In a recent case in North Carolina. sixtyfourth volume Supreme Court Reports. that court held that parol evidence was in no case admissible to prove a judgment. that it must be first reestablished under the law for that purpose in the court that rendered it. Why. sir. if it were permissible to come here into this forum and prove by parol what the judicial authority in Indiana passed upon. how uncertain would be the proceeding. It would utterly destroy the safeguards of the law. which require these proceedings before a court to naturalize an alien and entitle him to the rights of citizenship. Let him go to the court where the proceedings are had. and if there is any fault in that court. any defect in the judgment there. any failure to enter it there. he may institute the proper proceedings. which the law provides for. reestablish his judgment. and bring here a certified record of it. which would be conclusive. Then. again. in the State of Vermont. in a case involving the very question of naturalization. the supreme court of that State held this language: The only other legal question which it is necessary for us to pass upon is whether parol evidence was admissible to prove the naturalization ofa foreigner. A certified copy of the record of the court in which one is naturalized is the legitimate evidence of the fact. Parol evidence to prove naturalization is inadmissible. What is plainer than that? I will next invite the attention of gentlemen to an adjudication by the supreme court of my own State.
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization naturalize