The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-11-18

DmhS rowe ana some Others IN the case,
itch they received from the city court Of
Q city of Vergennes at the time they were
lturalized, and which were in the usual
rm and made part Of the testimony of
e case, were conclusive, In every respect |
their right TO vote, and could not be |
iestioned while In force. But the author
es do not sustain such claim. There is
eat difference btween the certificate and
e record In such cases, and upon neither
ithority or principle are we satisfied that
naturalization certificate cannot be ques-
pned. The certificate is only prima .tacie
tidence Of right to vote and of the rights
citizenship generally; II not supported
/ a valid and perfect record, 1t ceases to
evidence of those rights 1t purports to
cure. No so with the record, If, as
hted, 1t Is conclusive and cannot be ques-
bned. 1t is, then, the record, in the cases
binted out, that we hold unimpcachable,
lid not the certificates.
From an early day In the history of our
vernment 1t has been held, by repeated
cisions of the United States courts and
my of the state courts, that records OF
luralizaion proceedings are final of all
lt.ers which they recite, and upon which
| ~ are based, and cannot be invalidated
collateral approaches.
This doctrine is Enthusiastically announced
the 9th of Cranch, 1872 7th of Cranch,
o; 4th of Peters, 40S 18th of Wendell,
o; 10th of Wendell, 624 and 626 LIST of
cord, 1877 Conklin's Treatise Oath ed.)
9. The converse of this is held In I'd
cord, $40, which is the only authority
) have been able to find looking in that
rection.
In list of Brewster, 1888, and same
port, 10, also same report, 263. and
Brewster, 1870, reported cases of con-
lsed elections, the same position, as aboye
Yted, as to the conclusiveness of a record
naturalization proceedings, is uniformly
zen. In the last-named cases. general
iimations are made that for fraud, collu-
sn and perjury the record may be i'm
iachcd and the proceedings hello for
night: but those cases do not define or
pmt out the relations such offensive fea-
tres must sustain to such proceedings, nor
te C ,nnoc,ion,One with the other, that must
E found before impeachment follows.
The first of Selden, 279, is very clear,
case, and directly in point upon
this question.
I In the second of Abbott, 434, case de-
dded in the United States District court for
ne eastern district of Michigan, Longyear,
Judge, in delivering the opinion, defines the
Inference in records that may, and those
hat may not, be impeached for the reasons
famed. The case was reported in 1870; is
most excellent authority, and seems 40
rsmove the uncertainty and doubt hanging
about the earlier authorities upon this
point.
/ The learned Judge saws:
THE distinction between cases in which
judgments may, and those in which they
may not, be inpeached collaterally, as de-
rived from the authorities and founded in
common sense, may be stated thus They
nay be impeached by facts involving fraud
G. colluslon, but which were not before the
curt or involved in the issue or matter
upon which the judgment was made. They
nay not b. impeached for any facts
whether involving fraud or collision, Oh
MT, or even perjury, which were necessa
riy before the court and passed upon"
In support OF this well-defined point MI
nervous authorities are cited.
The objections to the judgments and rec
o-ds III question are that the witnesses falsi
fed in their testimony to procure the nat
walizati,n of the foreigners named, ant
that the applicants themselves also com
nitted perjury; but these matters, if n
claimed, were brought directly before tn,
court and passed upon. So these cases be
come identical with the case in the Cd O.
Abbott.
The committee feel constrained to re
spect tie array of authority upon this sub
ject.
We are all satisfied, however, il our pc
sition in this particular Is untenable, AM
that the record of naturalization in tn
cases of Joseph Adams, Albert Lowell
RWha ho%s 5 5oha hIays AID and ha G" sSa
these aliens were not entitled to be natural
lied. A cursory look behind the record
reveals this fact, and while we would va
cate and annul all the records named, w
do not regard it our duty so to do there
fore we leave that work where it ha
hitherto been lelt-with the courts.
The fifth claim OF the returned membe
that the voteris not obliged to disclose TO
whom he voted, we do not regard vel
made. The secrecy of the ballot is a priv
ilege conferred, only when the right t,
vote is not put in question, disclosure 70
whom person voted is from necessity O
the essence of contested elections.
If the decision of the committee as t,
the validity and conclusivcness of tn
records in question Is not sustained by til
house, the votes of Joseph Adams, Johi
Lowell, Albert Lowell, Paschal Lowell
and Thomas Rowe, should not have bee
counted for the returned member and i
would then be that Milo Is. Williamson
was duly elected representative from tn
town of Cornwall, at the September cleo
ton, A. ID. 1874, and is entitled to sea
upon the floor of the house.
Your committee have been thus particu
lar and full in their report, that the Who'll
case might be understood, and justice &C
cording to the unerring Judgment and goo
sense of the house, be administered.
For the reasons thus given and upon tn
authorities thus cited, your committee re
port and recommend the adoption of til
following resolution:
ResOlced, That Edward s. Dana, the re
turned member from the town of Corn
wall, was duly elected by the freemen o
Cornwall. at the September election, A. d
1874, and is entitled to seat upon til
floor of the house.
All of which is respectfully submitted.