United States v. Lehman

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Citation: United States v. Lehman, 39 F. 49 (E.D. Mo. 1889)
• Decision Date: 10 June 1889
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. LEHMAN.

39 F. 49

UNITED STATES v. LEHMAN.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

June 10, 1889

George D. Reynold, Dist. Atty., and Thomas P. Bashaw, for the United states.

D. P Dyer, for defendant.

THAYER J.

1. The first question raised by the demurrer filed in this case is whether the court of criminal correction of the county (now city) of St. Louis has power to naturalize aliens. Section 2165, Rev. St. U.S. confers such power on 'courts of record of any of the states having common-law jurisdiction ' The court of criminal correction is declared to be a court of record by the second section of the act establishing that court. 2 Rev.St.Mo. 1879, p. 1511. Hence the sole point for consideration is whether it is also a court 'having common-law jurisdiction' within the meaning of the federal statute. That is a question, as it appears to me that admits of little controversy. The jurisdiction of all the courts in this and other states is defined with greater or less particularity by statute, and in that sense their jurisdiction is statutory. But, as is well known, certain courts in this as well as in other states have power to punish offenses that existed at common law, and to enforce private rights and to redress private wrongs recognized by the common law, and in the exercise of that power their action is governed by the principles, rules, and usages of the common law, in so far as they have not been modified or abolished by statute. Courts of this description are usually termed 'courts of common-law jurisdiction,' to distinguish them from other inferior tribunals organized to enforce local or municipal regulations, or rights and duties not recognized by the common law. Section 2165 evidently refers to courts exercising the jurisdiction first above described. Congress intended to confer the power of naturalization on all courts of record of the several states that have power to administer justice under and in accordance with that system of jurisprudence known as the common law. In re Conner, 39 Cal. 98. Tried by such test the court of criminal correction has power to naturalize aliens. It is a state court, and not a municipal court. It issues process in the name of the state that may run and be executed in any part of the state. The judge of the court has power to issue writs of habeas corpus; its proceedings are conducted according to the course of the common law and all general statutes enacted by parliament prior to the fourth year of the reign of James I. have been expressly adopted in this state, it follows that the court of criminal correction has power to punish acts that were misdemeanors at common law, although they have not been expressly declared to be misdemeanors by any law of this state. It must accordingly look to the common law in a measure, to ascertain the extent of its powers, and is just as truly a court of common-law jurisdiction as the circuit court of the state.

2. It is further insisted that the oath alleged to have been made by the defendant was not required to be made by any provision of the naturalization laws, and hence that no offense was committed under section 5424 of the Revised Statutes, on which the indictment is predicated, even though the oath was false. With respect to this contention it will suffice to say that an offense was committed under section 5424 if the oath alleged to have been made by the accused was either 'required or authorized' by the naturalization laws and if the same was false. According to the view taken of the question raised by the point of the demurrer now under consideration, it is unnecessary to decide whether an applicant for naturalization under section 2167 must prove his residence in the United States for three...