But Congress has never modified the other provision. requiring that there shall be a court of record with a clerk and a seal. There is your "uniform rule." Congress thought it best and most economical to the citizen to intrust the State courts as well as the Federal tribunals with jurisdiction of this matter. When we look to the act of Congress we find they did enact an uniform rule of naturalization. and declared that no alien should be naturalized in any other mode. This mode is prescribed with great care. It expressly provides the admission shall be before a court of record of commonlaw jurisdiction. with a clerk and seal. Yet we find there is no record. nor paper. nor decree. in the court of Allen County. Indiana. naturalizing Mr. White. where he claims he was naturalized. Yet the same record fails to show. as before demonstrated. that the omission applied to any other naturalization in that court. No case has yet been cited where parot evidence was admitted to supply a record or decree. The case In re Coleman. 15 Blatchfords Circuit Reports. 406. is cited as sustaining the position of contestee. This decision was rendered by an eminent jurist. and investigates very thoroughly the entire law and decisions upon that question. In Colemans case there were the original oath of renunciation and the oaths of the witnesses. as required by law. and in the book of naturalization the decree of naturalization. and the eminent chief judge decided these proceedings were a substantial compliance of law. In Spratt vs. Spratt. 4 Peters. 393. the court decided there was a sufficient judgment of record. In The Acorn. 2 Abbotts U. S. Reports. 434. the court again decided that there was a sufficient record of naturalization. In these cases. nor in any that I can find. no parol evidence was offered or introduced. the sole question being. was there a sufficient record? For ore..
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization naturalizing