Because it is the merest folly to have constitutional provisions prescribing qualifications if the fact that an individual has been a soldier or that he comes here indorsed by a popular majority is to control our conduct in passing upon the question of eligibility. If the fact that contestee was a soldier. that he did good service or disgraced himself. is to and can cut no figure in determining the question of eligibility. if the fact that contestee had 2.500 majority has nothing to do with the question of qualification. then we come to inquire of the facts. Admitting that parol testimony under the circumstances in this case is admissible to prove the fact of naturalization. does that proof establish the fact? If the parol evidence in this case does not establish that fact. then all will admit that contestee can not retain his seat. What does the parol testimony prove? We are told that contestee has testified. and that his testimony is indisputed. that he was naturalized. We are told that contestee standsunimpeached. And we were asked. why were not witnesses produced to impeach him. to call in question his general reputation for truth?
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization