The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-17
Naturalization Frauds.

The following letter from Judge Agnew ex-
plains itself, and will be read with interest on
account OF its application to current questlons:-
BEAVER, Oct. Ia, 166S.-My Dear Colonel: Il
have received your reply Of the 10th instant to
my letter of the 8th. IT, as you say, the practice
relating to naturalization of aliens, which in
mine had osapproved as irregular, was zap
provedn by my Two brothers lately holding the
Nlsi Prius. and IL you acted under the "dlrec-
tion" OF the Judge who held the Court, l have
nothing more to say on that point. 1t would be
improper, In letter to O clerk, to comment on
the rulings of a member of the Court. | can
now only regret, II your statement BE- correct,
the practice had condemned is brought home
so nearly to ourselves.
Waiving that, am constrained to say that
your explanation of the rush of naturalization
papers through our court is not satisfactory. 1t
Is wholly immater1al whether the true average
per paper be twenty-five or thirty.fve seconds,
this momentary period being wholly inadequate
TO any Ineligible understanding aud determi
nation of the case. The petition must be opened
and read, or its contents stated to the judge.
If there be previous declaration of intention,
the certified copy from the record must be ex-
amned and the judge satisfied OF its character.
One oath is to be adm mustered to the applicant
and another to the witness, the jurats thus doub-
ling the number of the petitions. The Judge
must then form his opinion in each case on the
evidence of residence, moral character, and it-
ness of The applicant, his attachment TO the
principles of the Constitution, and right dispo-
sition to the good order and happiness OF this
country.
But, in order to dispose of the great number
of cases run through so hurriedly, you inform
me that five or more persons were engaged in
the business and that this would give three
minutes of time to each case. That would do IT
it belonged to each subordinate or tpstave to
decide, and he we're qualified by learning and
capacity to do so; but you forget, or omit TO
mention, that as the Court has but one Judge
and one prothonotary, a single person necessa-
ry must examine and pass upon every case,
and, therefore, each must be examined and
determined in the twenty five or thrty-dve
seconds of time. You consequently either
permitted the subordlhates and tipstaves to
decide upon the admission 10 citizenship, or
suffered some of the cases to pass through
without determination.
As to your fees, it is matter OF no moment
whether they were paid or secured by card, the
circumstance having been mentioned as an
element in the consumption of the brief period
of time, and not as important in ITSELF.
OF course did not expect you would discuss
with me the powers OF the Court or its officers,
but / reminded you that naturalization is a
judicial question, because as a lawyer (and the
Prothonotaries of the Supreme Court are chosen
from the bar) you would know that the
question is not an open one, it having been
decided in Rump vs. Commonwealth, Casey.
AIS by our Court the Bench then being com.
posed OF Lowry, c. j., and Justices Woodward,
Thompson, Strong, and Porter. 1t had long
before been settled by the Supreme Court of the
United States, in Peters, 407. As a lawyer
suppose you would readily comprehend what is
implied in judicial act, and thus perceive how
far your practice had departed from the appro-
pirate character of q Judgment of the Court, Ii
is unnecessary 10 add more.
] am, with great respect, truly yours, etc,
DANIEL AGNEw.
Col. James Ross snowden, Prothonotary su.
preme Court, Philadelphia.