Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1882-09-15
So it will be seen that Congress, in the n

90 IL VIII De seen tnat congress, In the
exercise of its exclusive power to regulate
naturalization, hss provided certain for
NAL and specific proceedings to be had in
a court of record hauing seal and clerk, and
has commanded these proceedings to be
recorded by the clerk Of the court. Our es-
teemed contemporary will perceive, there
fore, thai it is the Adpocate that is mis-
taken and no, the TIMES. Anyone who
is at all familiar with the principles oflaw,
must perceive that these naturalization
proceedings, are quasi judicial in their
nature and are to all intents and purposes
matters of record. That record has been
constituted by the acts of Congress the
solemn evidence of these important pro-
ceedings, by which they are to be perpet-
uated, and by which the fact is to be prov
ed whenever it may be called in question
1t must result, therefore, that the princi-
| pes Of primary and secondary evidence
upon which Judge Maulsby bases his ar
gument, can have no application to nstur-
alization proceedings so long As the orr
ginal record is in existence.
1t has long been principle Of the com
mon law OF evidence, prompted by public
policy and convenience, that an office
copy or exemplifcatisn OF pub ic record,
under the seal of its legal Gus odisn
shall be evidence of the record, not Sc
condary but primary. This principle has
been recognized in Maryla land by declarato-
~ statutes. In the Revised Code of Mary
land Act 20, section 81, it is provided that ::
COPIES of any record in the custody of
any of the clerks Of courts of law or equi-
ty or Registers of Wi Is, certified 10y such
clerk or register under the seal of his Of
fee, shall be evidence; and all dsments
and DEGREES, deeds and other papers and
proceedings required by lac to Be recorded,
shall be considered records within the
meaning Of this act"
1t is by virtue OF this principle of the
law of evidence, aud not by virtue of any
specific provision of the acts OF Congress
that we are aware of, that certificates OF
naturalization under the seal of the clerk
of the court are received as evidence
thereof. Thee certificates stats in the face
that the facts they rteite appear from
the records Of the court granting them.
Assuming that the principles Of
the law of evidence are to be applied by
the registrars in sscertaining the qualifi-
cations of voters, and Judge Maulsby's
paper is based upon that assumption, it
follows that. independent of the provision
in section Is Of the present registration
law, the registrars would be bound to re-
quire an exemplification Of the record OF
naturalization. The New York decision.
cited by Judge Maulshy is itself an
authority upon this point. The certificate
of naturalization is not the original evil
dence of the naturalization proceedings,
but only an exemplitied copy thereof,
admitted on the principle of public con-
is destroyed or lost, no secondary evidence
would be admitted by proof Of such loss
or destruc' ion; bat the only redress af such
persons as have been 50 Careless as to loose
or destroy such an important parer is to
apply to The clerk OF the Court for ano,h-
er office copy or certificate.
II seems to US that matter Of 50 much i'm
per snce ought to lie brought to the stten-
ton Of the Attorney General. in "rd-r that
it may be Ar-iully decided before it is too
late to remedy the mischief that may be
done. l. II shou Il be Il cided that the
produ tim %. the papers IS necessary,
then those who have failed to d. So could
yet procure exemplidca,i"ns and have the
proper minutes made on the registration
books opposite thier names ., the October
sitting.