Speech #500010499

I do not wish. unnecessarily. Mr. Speaker. to trespass upon the time of the House. and I will therefore only state this single point. [Cries of "Go (in! ] If her father had been naturalized she inherited the estate. if not. it lad esheated. and the question involved in her case was the validity of her title. and that was conceded to be valid if her father had been legally naturalized. his naturalization was. therefore. the single question in the case. The record in that case shows that a certificate of naturalization had been issued to her father in essentially the same form ofthe certificate issued to the contestee in this case. and in that case there was no other record. It is true there were certain memoranda made by the clerk. in these words: "At a district court held at Suffolk. October 14. 1795. William Currie. native of Scotland. migrated into the Commonwealth. took the oath. etc." This is not a record of naturalization. indeed. it is not a record at all. or in the nature of a record. It is merely a memorandum made by the clerk for his own convenience. The only record there was in that case was the certificate in substantially the same form of the certificate in this case. and the court held that the evidence established the fact of naturalization. The opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice Washington. ChiefJustice Marshall and the other members of the court concurring. It is true that in the case cited the certificate issued by the clerk to the person naturalized was produced in court. whereas in this case it is not produced. but the contestee has accounted for its nonproduction and has proven its loss. And no lawyer or intelligent layman would doubt but that it is legally competent to show by parol the existence of a record and its loss or destruction. and when that is proven it is competent to show its contents by parol. The case cited and this ease are. therefore. not distinguishable. for the existence. the loss. and the contents of the certificate being proven. as a matter of evidence the parol proof of the contents has the same probative force as the certificate would have had if presented. Let me read briefly from their opinion: In support of the first objection it is contended. that although the oath prescribed by the second section of the act of Congress entitled " An act to estab. lish it uniform rule of naturalization. and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject." passed the 29th of January. 1795. was administered to said villjam Currie by aecourt of competent jurisdiction. still it does not appear. by the certificate granted to him by the court. and appearing in the record. that he was. by the judgment of the court. admitted a citizen. or that the court was satisfied that. during the term of two years. mentioned in the same section. he had behaved as a man of good character. attached to the Constitution of the United States. and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. It is true that this requisite to his admission is not statedin the certificate. but it is the opinion of this court. that the court of Suffolk must have been satisfied as to the character of the applicant. or otherwise a certificate. that the oath prescribed by law had been taken would not have been granted. It is unnecessary to decide whether. in the order oftime. this satisfaction. as to the character of the applicant. must be firstgiven. or whether itmay not be required after the oath is administered. and. if not then given. whether a certificate of naturalization may not be withheld. But if the oath be administered. and nothing appears to the contrary. it must be presumed that the court.before whon. the oath was taken. was satisfied as to the character of the applicant. The oath. when taken. confers upon him the rights of a citizen. and amounts to a judgment of the court for his admission to those rights. It is. therefore. the unaninious opinion of the court that William Currie was duly naturalized. Now. the court must have been satisfied. Why? Because by the parol evidence received it was proved that the man had been naturalized.