Speech #500010548

In this case. on the contrary. no record whatever exists. In all the other cases in the same court some record. a very meager one in most of them. may be found. If. like the case of Coleman in New York. the contestee could have produced a certificate of naturalization. and if he could have shown. as in that case. that there was some recordevidence giving the name of the applicant. his occupation. the names of his witnesses. his residence. and the certificate of naturalization supplemented by the initials of the judgeI say that if the contestee in this case had ])roduced a case like that I would cheerfully and cordially have voted br him. But the case of the contestee. as presented by him. is utterly wanting in any of these essential requisites. It is like that of two tramps examined in New York some time ago. They were arraigned before the magistrate. who asked one of them. "Where do you live?" ]Ile answered. "Nowhere." He turned to the other and said. "Where do you live?" to which he received the reply. "Just above the other fellow." There is in this case uncertainty piled upon uncertainty. and nothing upon which to foand any proof. Several cases have been produced to show that the fact of naturalization must be proved by record evidence. either by the certificate or the record itself. In addition to the case in 2 Cranch. where the question came squarely before the court and where it was held that the fact of naturalization could not be proved by parol testimony. the case in West Virginia was produced. a case on all fours with the case now before us. I now call attention to at case not yet referred to from the State of Vermont. a State where great lawyers seem to be "native and indued unto that element." the State of Edmunds and Phelps. It was a case ofa contested election. and the attempt was made before the court to prove naturalization by p.rol testimony. The court held in that case. to quote from that opinion: A certified copy of the record of the court in which one is naturalized is the legitimate evidence of the fact. ?arol testimony to prove naturalization is inadmissible.