Rump v. The Commonwealth

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Lowrie
• Citation: Rump v. The Commonwealth, 30 Pa. 475, 1858 WL 7746 (Pa. 1858)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Parties: Rump versus The Commonwealth.

Page 475

30 Pa. 475

Rump versus The Commonwealth.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia.

Weil, Ranken, and H. M. Phillips, for the plaintiff in error.— It will scarcely be pretended, that the false swearing alleged thus to have been committed was perjury at common law. Is this a judicial proceeding? Are the judges before whom the oath was taken expounders of the law in this matter? It is beyond controversy, that they are merely invested with a right to administer an oath; a right conferred by an Act of Congress, a right which Congress could lawfully confer upon any private citizen.

By the common law, the oath must be taken in a judicial proceeding, and before a competent jurisdiction: Rex v. Aylett, 1 T. R. 69; 2 Russ. on Crimes 1753; Buxton v. Gouch, 3 Salk. 269; United States v. Passmore, 1 W. C. C. 84.

The power of Congress over the subject of naturalization is plenary and exclusive, and the states possess no authority, independent or concurrent, in relation to it: Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; 2 Story Const. § 1094.

Congress cannot vest any portion of the judicial power of the United States, except in courts ordained and established by itself: Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 330; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 26. The state courts have no jurisdiction of criminal offences against the United States, nor can such jurisdiction be conferred upon them by Act of Congress: United States v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; Haven v. Sharp, 1 Dana 422; Hagan v. Dudley, 10 Law Rep. 371.

The courts of the United States exercise no common law jurisdiction; false swearing in any matter under a law of the United States, is made a statutable offence, by Act of Congress of 3d March 1825, and is cognisable only in the federal courts: United States v. Lancaster, 2 McLean 431; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 93, 103; 3 Wheat. 389.

The plaintiff in error is liable to be indicted and tried by the courts of the United States, and the plea of autrefois convict by a state court would be no bar: Act of Congress of 3d March 1825, § 13, Brightly's U. S. Dig. 213; Marston v. Jenness, 11 N. H. 156; Commonwealth v. Peters, 12 Met. 387.

Where a statute creates the offence, and fixes the punishment, the prosecution must be against the statute: The King v. Dixon, 10 Mod. 335; 1 Burr. 543; 4 Id. 2026.

Mann and Loughead, for the Commonwealth.—It is argued, that Congress cannot confer jurisdiction on the state courts. It is admitted, that Congress cannot compel a state court to enforce rights created by it; nor can it vest any jurisdiction in a state court, which the constitution confers on the federal courts exclusively. But it may, and does, in an infinite number of cases, create rights which the state courts are authorized, by express words, or with equally forcible implication, to adjudicate: Commonwealth v. Schaffer, 4 Dall. App. xxx.

The cases cited by the plaintiff in error do not sustain his case. The judicial power, which is incommunicable, is that which has become, by legislation under Acts of Congress, exclusive, or was so made by the constitution. See 1 Kent Com. 396, 400.

As late as 1842, the same judge who delivered the opinion in Martin v. Hunter, declared that no doubt existed in that court, but that state magistrates might exercise the jurisdiction conferred by Congress, if they pleased to do so, and were not prohibited by the legislature: Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 622.

And this is the ground taken in United States v. Lathrop: see Ramsden's case, 13 Howard's Pr. Rep. 429. Hagan v. Dudley has since been overruled by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. The legislation of Congress, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of this state, all show, that excepting those cases in which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution it may be exercised, by authority of Congress, by state tribunals: 1 Kent 306, 393. Such is the exception in the Act of 1825, punishing perjury: Com. v. Schaffer, 4 Dall. App. xxx.; Buckwalter v. The United States, 11 S. & R. 193.

The proceeding, though ex parte, was a judicial one, to determine the particular status of the petitioner, namely, his right to citizenship: Stark v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cranch 420; Campbell v. Gordon, 6 Cranch 176; Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 407; Slade v. Minor, 2 Cr. C. C. 139; Anon., 7 Hill 140; In re Clark, 18 Barb. 444; Ex parte Cregg, 2 Curt. C. C. 98; Ritchie v. Putnam, 13 Wend. 524; McCarthy v. Marsh, 1 Seld. 263-78.

That the court mentioned in the indictment, was a court of record of this Commonwealth, is a fact of which this court will take judicial notice, and that the state courts have jurisdiction under the Acts of Congress, is shown by Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; 1 Kent Com. 396, 400; Giller v. Herndon, and Ward v. Mann, cited in 1 Kent Com. 397, note a; United States v. Dodge, 14 Johns. 95; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 622; State v. Randall, 1 Aikins 89; State v. Wells, 2 Hill S. C. 687; Buckwalter v. United States, 11 S. & R. 193. If the court has jurisdiction, false swearing therein is perjury against the state, at common law. This is an incident to the jurisdiction.

The opinion of the court was delivered by LOWRIE, C. J.

False swearing in a naturalization proceeding is punishable by our state law. We need not notice the theoretic and practical conflict that occasionally appears between federal and state functions. To all orderly minds, the action of the state courts in the naturalization of foreigners, stands justified by the fact that it has had an almost undisputed growth since the organization of the Union.

And our practice on this subject is fully justified by positive law. The stat. 13 Geo. 2, c. 7, (1740,) followed by our provincial Act of 3d February 1743, (Hall & Sellers 197,) made the naturalization of foreigners a subject of judicial cognisance before our state courts; and this jurisdiction has never been taken away. The Constitution of the United States does...