Mr. Speaker. I say in this case there is no competent testimony to establish naturalization. Now. I can not dwell upon this legal view. but want to say something upon the facts as presented. If there are those who really believe that naturalization can be proven by parol. .J desire to denonstrate to them that there is no satisfactory evidence to justify a finding which would retain the contestee in his seat. Satisfactory evidence. Mr. Speaker. is that character of evidence which satisfies the mind of the correctness of a proposition which has been asserted. The gentleman from Indiana. the contestee. asserts that he became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1865. Having admitted that he was foreign born the onus is upon him to establish his claim to citizenship. The presumption is not. as some gentleman has suggested in this debate. that he is a citizen. but the presumption is that he is not a citizen. that his original status remains until he shows the contrary. Accept that issue and view the case in that light for a moment. Here is a foreignborn gentleman who says he is naturalized. Let us see his proof. It is admitted that in 1858 Mr.
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization foreign born