Speech #500010041

The doctrine that when the candidate receiving the maiority of votes is ineligible. the candidate receiving the nexthighest vote can not take the office. and the election fails. is too well established in the United States and in both branches of Congress to require discussion. Perhaps Indiana is the only State in the Union where this rule is adhered to. First and foremost. then. the question presented here is this: Can naturalization be proved by parol evidence? The contention as formulated in the brief and argument of the very able counsel of the contestee states it in this way: Can naturalization be proven by parol? And furthermore. then. he asserts that citizenship is conferred solely by the oath of the applicant. :[ respectfully dissent from that. and say it can not be proven by parol. and that it is not tme oath of the applicant by itself. in the absence or the record. that would confer citizenship. but the oath. the evidence. which find a judicial determination in the judgtlient of the court. and that it is the judicial action of the court which confers citizenship. That. Mr. Speaker. as I understand it. is a statement of the case. Hence it follows. if we are correct upon the legal point alone. that lie can not prove naturalization by parol. then the contestee is not entitled to a seat upon this floor. Now I will Itate in that connection what it is also admitted. nay. more than that. it is proven by the contestee himself. that there is no record in this case of his naturalization and that there is no trace of such a record. Furthermore. it is proven that there never had been a record in this case nor even an effort made to make a record. but he claims that lie had a certificate Qf citizenship and that is lost. He also endeavors to prove that certificate by showing cotemporaneous transcripts of the record from A lien County.