The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-08-31
STORRS LAW UPHELD
Text5of Justice Van Syckel's
Decision in the Natural
ization Case.
STATE CAN REGULATE THE MATTER
But ii Must Be in It's Own Courts,
However-Full Text of the
Opinion.
STATE CAN REGULATE THE NATTER
s,.ec.r,to III. .1orscn Ctr Ne,r..


Court said
/. Congress is without power to inter-
fere with or control State Courts ex-
cent in so far as the Federal courts
have appellate jurisdiction.
Congress cannot without the consent
of the State constrain the State courts
to entertain or act upon applications Ior
naturalization.
3. It is competent for the State Legis-
lature to prescribe and limit the times
when and during which such applications
may be heard in the State courts
An act of the Legislature passed March
2e. 1895 entitled can act concerning ma
turalization and regulating procedure in
cases of naturalization in courts of tF'S
State. and establishing uniform fees
clerks and Judges in naturalization cases.
provides. among other things. that mo
person shall hereafter be naturalfzed or
admitted to be citizen of the United
States l,y any court of this State within
the thirty days next preceding any ma
tional. State. municipal. general special
local or charter election"
The relator was refused naturalization
by the Hudson count- pleas solely upon
the ground that his application was made
within thirty days next preceding the
election for municipal officers in the
town of West Hoboken.
The only question submitted to the
judgment of this court is, whether the
above recited provision of the act of 1895
is constitutional?
The Federal constitution provides that
Congress shall have power to establish
uniform rule of naturalization, and uni
form laws on the subject of bankruptcies
throughout the United States"
Judge Story in his commentaries on the
Constitution. Vol. 2. sec. 11o4 says:-lt
follows from the very nature of the pow
er. that to be useful. it must be exclus-
i've; for a concurrent power in the States
would bring back all the evils and en1bar
rassments which the uniform rule of the
Constitution was designed to remedy.
and accordingly though there was
rnomentary hesitation. when the Coz
stitution first went into operation wheth
er the power might not still be exer-
cised by the States, subject only to the
control of Congress. so far as the legis-
lation of the latter extended. as the su-
prerne law, yet the power is now firmly
established 70 be exclusive"
WOULD BE NO UNIFORM RULE.
Mr.. Hamilton, in the Federalist, Nc
81, says that the power given to Con-
gress to establish uniform rule of ma
turalization throughout the United States
must necessarily De exclusive DSCchoC
if each State had power to prescribe
distinct rule, there could be no uniform
rule.
1t is entirely settled that no State
can pass naturalization laws. Houston
v. Moore, S Wheaton, 4S; Kent's Com,
sec. 424
The United States statute provides for
the naturalization of aliens by applica-
ton to a Circuit or District Court of
the United States or a district court
or supreme court of record of any OF
the States having common law jurisdic-
ton and seal and clerk.
The United States government has thus
selected the State courts as one of its
agencies to hear and act upon applica-
tions for naturalization.
While it must be conceded that the
State can pass no law which regulates
the subject of naturalization, or the or
der of business in the Federal courts,
the solution of the controversy in this
case, in my judgment, turns upon the
question whether the State may not
regulate the order of business in its own
courts in relation to this subject, or re-
fuse altogether to permit its courts to
entertain applications for naturalization
Article III, sec. 2, of the Federal con-
stitution provides that the judicial pow
er shall extend to all cases in law and
equity arising under this constitution
the laws of the United States, and the
treaties made or which shall be made
under their authority; to all cases affect
ing ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls; to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction; to controyer,,
sizes to which the United States snail
be a party; to controversies between
two or more States; between a State and
citizens IS 9f another sae stae efMfn citizens c Of
another State; between citizens OF the
same State claiming lands under grants
Of Different. States; and between a State
States citizens or subjects"
Whether Congress can permit the state
co,srts TO exercise jurisdiction over any
Of these subjects has been a source Of
much controversy. Martin v. Hunter,
"r.egical Justice Washington. in Houghton Y:
Moore. Wheaton 27., said that me held
it to be perfectly clear that Congress SIS
courts but such as exist under the con-
sfitution and laws of the United States
although the State courts may ebsrfh s te
laws of the State. and not promblted py
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal
In Martin V. Hunter, SUPRA. this. was
accepted as a correct exposition OF the
constitution of the court in that case
denied that Congress vest any Dor1on OF
fae judicial power of the United States,
except in courts ordained and estab-
ffshed by itself.
The contrary view was deemed ire
concilable with the context of the constr
tuition, "the judicial power of the Unltep
States shall be vested in one supreme
Court, end such inferior courts as Con-
gress may from time to time ordain ano
establish"
The conclusion to be drawn from these
declarations of the Federal courts,
think, must be that Congress is without
power to interfere with or control State
courts except in so far as the Federal
courts have appellate jurisdiction. 1t is
granting of naturalization is strictly
judicial function If Congress has,
without the consent Of the State, the
newer to Impose such a duty upon the
State courts, there is no legal limit to
the authority of the national legislature
to burden the State courts with such
volume of business. as to essentially i'm
J3air their capacity to exercise the jul
dicial functions for which they were
created by the State
The inability of Congress thus to fet-
ter and disable the instrumentalitles pro-
vided by the State for carrying on the
operations of it's own government was
the ground upon which the power of the
Federal government to lay an income tax
upon the salaries of the State judiciary
was denied in Collector y. Day. Il Wal
Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries,