The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-10
THE SUPREME COURT
The Investigation into the
Fraudulent Naturaliza-
ton Certificates.
JudgeSharswood's Opinion inFull
He ExOnerates the PrOthOnOtary,
and Adjourns His Court.


mel Snowden in regard to the fraudulent natu-
ralization certificates, Judge Sharswood this
morning delivered the following opinion:-
In the case of the Commonwea VS.. Snow
den, l would say as q preliminary that these
twelve forged certificates of naturalization
have endorsed Cancelled" and direct them
10 be filed as part of the record of this case
Judge Sharswood then proceeded to read his
written opinion, as follows:-
In the matter of The rule on James Ross SnoDden
Esq, P1Othonofdfy of this court, to Sho,1 cause
Why an attachment should not issue against him
The process of attachment for contempt is a
summary remedy. which has been exercised
by the Courts In England as far back as the
annals of the law extend. Backst. Com. 1885,
The of 1T was so much enlarged by judicial
proper 10 provide, by the act Of April 8. 1909 Is
smith. 55) that "the power OF the judges OF the
attachments and inflict summary punish
ments for contempts of court shall be restricted
oss she OF the ocers OF of sISh courts
respectively; to the negligence or disobedtence
OF officers, parties. jurors, or witnesses against
the lawful process OF the court; to the Hlsbeha-
vior of any person in the presence of the court
obstruciing the administration OF justice"
act of March 10. 1885 Pamph. L., 1887 The
mode of proceeding is well explained in Ho
linesworih VS.. Duane, Wallaces State Rep, 7S.
A rule is generally granted in the first instance
on sffidavits, upon the return of which the de-
and If the Court should be of opinion that the
fact on which the rule was taken Is not suth.
ciently answered or ekcuseu; @ anu that M IN polht
ment Is awarded. When the defendant Is
brought in on this writ he answers interrogate-
ries propounded to him on behalf of the Com
| mopwealth, in whose name the writ always
| issues, and If he gives such answers purge
| him from the criminality he must be dis.
| cbarRed.-4 Blacklist Com, 2S7; case of Hummel
| and Bishof. o Watts, 4l6;
sfidavits that twelve naturalization certificates,
| purporting to be signed and sealed In blank oy
on the person Of a prisoner, who had mad been
! arrested and was in custody on another charge.
iespoedent on the the hearing Of the motion TO to
prove. which he did by several witnesses well
%h nis Sa
| OF the seal appeared to be genuine granted the
| rule. On the return OF IL the respondent put In
| an answer on oath, in which he positively and
| distinctly denied any knowledge of the papers,
or that any such had ever been signed, sealed
| or issued with his knowledge or by his autho-
| rity. No attempt even has been made TO prove
| by q single witness that the Handwriting is that
| of the respondent The Attorney-General, Mr..
| Brewster. with that candor which always
| characteIizes MIN as a gentleman and lawyer
has admitted that it is not. He has also declared
| viii b the same frankness that he does not be-
| lleve the respondent TO have knowingly issued
like those in question. The whole evidence
| establishes this beyond O doubt. The personal
Vindicaied. But the ground has been assumed
that he has been guilty OF gross negligence N
allowing the business In the office TO be SO
! these might pe surreptitiously obtained;
hnd such gross neglect. If is exists, would ua-
| All the clerks in The office, some VINO have
been heretofore connected with it but are not
amined The widest range aud the fullest op.
| portuniiy by adjournment have been given TO
II was due alike to the Court and the commu-
nifty and the respondent himself That this
% SeSigence @ have have been n reduced to four. - which %
will proceed TO examine:
First. AS to the seal. That the die by which
the seal IL affixed to writs and records should
be carefully guarded must be admitted by
every one acquainted with the law on This sub
ject' 1t is established beyond all question that
The seal OF a Court of Record proves itself Nor
| Is II necessary for party Offering IL in evidence
clerk, The burden Of disproving It is east
| upon him who alleges that IL is false. This is
Courts, as laid down ia every standard work
| on evidence, and fully supported by all the
copy under SEAL" says Mr.. Greenieaf. .'it is
| TO be remembered that the courts recognize
without proof the seal OF State. and the seals Of
established by public staIute.n "The seals OF
the courts OF Justice" says Mr.. Starkie. "are of
public credit are part OF the constitution of the
Greenieaf on Ev.. sos; starkie on Ey., 8, Am. ed.
In which the American cases are collected. |
could multiply citations on this point. but 1
found who questions 1t. Tbatsuch a certificate
of judicial proceeding Is conclusive and
1
illegalities, or Irregularities, where the court
had Jurisdiction, unless by the same court in
which IL look place, or some higher court on
error and appeal and stands conclusive 70
all the world until IL is actually so set aside, Is
a point equally incontrovertible. Mcpherson
vs. Cauliif, ii s. & r. 420. Weckerly VS. The
German Lutheran Congregation, Rawle $50
Marsh VS.. Pier, Rawle 2S4 Bower VS.. Tuilman
g. W. q s. 656. Gaple ct al. Titus ct al Wright,
1876. A legion of authorities might be invoked
as well from this as from every State in the
Union, 10 the same effect. II has been held In
the Supreme Court OF the United States that the
judg me mt of court admitting an alien to bee )me
| "a citizen is conclusive that all the provisions
of the law have been complied with Stark VS..
The Chesapeake lns Co., Cranch, 42O; Spratt
Chief Justice Marshall, "is entered on record as
the judgment Of the conrt. IL seems to US, If it
be in legal form TO close all inquiry, and, like
every other Judgment TO be complete evidence
Of It's own validity" The same prtocple mas
been recognized and applied TO certificates OF
naturalization in every Slate court in which the
question has ever arisen. Mechanics VS.. Rich.
ards, McUord, lS7; Richie VS.. Putnam, IL Wen
dell, 524; Mccarthy vs. Richards, | Selden, 26S,
l have searched diligently. but without success,
| through all the books for any decision, or even
dict1u, which either denies qualities, or doub 4.
foundation stones Of the law. IL IL evil
dent, then, from these consideration tn AZ the
| importance of guarding the seals of THIS court
| rom being tampered with cannot bs overesti'
mated. IL is objected against the respond mt
thai IL Is not kept In safe position. IL has been
| proved, however, that IL was kept In the same
| plece for many years before ne was appointed
| ProthoDotarY, de found IL there when ne II rsL
| took possession OF the Office. Every Judge who
| has been on this bench during all that time
has. ofneeessty, frequently seen It, II Is within
the view OF all the cletks when the office IL not
crowded; and when IL IL crowded IL Is near