It did not recite that he had proved his residence. his good disposition. his correct character. It was simply recited in his certificate that he took the oath of allegiance and renunciation. In this case the court expressly sayit is the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Courtthat this certificate. copied into the record in the Supreme Courtnot a record in the court belowis proof that the man was naturalized. Parol proof was heard to show that this was the kind of certificate usual in that year. that the court was in the habit of taking the requisite proof in these cases. and the Supreme Court say the oath would not have been administered if the court had not been satisfied. and so the decision of the court below was reversed. the naturalization was upheld and held good. and that. too. expressly upon the certificateso stated in the opinion. And so they reversed the court below. It wasa question of the right of property. They appealed it as to the naturalization. Then as late as the 91st United States. that court has used this language: A certificateMind you. a certificateA certificate of naturalization issues from a court of record when proper proof of residence has been made of five years. and the applicant is of the age of twentyone years. and is of good moral character. the certificate is against all the world a judgment of citizenship. from which may follow the right to vote and to hold property. It is conclusive as such. Now. gentlemen say the question of naturalization was not involved in the Tisdall case in 91 United States. I have noticed when lawyers find a case against them they always talk of obiter dicta. Why everything a court says. except the mere judgment for the plaintiff. or for the defendant. may be called obiter dicta.
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization