Speech #500010460

Mr. Speaker. I care not if the parol testimonyintroduced by the contestee was as clear as the noonday sunbeams and as certain as the life we live. it could not be used for the purpose of proving naturalization. If that paper which the contestee claims to have had ever existed. it could only have existed as an exemplification of a record. for it was not a record itself. If there is no record there can be no exemplification of a record. and the evidence shows clearly that there was no record. and hence there could be no exemplification. The gentleman from Texas referred so fully and so well to the fact that every single witness who was introduced to prove that he had been naturalized in this county. and had his certificate in his possession. that his name appears upon the recordbook of the clerks office of the court of common pleas. Allen County. Indiana. called the "Book ofFinal Oaths." except James B. White. the contestee. whose name is not there. I shall not consume the time of the House in referring further to it. And now. coming back to the point that it is inadmissible to prove naturalization by parol testimony. I will show you that it is admitted. and must be admitted. that naturalization is in itself a judicial act. and must be a matter of record to give it legal force and effect. It must take place in a court of record. What is a court of record? According to Blackstone it is "a court where the acts and proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetual memorial and testimony." According to Webster it is "a court whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled on parchment or in books for a perpetual memorial. and its records are the highest evidence of facts. and their truth can not b4 called in question." Wharton in his Law of Evidence. section 1302. says: A court of record is required to act exactly and minutely. and to have record proof of all its important acts. If it does not. these acts can not be put in evidence. Under the naturalization laws of the United States. the proceedings of naturalization are required to be in a court of record and to be recorded. The statute itself has this direct requirement. It is mandatory. In the case of Elliott vs. Piersel. 1 Peters. 329. the Supreme Court of the United States declared this doctrine: What the law requires to be done and appear of record can only be done and made to appear by the record itself or an exemplification of the record. In this case naturalization does not appear by the record. and there being no record. there could be no exemplification of a record. In Destys case. 8 Abbott. New York. the court held thatWhen the record fails to show proceedings necessary to the issuance of a certificate. the court can not make up the record .nuc pro tune and issue a certificate. So that if the cohtestee had appeared at any time since 1865 in the very court in which he claims to have been naturalized. and had proved by parol testimony as strong and convincing as was ever presented to a court. that court could not have entered a aune pro tune order because the record failed to show that at any time within the history of the court any proceedings of naturalization in connection with him were had. Mr. Speaker. these authorities could be multiplied and piled one upon the other until they would present a memorial column almost towering jeavenward erected to the wisdom and policy of the doctrine that you can not make a record by parol testimony. There are cases. sir. in which the records were not fullthe orders not written out in fullwherein the courts have held that there was enough on the record to satisfy the court that there had been naturalization proceedings. enough upon which to base a nunepro tune order. or that there was enough on the record to show that the last things in order. for instance. the taking of an oath. had been done. and it was to be presumed that the requirements leading up to that point had been complied with else the court would not have administered the oaththe oath being the last step in the pxoceedings. Such was the case of Campbell vs. Gordon. 6 Craunch. 176. In the case of Coleman vs. Davenport. decided in 1879 by Judge Blatehford. there was a book called "Naturalization Index " upon which Colemans naturalization appeared. and Judge Blatchford held that it was a record. So that was decided upon a record. There is no case.