The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1882-08-26
NAruRA11zEp CITIZENS.
Hdw They May Prove Their NaturaIi-
xafiOn. Etc.


ration, Etc.
The article below is from the pen of Judge
VIM. P. Maulsby. Judge Maulsby gave the
substance of it in a conversation few days
ago, and at the request of the editors of the
ADVOCATE has written it out for publication
1t is a clear and forcible opinion, and will be
of value to naturalized citizens and registers
of voters:
Article /, Section /, of the Constitution of
Maryland provides that every white male
citizen of the United States of the age of
twenty-one years or upwards" having pre-
scribed residence, &c, shall be entitled to
vote &C., sat all elections hereafter to be
held in this State The Constitution of the
United States puts colored citizens on the
same footing.
Section of said Article requires the Gen
eral Assembly to provide by law for an uni
form registration of the names of all the vo-
tiers in this State, &c.
Section Is of the Registration Act of 1882
requires the register, in case of an application
of naturalized voter, to enter the date of his
final paper or certificate of naturalization and
a minute of the court by which the same was
issued.
1t is supposed that in consequence of this
provision of the act of 1882 the registers have
refused to register all applicants, basing their
right to registration on naturalization of them
selves, or of their parents, unless they pro
duce the Naturalization paper, SO called, of
themselves or their parents.
Such action of the registers is clearly err
roneous 1t is the right of every citizen
above twenty-one years of age, whether ma
tive-born or naturalized, or son of one natur-
allied during the minority of the son, to vote.
1t is equally his right to be registered. The
Legislature could not add requirement to
that of the Constitution, if IT had intended to
do so. But il did not so Intend. The only
proper construction of Section 10 is, that the
register shall enter in the registration book
the date of the final papers, &c, in case such
papers shall be produced. Otherwise, 1t must
be held that the act of 1882 created new quail
fication, to wit: the production BY an appli-
cant of his so-called naturalization papers /;
and so. that citizen. entitled to registration
by the express terms of the Constitution, must
be deprived of his right, unless he produces
certain papers. This would invert the order
of things and put the Legislative power above
the Constitution, instead of under or sibor-
dinate to it,
If foreign-boru citizen has been natural
lied, or was a minor when his father was
naturalized, he Is entitled to vote, and, of
course, TO be registered, age and residence
being shown.
The only question is; What is the legally
sufficient proof of the naturalization?
1t has been nowhere held iudicially, as far
as I am aware. that the only sufficient proof
of naturalization is the production of the pa
pers. The law divides evidence into primary
and secondary. Naturalization papers would
be primary, or the best evidence, perhaps
and ought to be produced when the papers
are in possession, or within reach, Of the apph-
cant for regi stratiOn. But when they are out
of his power or lost, or mislaid. secondary
evidence or parol proof Of the fact, that the
naturalization did occur, Is sufficient IN law
and entities the applicant 30 be registered as
fully to all intenis as If he produced the papers
when person asking 90 be registered
claims 10 be a citizen by virtue Of the natur-
alization Of his parents, the best evidence Of
the naturalization Of the parent woald BE- the
original certificate Of naturalization, or du-
plicate thereof, when II can be obtained Bat
a party may. in the matter of proving his Cit
Eenship, resort 10 secondary evidence when
primary evidence cannot be- obtained. issA
HasoaEd, n. ~
A register Is therefore bo,sSd 10 register
every citizen who proves that h. has been
naturalized, or that bis father was na'ayaliEsd
during bis minority. and fhis fact can Be
proved By the oath Of the applicant himself,
who IS made n competent witness 10 prove
any fact BY the law OF this State, uT hy the
oath Of any other competent witness Il Is
the fact Of the naturalization which Is 10 BE-
proved. That fac; NAV be proved by adv
competent evidence. Il j. equally proved BY
the production Of the papers. or - parol
proof, when the papers canrot be PFOduced.
Il Is supposed thai a decision recently made
hy the circuit court for Frederick eoauty Is 70
the effect that the only competent prsal 81
naturalization Is the certificate Of naiRraiiEA-
ton under seal Of the court granting Il do
not think that such Was or was meant "a Dc.
the decision. Bat oaly that in the easss be
fore the court, on appeal. there was no proof.
either primary OF secondary.
II Vas decided in Sch CaHeh. l76, that
. she oath Of naturalization, when taken, Goa
fers the rights % citizen. and & IS not neccs-
sary that there shaald be an ORDER 81 ooaFi
admitting hin 10 De citizen.
. he question VI citizenship nay be de-
cided. after great lapse 81 time, hy facts and
circumstances raising the presumption that =
foreigner bad actually become citizen. -
III RaAd. Va SIS.
These decisions sufficiently show iha, the
commonly prevailing idea shst forcign born
citizen can be precladed from the right v
suffrage by inability 20 produce record ~
his naturalization Is erroneous.
4 foreign-born citizen NAV prove his right
to register and vote BY the same class 81 evi
denee By which a nativs.horn sitiFen NAV
prove his-in the batter case By his o~u cath,
ia the absence of higher aud better PEopf, that
be u twenty-one years Of age, aud IN the
former case in the same mode, in the absence
Of naturalization papers, that he = twenty
one years Of age, and that be ess nasaralizrd,
or that his father VS. naiuFalized daring his
minority.