Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1882-09-01
Proof of Naturaliza ton.


minister Adcocate in which he takes the
position that naturalized citizens, who
have lost or mislaid their naturalization
papers, are not compellable to exhibit
copies of the record of their naturaiza
ton to the registration officers as a con-
dition precedent to being registered I'M
der the new registration law but that
their own oath of their naturalization and
that their original papers are lost or mis-
aid is sufficient evidence to warrant the
officer in registering them as voters. The
Judge goes into somewhat elaborate le
gal argument in support Of his position.
He bases his argument chiefly on that prin
ciple of the law of evidence, that, when the
original instruments of docume ntary evil
dence are lost secondary evidence of their
contents is always admissible. This is
certainly true as a principle of law and it is
also true that the law recognizes no grades
of secondary evidence and that oral proof
of the contents of lost paper is consider
ed as good evidence thereof as an exam
ined copy. Still we are doubtful of the
correctness of the Judges position upon
this point, and think it would be the
much safer plan for the class of citizens
he refers to to obtain copies Of the record
of their naturalization. The defect in the
Judges opinion. as it impreSses us, is that
the fact of the nat lralizat ION of an alien
citizen, is a fact required to be proved by
record evidence. The naturalization acts
require the declarations of citiZensh p to
be made in a court of record, and the
minutes Of such proceedings to be duly
made upon the record. The certificate of
naturalization which is delivered to the
voter may be regarded, in a lega, point of
view, as certified copy of a record. or al
authentic certificate of a record .act. In
this view of the case, the record itself Is
the original evidence of the fact OF natur-
alization, and until there be proof of the
destruction of the record i,sslf no seCond-
airy evidence would be admissible, though
an office copy would be always admissible
in proof of that as of any other record fact.
The circumstances contempla Ell by the
Court in the New York case cited b. Judge
Mau!sby in which secondary evidence OF
the fact of naturalization is said to be adj
missible appear to Us to necessarily refer
to the contingency of the des-rAction of
the original record ofnatura iLation. The
Adcocate in endorsing Judge Maulsbl's
views instances the case of the records of
a court in which citizens lad been natur-
allied being destroyed. In that case I'M
doubtedly secondary evidence of the fact
of naturalization would be admissible,
and as there are no grades of secondary
evidence the oath of a competent witness
having knowledge Of the fact would, of
course, be legal evidence of the fast, but
while the original record exists, we doubt
the correctness of the position taken by
Judge Maulsbv, and renew our advice 10
all naturaliZed citizens who have mlsiald
their papers to apply to the court where
the na'uraliz ,tion was made for certified
copies of the record or duplicates of the
original papers.
We do not think that the section of the
constitution referred to by Judge Mauls-
by has any direct bearing upon this ques-
ton. 1t provides that every white male
citizm of the United Safes" having the
prescribed residence, shall have the right
TO vote. But the question presented here
is whether an alien born person, who PIE
sents himself, asking the right OF suffrage
is or is not citizen Of the United States.
The presumption is that he is LOT, and
until he furnishes satisfactory evidence Of
that fact by proving a compliance with
the naturaliz ttion laws of the United States
the registrar would be justified in refusing
him. As we have said, the legal evidence
of such fact, being a matter of record is,
as we understand it, during the existence
OF the record, authentic exemplifcation of
the record, and that appears to be the
evidence required by the Federal natural
ization acts: it cannot, therefore, be any
unconstitutional exercise of power for the
State Legislature to prescribe and require
that evidence of the fact, as it seems 10
have done in the act of 1889.