namilnary declaration to be made on oath or
anImatl0n, before the Supreme, SUP
IDistrlct or Circuit court of some one of the
states. And the third section of the Act is
as follows:
And whereas doubts have arisen whether certain
, OF record In some of the States included
Wtnin the description of District or Circuit courts
pe ~ lurtner enacted, that any court of record in
any INDIVIDUAL State having common law juris-
ulcuon, and seal and clerk or prohonotary
shall pc considered as District court within the
meaning of this Act
La ex parte Gledhill. s Met, 1885, the Su.
preme Court Of Massachusetts, decided, that
the police court of Lowell was a court of
record having common law jurisdiction.
The police court of Lynn, which was estab-
llSned by statute, 1919, c. So, is Sc far identi-
cal with the police court of Lowell in respect
u ITS presiding justice. the mode of his ap-
pointment. the tenure of his office, the juris-
diction of the Court, and the record of its
proceedings, that we are satisfied that de-
cision applies to those particulars in this
case, and we see no sound reason to doubt
That the police court of Lynn was a court of
record, having a common law jurisdiction
But two questions still remain-whether
that court had clerk and seal. In the act
Tor organizing the court the Justice is direct
ed 10 keep fair record of all proceedings
tnereln. In the case of exparte Gledhill, the
Chief Justice says:
It might be argued that the Act of Congress in
Tended 60 limit the power TO a court HAVING .
separate recording officer whose act shopld an.
snsns.ate us aongs, and that the signature OF
2 separate recording ofncer might add something
70 tne credit due to an authenticated transcrinfH'
On the other hand, il might be argued with snine
Py ia s Inae i the Judge is specially vested
~ law WIN clerical authority, the court has a
Ute" f'' Va 'no stae
This question that court had no occasion
10 decide, and did not attempt TO decide:
because by another act the police court OF
Loweii was authorized to appoint, and had
IN TACT appointed a clerk, before the declara-
ton then In question was made. We are of
opinion, that the police court of LYNN i'm
whlch the Justice was the recording officer.
was not court having a clerk, within the
;p ~ cam OF the Act Of Congress Certainly
which clearly implies that there may be
courts OF record having seal and common
law Jurisdiction, but no clerk or prothon-
otary, and that such courts are not included
oy Ihe ACT Yet how could this be if il
were enough that the presiding Justice
should himself record the proceedings? A
court OF record necessarily requires some one
Iuiy authorized TO record the proceedings.
when the act speaks of courts of record
y a,, speaks OF courts whose proceedings are
and when it says. shaving clerk or potho.
notary it superadds the requirement. that
those proceedings shall be recorded bv one
OF tnose oflcers.. Unless the act be so con-
strued, the requirement of a clerk or protho-
notary would have no meaning. The Act
Wouiu nave the same construction as IL it
were stricken out; because the words court
81 record, would carry with them the neces-
sity OF having the proceedings recorded by
some one by authority of law Nor do we
CONSIDER u a vain and useless precaution, to
contne the power to naturalize aliens to
courts In which one of those officers is
found. o-"eoi0 -
In Spratt VS.. Spratt, Peters. 800. IL was
declared by the Supreme Court, that the va
ri9us acts on the subject of naturalization
record. They are to receive testimony. to
compare 1t with the law, and to Judge on
both law and fact. If their Judgment IS en-
teIed on record in legal form, it closes all
INQUIRY. and, like any other judgment of a
dence OF its own validity. The Importance
ana value OF this privilege of citiZenshin.
when Is conclusively and finally bestowed
Oy the act OF the court having Jurisdiction,
should prevent us from allowing less than its
1uli right, to any requirement by Congress
which tends to restrict this power to those
tribunals which may be supposed most COM
potent to exercise 1t. And certainly. there
would seem to be no propriety in iutrusting
70 court, which, in the exercise of its com
any, matter of law or fact, affecting PROPERTY
70 the amount Of one dollar to make final
decision upon all questions of law or fact in
VOWED In an application for the great right
Of citizenship so as to make an absolute and
grant of it.
Now it is generally true, that court of
record. which is without clerk or prothon-
otary, is not only subordinate tribunal, but
one 10 winch narrow and comparatively
unlmportant jurisdiction is intrusted. 1t is
also true that there is more security, that its
proceedings Will be correctly recorded and
certihed, II 1t has such an officer charged
with those particular duties. Congress
might well have had both these things in
view, when it required the court to have
such an officer. And we are of opinion. that
court not having such an officer, does not
possess the authority conferred by the act.
A few days ago Judge Webb of the United
States District Court for the district of
Maine construed the statute of Congress in
accord with the construction given it in the
the opinion cited above, and decided that the
Biddeford court was not competent to natur
alize. OF course it is State law which the
Biddeford aliens violated in voting on Mon
day and of course they must be tried in the
State courts. The question of their guilt or
Innocence will turn upon whether they had
right to vote. And the determination of this
question will require that the Supreme
Court OF Maine construe the same United
States law that is construed in the opinion
above and by Judge Webb. OF course the
Supreme court of Maine is under no obliga-
ton to follow the constructions of the Cir
cult or District courts. Probably, however,
nothing but the weightiest of reasons would
lead 1t to reverse the construction which
had been given to an Act of Congress by two
Federal courts