Ex parte Knowles
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
The power to naturalize is made a judicial power by Act of Congress.
Congress cannot confer any judicial power upon a State Court,
The provision of the Constitution of the United States, which gives Congress the power to establish “ an uniform rule of naturalization,” is construed to mean, that the rule when established shall be executed by the States.
Under the Act of Congress of 1802, “ every Court of Record in any individual State, having common law jurisdiction and a seal, and clerk or prothonotary, shall be considered as a District Court within the meaning of this Act,” and such Courts have power to naturalize.
The Supreme Court of this State having exclusive appellate jurisdiction, has no power to naturalize.
The Legislature of California has hy express enactment, conferred jurisdiction on the District Courts of this State to grant naturalization, according to the rules established by Congress.
All other Courts of this State, being Courts of inferior and limited powers, and although some are Courts of Record, yet having only statutory, and not common law jurisdiction, they have no power to grant naturalization, and any attempt of the kind by them would be corara non judies, and void.
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., and Bryan, J., concurred.
This is an application on the part of an alien to become naturalized under the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
[301]It has been made directly to this Court, and has been resisted by several eminent members of the Bar, in the character of amici curia, on the ground that State Courts have no jurisdiction of the subject matter.
It might be a sufficient answer to the applicant to declare what is the settled decision of this Court,—that it is, under the State Constitution, an appellate tribunal, and can take no original jurisdiction, however conferred'.
But the importance of the question which has been argued at the bar, and the learning and research which have been evinced in its examination, induce us, in departure from our usual habit, to consider and determine the proper construction which should be given to the Constitution and laws of the United States, in respect to the question of naturalization. Two propositions which have been made by the counsel opposed to the applicant, will first be disposed of. These are: First—That the power to naturalize by virtue of the Act of Congress of 1802, is a judicial one; and Second—That Congress has no power to confer jurisdiction upon the Courts of a State. Upon both of these propositions we affirmatively concur. It is a judicial power; because upon evidence a conclusion has to be attained, resulting from the exercise of the judgment of the Court. This is simple and clear enough, without resorting to authority. But nevertheless, we will refer to the case of Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Peters, 406, where it is distinctly so settled by Chief Justice Marshall.
Congress has no power to confer jurisdiction upon the Courts of a State: because, First, the Constitution gives it no such power; and, Secondly, the Constitution expressly declares that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’’ See §1, Art. 3, Const. U. S.
The Constitution having thus fixed where the judicial power shall be vested, it cannot be vested elsewhere.*»*
There have been various adjudications maintaining this view, which it will be sufficient simply to cite. See Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304. The State of Maryland v. Thomas Butler, reported
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)