The act of Congress. I believe. requires the testimony of two witnesses to that fact. but my friend from Illinois may be correct in his understanding of the law. At all events. fbr the sake of argument. it may be admitted that the fact of naturalization may be established by parol testimony. Will it he pretended by gentlemen on the other side that proof at least as high should be produced to the court as would have been required at the tim6 of naturalization? I say the case of the contestee has utterly failed to meet this requirement. The case rests mainly on his own testimony. which in the original proceedings would not have sufficed.
Keywords matched
naturalization