People Ex Rel. George W. Brackett v. Mcgowan

• Decision Date: 30 June 1875
• Citation: 77 Ill. 644,20 Am.Rep. 254,1875 WL 8385
• Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. George W. Brackettv.DANIEL MCGOWAN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

77 Ill. 644

1875 WL 8385 (Ill.)

20 Am.Rep. 254

THE PEOPLE ex rel. George W. Brackett

v.DANIEL MCGOWAN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.

This was an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, on the relation of Geo. W. Brackett, against Daniel McGowan. The material facts of the case appear in the opinion of the court.

Messrs. C. W. & E. L. THOMAS, for the appellants.

Messrs. G. & G. A. KŒRNER, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

The information alleges Daniel McGowan, at an election held on the 8th day of October, 1874, was regularly elected judge of the city court of East St. Louis; was duly qualified as judge, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office; but charges he could not lawfully hold the office of judge of that court, because he was alien born.

The plea filed admits defendant was born an alien to the United States, but avers he was duly naturalized on the 15th day of May, 1867, in the Criminal Court of the county of St. Louis, at a regular term, that court having jurisdiction to admit aliens to citizenship.

Two replications were filed--first, the Criminal Court of the county of St. Louis had not jurisdiction to naturalize defendant, and second, nul tiel record, upon which issue was joined.

An exemplification of the record was offered in evidence, which shows Daniel McGowan, a native of Ireland, applied to become a citizen of the United States, at the May term, 1867, of the Criminal Court of the county of St. Louis, and it appearing he had resided in the United States, and in the State of Missouri, for the requisite length of time, and had complied with the law in all preliminary matters, he was admitted to citizenship, on taking the usual oath of allegiance to this government.

On the trial, the people offered to prove defendant, prior to May 15, 1867, had made no declaration of his intention to become a citizen; that he immigrated to the United States after he was twenty-one years of age; that he had never served in the army or navy of the United States, and that he had not resided in the State of Missouri one year previous to his application to become a citizen, which evidence was excluded by the court.

In the exclusion of this testimony, the court ruled correctly. The record of naturalization of an alien, like any other record of a court, imports verity. It can not be impeached for fraud unless that defense has been specially pleaded, setting forth in what the fraud consists. No replication had been filed alleging fraud, nor that the court had not jurisdiction of the person of defendant. The replication as to jurisdiction is, that the court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter, but does not put in issue the jurisdiction of the court as to the person of defendant; hence, the evidence was properly rejected. But had the issue been made by the pleadings, we are still of opinion the evidence was inadmissible. It seems clear, both on principle and authority, a record of naturalization, made by a court of competent jurisdiction, can not be impeached, in a collateral proceeding, by showing that the preliminary steps required by law have not, in fact, been taken. It is upon the principle such a record, like any other judgment of a court, affords complete evidence of its own validity. In proceedings of naturalization, matters are submitted to the decision of the court, and the presumption will be indulged the court heard evidence, was satisfied the applicant had complied with the law, and its findings must be held conclusive as to all facts recited in the record. Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Peters, 393; The People v. Pease, 30 Barb. 588; Campbell v. Gordon and Wife, 6 Cranch, 176; McCarthy v. Marsh, 1 Selden, 263.

But the principal question in the case is, whether the Criminal Court of the county of St. Louis had jurisdiction to admit aliens to citizenship. Under the act of Congress, any State court, being a court of record, having common law jurisdiction, a seal and a clerk or prothonotary, has jurisdiction in matters of naturalization of aliens. Our inquiry, then, is, whether the Criminal Court of the county of St. Louis comes within the definition of State courts mentioned in the act of Congress on that subject.

The Criminal Court of the county of St. Louis was established by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, passed in 1855, and was given all the original and appellate jurisdiction which had been vested in the several circuit courts of the State. It is a court of record, having a seal and a clerk, and was given all the powers, was to perform all the duties, and be subject to the restrictions of courts of record as such, according to the provisions of the laws of the State. The judge of the court was made a conservator of the peace, with powers to issue writs of habeas corpus and determine the same, to administer oaths, take and certify recognizances, and exercise all the powers of an examining magistrate. Gottschalk's Laws, p. 89. Subsequently, by an act of the legislature, the Court of Criminal Correction in St. Louis county was established, and was given exclusive, original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors under the laws of the State of Missouri, committed in the county of St. Louis, the punishment of which is by fine or imprisonment in the county jail, or both, except in cases of assault and battery and affrays, but did not otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court. Gottschalk's Laws, p. 100. It will be observed the Criminal Court of the county of St. Louis answers, in every particular, the description of State courts designated in the act of Congress, which are given power to naturalize aliens, if it has “common law jurisdiction.” We have no courts in this country that derive their existence from the common law. Our State courts are all created by the organic law, or by legislative enactment. Their jurisdiction is not uniform. Some of our courts have only a statutory or special jurisdiction, limited as to subjects and amounts in controversy; others have original common law jurisdiction, unrestricted as to class of cases and as to amounts in controversy. But our State courts, having what is called common law jurisdiction, have not that jurisdiction to the same extent. By no means. We have courts with common law jurisdiction in civil cases only, and others exclusively in criminal causes. It was so with the English courts, that had their origin in, and existed under, the common law, and derived their jurisdiction from that source. Some of them had jurisdiction only in certain classes of actions, and others in different and distinct actions.

Our statutory courts, although they may not have jurisdiction in all cases at law, both criminal and civil, are none the less, for that reason, courts with common law jurisdiction. Their character, in this regard, is not determined altogether by the extent of their jurisdiction as to subjects over which they may adjudicate. We apprehend the State courts mentioned in the act of Congress as having common law jurisdiction, are such as exercise their powers according to the course of the common law. It was not meant they should have all common law jurisdiction over every class of subjects, including all civil and criminal matters. If this were so, it is apprehended but few courts could be found in any of the States that would possess the requisite “common law jurisdiction.” As a matter of fact, some subjects are excluded from the original...