I think they limit the time when they shall take their testimony. and there is no question that the ruling is a proper one. that the burden of proof is upon the man who asserts a fact. which is like any other question. I will say to the gentleman now. inasmuch as he has gone to the brink of the question. when that Commission was first organized some of the ablest lawyers in the United States. and others whom I believe have no superior. came before that Commission and for days and days they argued that the Commission was a mere auditing board. that it had nothing to do with the question of whether the injury had transpired or not. and I have been told that two members of the Commission voted to sustain that proposition. that the whole question was a question of auditing. and if a fellow came forward and proved that he come over here and got a naturalization paper that they could not inquire into that. and then when lie asserted his claim and made a prima facie showing of it they were bound to pay it and that was the end of it. They resisted vigorously and bitterly any consideration of the question of the fraudulent character of onehalf of the naturalizations. and at least twothirds of the questions of amounts in controversy. and the Commission has waded through all that. The fact that there are intervals when they do not have a case to try and that somebody goes home to try a case there. cuts no figure. in my judgment. in derogation of the efficiency of the Commission. Now. a few words more and I am through.
Identified stereotypes
Generalization about the fraudulent character of naturalizations.