Speech #500010460

There is no record of that fact. that is admitted. There is no trace of any record of that fact. that is admitted. The contestee seeks to prove his naturalization by parol testimony. but the record in this case shows this state of facts: Some days before the Congressional election in November. 1886. when it was ascertained them was no record evidence of his naturalization. two gentlemen of high respectability and honor in the State of Indiana. Andrew J. Moynilman and Robert C. Bell. visited him. and laid that question before him. desiring to do him no injustice. knowing that it would be to the disadvantage of the Democratic party and operate as a boomerang on that party if the charge were made and it was not true. Mr. White. on that occasion. insisted that he had been naturalized. he also insisted that he was naturalized in order to vote for John C. Fr6mont. that he was a young man when Frdmont was a candidate and he believed that if Fr6mont was not elected the country would go to the dogs. using his own language. It is a historical fact that Frdmont was a candidate for President in 1856. which was only two years after Mr. White came to this country. So that would not do. Then he said he was naturalized in 1857 or 1858 in the commonpleas court of the county of Allen. in the State of -Indiana. They told him that there had been a careful examination made of the record of that court. and that there was no record of that fact and no trace of any record. Before they parted with him. Mr. Speaker. they suggested to him that possibly he might have taken out naturalization papers somewhere else. "No. I did not." hereplied. "But you might have taken out naturalization papers in order to secure a passport to Europe on some trip you made abroad." these gentlemen said. Mr. White replied no. he never secured any naturalization papers exceLpt in 1857 or1858. It will be observed that his direct attention was called to the fact. whether. in order to make his trip to Europe. lie might have taken out naturalization papers to secure a passport. but he replied he could recall no occasion when he had taken out papers except in 1857 or 1858. Now. Mr. Speaker. on finding there was no record or trace of record of any naturalization. then he decided to change his tactics. and all over that district he had placards printed. " I was a soldier and am a citizen." thereby fialling back on the act of Congress. believing that as he had been a Union soldier during the late war the act of Congress constituted him a citizen without going through the forms of naturalization. The election came on. However. sir. on the very day before the election. on the 1st day of November. he went 39 miles into an adjoining countythe county of Warsaw. I believeand there presented himself as one who owed allegiance to a foreign country. and was then and there naturalized. The court of his own county of Allen was in session on Thursday. the day this question was raised on him. The court was in session on Friday and Saturday fbllowing. Three days did be have to go before the court of his own county and take out his naturalization papers. if he was entitled to them. yet he bied off 39 miles to another county. a county outside of his district. and took outhis naturalization papers on the day betbre the election. Now. Mr. Speaker. he seeks. however. to overcome all of these facts. and how? By introducing one witness. a Mr. Jenkinson. who swears: I think I saw Captain White naturalized one or two years after the close of the war. And lie fixes the date of the close of the war as the 9th day of April. 1805. the date of the surrender of General Lee. Another witness is Mr. Pratt. who swears to the same point on which Mr. Jenkinson was examined. and says: I am of opinion that Captain White was naturalized in 1865. Itwill thus be seen that neither Jenkinson nor Pratt swear absolutely to the fact. but give a mere expression of opinion wi th reference to it. one saying. I think he was naturalized." the other. "I am of opinion that he was naturalized ." but there is no affirmative fact sworn to by either. There is one answer to a question propounded to Jenkinson in regard to this matter on which stress is laid by the contestee. and I propose to give him the benefit of that answer injustice to himself. Jenkinson stated that there was one circumstance which impressed him with the idea that White was naturalized. and that was a remark made in his hearing to the effect tha5 it was a very singular thing to find a Union soldier renouncing his allegiance to the Queen of England. Now. the time he claims to have been naturalized was more than twentyone years before. and that remark raight well have been made in connection with some other Union soldier instead of Captain White. Mr. Speaker. in view of the testimony in this case so far developed by me. I ask if there is a court. in this land which would undertake to declare this man to be a naturalized citizen? The record against him. his own statement against him. every fact and circumstance against him. he standing alone in vindication of his claim. upon the depositions of two men. Jenkinson and Prntt. who. as I have shown. when they were swearing in the case. testified. one "I think" he was naturalized. the other."I am of opinion "he was naturalized in 1865. I repeat. is there a court anywhere which would hold that he was naturalized in 1865. or seven years before the commencement of the present Congress? I can not think so. But there is another fact to which I wish to call your attention briefly. In the conversations which the contestee had with the two witnesses. Moynihan and Bell. to whom I have already referred. he said. after reflection. that Mr. Nelson was clerk of the court. and that Chittenden was in the office with him at the time he was naturalized. The evidence on this point shows clearly that in 1858 Nelson was clerk of the court in which White deilared his intention. and that Chittenden was deputy. and his papers or declaration of intention were in Chittendens own handwriting. But it also appears from this testimony that Nelsons term of officeexpired in 1862. three years before the date contestee claims now to have been naturalized. and never had any connection with the clerks office after that time. and also that Chittendens connection with that office ceased at the same time. and that lie never had any connection with it after 1862. but that lie was clerk of the city council of Fort Wayne froc. 1863 to 1869. Now. the contestee himself. in the first place. fixes the time and place and court in which he was naturalized: fixing the time at 1857 or 1858. the court. the commonpleas court of Allen County. Indiana. and names the clerk as Nelson and the deputy clerk Chittenden. But all the facts go to show that his testimony in that respect was not correct. and hence that he was not naturalized at that timehe only declared his intention. Another thing. Mr. Speaker. nud I refer to it reluctantly. for I have" already stated I do not like to criticise the contestee himself or his testimony. it is a most disagreeable duty to me. but he has made statements in connection with the subject of his naturalization that to my mind at least weaken his own testimony to such an extent as to render it. in my judgment. unworthy of credit. On the Saturday night preceding the election. when he knew he did not have any naturalization papers. he said on the stump to his supporters. " You put your ballots in lbr me on the 2d. and I will show my papers on the 3d." Nearly four weeks after the election. and when hehad time to cool and was not in the fervor of a nolitical contest. he said to Mr. M. V. D. Spencer. "I have my naturalization papers. they are more than seven years old. and if you want to see them you can." fe knew at the moment that he did not have such papers. that they were not in his possession. but yet that statemEnt appears as a part of the testimony. According to the record in this case no human eye ever rested upon that paper. if it existed. outside- of the eye of the contestee himself. Receiving that paper. as he claim ed afterthe election. in 1865. from that time up to 1887. when his deposition was taken. quite twentytwo years. no human eye ever looked upon the paper so far as the evidence shows.