The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1874-11-24


Mr.. Phelps, the contestants counsel, that
in election matters, public policy demands
that they recommend and the House n.
dopt close and critical examination into
oil the details and particulars of the eli.
gibility Of citizenship in instances Of nat
uralization, to the end that the integrity
Of that eligibility may not be imposed
upon, and the sncieat purity aud sacred.
ness of elections in our state may be
preserved.
The committee, we trust, are sutabl y
impressed with the force and propriety of
this suggestion, and are not unmindful Of
its claim upon their attention.
While we would rejoice in more com.
plete integrity and intelligence of natur.
allied citizenship and the right to vote.
and would gladly have preserved forever,
without diminution, the recognized purity
Of Vermont elections, we still feel war.
ranted in following tho authorities CT the
country upon this subject, national as
we'll as state
1t was claimed by the returned mem.
ber's counsel, Mr. Roberts, that the nat
uralization certificates Of Joseph Adams.
Alber. Lowell, Paschal Lowell, John
Lowell, Thomas Rowe and some others in
the case, which they received from the
Gig court of the city of Vergennes at
We time they were naturalized, and which
}were IN the usual form and made a part
Of the testimony of the case, were con.
elusive in every respect of their right to
vote, and could not be questioned while
in force. But the authorities do not sus.
tain such a claim. There is great differ.
ence between the certificate and the rec
ord in such cases, and upon neither All.
thority or principle are We satisfied that
naturalization certificate cannot be
questioned. The certificate is only p,ima
tac'e evidence of right to vote and Of
the rights of citizenship generally if not
supported by valid and perfect record,
it ceases to oe evidence OF those rights it
purports to secure Not so with the rec.
ord, if. as stated. it is conclusive and cam
not be questioned. 1t is, then, the rec.
ord, in the cases pointed out that we hold
unimpeachable, and not the certificates.
From an early day in the history OF
our government it has been held by re-.
peated decisions of the United States
courts and many of the State courts, that
records OF naturalization proceedings are
final Of all matters which they recite.
and upon which they are based, and can
not be inyaidated by collateral approach.
es.
] This doctrine is unmistakably announced
in .he 9Th Of Cranch. 192; 9TH Of Cranch
420; 4th Of Peters. 408; 18th Of Wen.
dell, 5lG; 18th of Wendell, G24 and
626; lst Of McCord. 1877; Conklin 3
Treatise 18th cd 722. The converse of
this is held in % McCord, $40. which is
the only authority we have been able 10
find in looking in that direction.
In LIST Of Brewster 1873, and same r..
port, 10. also same report, 263, and ID
Brewster, $50, reported cases of contest.
cd elections, the same position, as above
stated, as to the conclusvcness of rec
ord in naturalization proceedings, is uni.
iormly taken. In the last named cases,
general intimations are made that fur
fraud, colusion and perjury the record
may be impeached and the proceedings
held for naught; but those cases do not
define or point out the relations such oil.
fensiye features must sustain to such pro.
ceedings nor the connection one with the
other, that must be found before impeacl
ment follows.
The first of Seden, 279,s very clear
convincing cases, and directly in point
upon this question.
In the second Of Abbott, 434, a case
decided in the United States District
court for the eastern district Of Michigan
Longyear, judge, in delivering the opin.
ion, defines the difference in records tha,
may. and those that may not be impcach
ed for the causes named. The case wa,
reported in 1870; is most excellent au.
thority, and seems TO remove the uucer.
tainty and doubt hanging about the ear
ler authorities upon this point
The learned judge says:
The distinction between cases iu which
judgments may, and those 10 which they
may not he impcached collaterally, as de-.
rived from the authorities and founded in
common sense, may he stated thus: They
may be impeached by facts involving fraud
or collusion, but which were not before
the court, or involved in the issne of mat
ter uron which judgement was made
They may not he impeached for any fact,
whether involving fraud or collusion or
,ph
rily before the court and passed upon"
In support of this well.deGned point
numerous authorities are citci.
The objections to the Judgments an
records 10 question are that the witness
ialsliied in their testimony to procure tn,
naturalization Oft foreigners named anJ
that the applicants themselves also com.
mlitrd perjury but these matters. IL a-
claimed, were brought directly before the
court and passed upon. So these cases be
come identical with the case in the n o.
Abbott.
The committee feel constrained to re-
spect the array Of authority upon thi,
subject
We are all satisfied however, if our po
stion in this particular is untenable, and
| that the record of naturalization in the
eases Of Jos ph Adams, Albert Lowell
Paschal Lowell. John Lowell. and Thom
, us Rowe.are not conclusive aud final; tn 4.
these aliens were not entitled to be net,
, uralized a cursory look behind the rec
, ords reveals this fact, and while we wou IC
vacate and annul all the records named
3 we do not regard it our duty so to do
, therefore we leave that work where il hi
[ hitherto been left--witL the courts.
The fifth claim of the returned memhr
| that The voter is not obliged 10 disclos,
. for whom he voted. we do not regard wei
made. The secrecy of the ballot is q
privilege conferred, only when the right Il
? vote Is not put IA quosilor,a disclosure 70
: whom person voted i, irom necessity o
I the essenc., of contested elections