The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-08-31

says that in.Ieuston v. Moore. 5 Whea-
ton, the SupremeCourt disclaimed the
idea that Congress could autnoritatively
bestow judicial powers on State courts.
In that case it is said that it is perfectly
clear that Congress cannot confer juriS-
diction upon any courts but such as eX-
ist under the constitution and laws or
the United States. although the state
courts may exercise jurisdiction in cases
authorized by the laws of the State, and
not prohibited by the exclusive juriSdlc-
tion of the Federal courts.
The learned judge declares that in the
case last cited. the Judges of the SUI
preme Court very clearly intimated that
the State courts were not bound in con-
sequence of any act of Congress, to as
sumo and exercise jurisdiction in such
cases and he regards the doctrine as
well founded that Congress cannot com
ton in any case. Kent's Com. s9s-
400-402
Such has been the view adopted by
State courts, where the. question has
been involved, Haney v. Sharp. l Dana
tKy). 4A2; Elk parte Pool Virginia cass.
The national courts have recognized
their want of authority in cases not
within the appellate jurisdiction of the
United States. to issue injunctions TO
the State courts. or in any other man
ner to interfere with their jurisdiction
Digs '. Walcott, Crouch. 17s 'aThe
powers not 6elegated to the United states
by the Constitution nor prohibited @ by It
respectively or to the people"
t. S. Const. Amendments, article X
There has been no surrender. by the
States of the right 20 establish their. own
courts, to define and limit their 1uris-
diction and functions. and to regulate
and control them in all respects. ex-
cept as to appellate jurisdiction, ana as
to subjects within the exclusive jurisdic-
ton of the United States.
The State esta blishes its own courts,
defines their Jurisdiction. appoints its
judges and pays their salaries.
WRIT MIST BE Rf1l0II SlGD
Whether the judges. of the State courts
shall act in applications for natura liza
with which they. may be lawfully lnXest-
ed. is. in my opinion, exclusively within,
and subject to. the will of the legislative,
branch of the State Government.
NV conclusion. therefore. is, that it is
potent for the State Legislature to forbid
State courts altogether to entertain or
act upon applications for naturalization;
and therefore it could lay a1Y restraint
regula ton limitation. or condition upon
the practice in such cases. which it
MIGHT deem expedient or proper.
No right is claimed or could be con-
eeded on behalf of the State to interfere
IN any respect with the subject of natur-
alization in the Federal courts.
r-r:- i-eni7itv or the part of the Fed
eral Government to constTain the. State
courts ito act. in nowise ippairs the ex-
-,usive pofVef OF the United States over
the subject of naturalization.
The power of Congress TO create IN
serior courts. and such other agencies
as it may deem necessary for the COM
p1ete exercise of this branch of its ex-
elusive authority is not circumseribed.
In nv judgment, 1t was within the pow
er of the State I,esislature to nass that
section of the act which has given rise
10 this discussion. and the application
for writ of mandamus to the court be-
low must be refused with costs.