Bogunovic

In my opinion, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the *167 trial court that the appellant “is not attached to the principles of the Government of the United States.” An alien has no right to citizenship unless he complies with the terms imposed by Congress (United States v. Macintosh, 283 U. S. 605 [51 Sup. Ct. 570, 75 L. Ed. 1302 ]), and the decisions in naturalization cases for the last 100 years are based upon the principle that the door to citizenship will not be thrown open to an alien unless he proves, to the satisfaction of the court, that he is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. And attachment to our government means much more than a sympathy with or preference for the Constitution and laws of the United States; it implies devotion to those principles upon which our democratic institutions stand and a willingness to support them with more than lip service.

That devotion must, of course, be based upon a depth of conviction concerning law and order which cannot adequately be measured by perfunctory answers to questions framed in the language of the Naturalization Act. Through naturalization high political…

The petitioner has appealed from an order of the superior court denying his application for naturalization as a citizen of the United States.

Section 357 of Title 8, U. S. C. A., confers exclusive jurisdiction to naturalize aliens upon designated federal courts,- “also all courts of record in any State or Territory having a seal, a clerk, and jurisdiction in actions at law or equity, or law and equity, in which the amount in controversy is unlimited.’’ No special provision is made concerning appeals. The question first presented is whether an appeal is allowable in such cases and particularly whether an appeal may be taken from the order of the superior court to a reviewing court of this state. The question seems to be answered by the decision in Tutun v. United States, 270 U. S. 568 [46 Sup. Ct. 425, 70 L. Ed. 738 ], where the contention was made that a naturalization proceeding was not a ease within the meaning of the Judicial Code relating to appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts (sec. 225, Title 28, *162 U. S. C. A.) The Supreme Court held that “whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the courts according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that…