NATURALIZATION
647
that fully ninety per cent of all the aliens court to naturalize is permissive, not obliga who have been naturalized in this country tory, for in Houston v. Moore (5 Wheat, i), during the last century have received their the idea was disclaimed that Congress could citizenship from state tribunals. This exer authoritatively bestow judicial powers upon cise of the granted power has been upheld state courts. Therefore, for a refusal to in the long line of adjudications of the exercise the power no mandamus could be Supreme Court of the United States, and maintained. This principle was established the rule is undoubtedly that expressed by in Kentucky v. Dennison (24 How. 108), Field, J., in United States v. Jones (105 when it was laid down that where Congress United States, 512), — he says: "Whether had authorized a state officer to perform a the tribunal shall be created directly by the particular duty, it had no power to coerce act of Congress, or one already established or punish him for his refusal. The importance of this distinction is by the states shall be adopted for the occasion is a mere matter of legislative dis greater than at first appears. From it cretion. Undoubtedly, it was the purpose flows a power in the states to formulate and of the Constitution to establish a general enforce acts or rules governing the mode in government independent of and in some which the power conferred may or shall be respects superior to that of the state govern exercised. The state may not by any ments, one which could enforce its own legislative enactment, and the court may laws through its own officers and tribunals, not by any rules, impose any other or and this purpose was accomplished. That greater qualifications to be possessed by the government can create all the officers and applicant for naturalization, than are con tribunals required for the execution of its tained in the act of Congress, but it may powers. Yet from the time of its estab prescribe the times, the quantum, and mode lishment the government has been in the of proof, and generally all that is included habit of using, with the consent of the states, in the word "practice." By way of illus their officers, tribunals, and institutions, as tration : When Xew Jersey passed a statute its agents. Their use has not been deemed prohibiting any of her courts from acting violative of any principle or as in any manner upon any application for naturalization derogating from the sovereign authority of within thirty days of any election, the cry the general government, but as a matter of went up that an unwarranted increase of convenience, and tending to a great saving requirement was being imposed, but the expense. At different times various duties court held that inasmuch as it was com have been imposed by acts of Congress on petent for the legislature to entirely forbid state tribunals. They have been invested a state court to entertain or act upon an with jurisdiction in civil suits and over com application for naturalization, it could, there plaints and prosecutions for fines, penalties, fore, lay any restraint, regulation, limita and forfeitures arising under the laws of the tion or condition upon the practice in such United States. And though the jurisdiction cases which it might deem expedient or thus conferred could not be enforced against proper (State v. Judges, 58 N. J. L., 97). the consent of the states, yet, when its And the same rule has been adopted in exercise was not incompatible with state Massachusetts (in re Stephens, 4 Gray, 561) duties and the state made no objection to it, and in Pennsylvania (In re Lab. 3 Pa. Dist. the decisions rendered by the state tribunals R. 728). At one point, and at one only, thus far, were upheld." But while the right to confer is thus clear, has there arisen any question which involved it is not a right to exact the exercise of the a possible conflict between courts, and with power; that is, the authority to the state regard to this the decisions are at variance,
