Speech #620240693

In other words. a man may be defectively registered and yet be a legal voter. and on that proposition there is no need for me to waste much time in argument. That question was decided by this House in the Broad Sceal case from New Jersey in the Twentysixth Congress in 1840. This House then laid down this rule: A vote being received as sound. the mere fact that a voter is an alien does not compel the party claiming it to prove the naturalization. That was laid down as a rule in that case and has been followed ever since. and the mere fact that some clerk has left off the name of the court or something else from the registration list. while it makes a defecbive registration. does not make out of that alienborn. whose name is enrolled there. an illegal voter. See report of the majority of the committee in the Broad Seal case on page 1032 and 1033. Hinds Precedents. volume 1. as follows: A minority of the committee were of opinion that It was sufficient for the party objecting to the vote to prove that the voter was alien born. and that the burden of proof was thereby thrown upon the party for whom the vote had been rendered at the poll to prove that the voter had been naturalized. And it was urged with great earnestness that to adopt any other rule of evidence would be to depart from the plainest principles of law and reasonto impose upon the party objecting to a vote the p roof of a negative. and a negative. too. which nothing short of search ing of every court of record having commonlaw jurisdiction. a clerk. and seal. and in the Union could possibly establish. Without minutely criticizing the argument. it is deemed proper to inquire to what practical consequences the rule would lead if it be fully admitted . for thep reposition is to be taken. not as a mere abstract annunciation of the order of proof. but as practically applicable to the decision of cases of contested election in the House of Representatives.