The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-06-13

court and established the fact that ne hao
come to this country while mere child.
: Witness then explained the process OF
naturalization very fully.
ro+Cross-examined /: It was generally the
custom to inquire into the moral character.
of the applicant either by the testimony OF Of
some one or by the word Of counsel. 1t
was rather considered matter Of form.
Don't know that applicants were questioned
as to their residence during the war. Was
not aware Of the existence Of any such ne.
cessity as to be obliged to ascertain the fact
as to whether the applicant participated In
the war: or not. No such question WIS asked
50 far as my knowledge goes.
TESTIMONY OF G. L: CHRISTIAN.
5 Am deputy clerk of the Circuit Court Of
this city, having charge Of the Law side. in
which this business was transacted. Was
nearly always present when parties applied
to be naturalized. Witness then stated the
usual form of questions propounded to ap-
plicants.l Was in the Office as deputy clerk
about eighteen months Before the war and
nearly all the time since. Know Of many
cases in which parties were refused pa
pers because they could not comply
with all the requirements of the
law. Have only one such impression
upon my memory now. DR.. d. l.. Meyer,
who was particularly pertinacious, apply.
ing twice to me and once to the Judge, and
also got some one he thought would have
influence to solicit for him but he was
allowed only to declare his intention; which
is now on record: took notes of all such
cases. They we're recorded id the boHkss
Had any of the requirements Of the law
been omitted by the Judge, I should have
been unable to make up the record, or to
make out the papers for the applicant. No
such omission ever occurred while was
present: The paperI hold in my hand
is transcript Of the record and is correct.
The initial names of the two men named
Schwartz may possibly have been changed
by myself, because many Of the foreigners
spoke such bad English that I had to call on
q German friend on some occasions to
interpret. Do not remember specially
the case of Schwartz. The minute-book,
from which the order-boek is made up, will
show whether any parties received declarai
ton papers, and returned on the same day
with final papers:
Cross-examined All the applicants who
came to that court for papers brought some
one to youch for their moral character:
Don't think it would be necessary other
wise than by the oath Of the party to prove
that he had made declaration Of inten-
ton previously. Don't know that the ques-
ton came specially to my notice, but have
no doubt the word Of counsel alone would
be taken in such case to prove the resi-
denee of the party applying: Think If 1t
was given the court would have acted Upon
it. The same would probably have been
the case with the sheriff g word, and think
that would be regarded as the proof re-
quired by law. Counsel gave evidence in
cases at law without being sworn at all.
TESTIMONY OF E. Y. CANNON.
Have been regular practicing lawyer in
the Circuit Court of Richmond since the
year lS49. Attended the court regularly,
and think I became well acquainted with
the course of practice of the Judge. My
impression is thdt he Is uniformly cautious
and accurate about all matters Of his court.
Never knew Of any case in which he acted
in q manner that considered loose or u OF
in strict compliance with legal forms.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. WRIGHT.
Am sheriff of this city have been since
1865. Was deputy sheriff from 1856 Ito
1862. Am we'll acquainted in the city.
My position while in court, and am gene
rally present during the termsj is on the
immediate left of the Judge; can see and
hear everything he does. Was frequently
in attendance when foreigners came to be
naturalized, and thought the Judge was the
T IN tba Iii ho rnn
of his duties. Never knew him to omit re-
quiring all the proofs demanded by the law
on such occasions. Have seen parties re-
fused their papers because they could not
comply with the law.
Cross-examined: Have never read law,
but have seen the law applied in numerous
instances to parties applying for citizen
ship. Have always understood that the
party must prove five years residence, then
declare his intention, and two years from
that time can get final papers. The case is
different where parties come under age; in
which case three years residence, l be-
lieve, is required. Have frequently testi-
fed to the residence of applicants. Was
some times on oath; some times merely stated
that knew the party applying.
Am and have been practicing attorney
in the Circuit Court Of this city since lS47.
Have frequently been in attendance at the
session., of that court when parties applied
for naturalization papers. Previous to the
occasion involved in this investigation I
had been frequently counsel for parties ap-
plying for papers, and have always been
impressed with the extreme rigidity of the
Judge in conforming to all the require
ments of the law. My attention was
called particularly to some of those par
ties who asked me to assist them, and am
sure the Judge was as particular on these
occasions as had ever known him to be be-
fore in asking all the questions required by
the law. Two persons were rejected, who,
in my opinion, were entitled to their. full
papers, according to their own statements.
He was particular in asking all the ques-
tions, and seeing that they were properly
answered. The prosecution having OBJ
tanned another witness, the
TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK AMEMAN.
was taken throHg h an interpreter. He
stated that he was q native of Weinberg,
Prussia, and had been two and half years
in the United States. Was naturalizcd in
the Circuit Court of this city, and worked
at the sugar house of Morriss, but did not
know Of any of the hands who were in the
court with him but Dross and Henness.
Do not know what an oath is. At this
point, the interpreter declaring that wit
ness's statement was very confused, and he
was On extremely ignorant man, his further
examination was suspended, and the court