Speech #450021780

I have but five minutes allowed me for the purpose of closing this argument. and I ask the gentlemen of the House to give me their attention. The gentleman from Ohio has just stated that if we seat the contestant in this case we must override the judgments of the courts of California. I do not understand that there is a judgment of a court in California now in issue before the House. in reference to this election. unless it be the judgment of the twelfth district court which granted naturalization papers to one John Peterson. That is the only case that involves a review by the House of the decisions of the courts of that State. and in that case it is insisted by gentlemen on the other side that this House should constitute itself into a court of appeals and reverse the judgment of the twelfth district court of California which granted the naturalization papers in this case. The judgment of the supreme court in the mandamus case is not now in issue. as the whole committee. with the exception of myself. have reported in favor of sustaining that decision. In reference to the naturalization of John Peterson the facts are these: Two persons appeared before a court of competent jnrisdiction and gave evidence as to the right of John Peterson to be naturalized.A.ecoring to the evidence given the court was bound to grant him naturalization papers. and did so grant them. The evidence was sufficient. and the papers were issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. and the issuance of the papers was regular in every respect. The person who received those papers went before the commissioner taking testimony in this case and swore that when he (John Peterson) was in California in 1857 he was here only for a temporary purpose. If that fact had been known to the court at the time the court would not have granted the naturalization papers. but. upon the evidence before the court. the court in good faith granted him his papers. and those papers cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding. I desire now to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York Mr. Hiscocic] for the fairness with which be has reviewed the evience in this case.