Los Angeles herald., 1892-08-15
OH, BUT WHAT 4 Difference
In the Judges, When 1t Comes
to Naturalization Matters.
Shortsighted About Republicans, but
Very Keen with Democrats.
Judge Smiths Careful Procedure in Mr.,
Hoppeiler's Case-But in the Taylor
Matter an Extra Amount of
Zeal Not Displayed.

As illustrative OF the tireless vigilance
of the superior judges of this county in
handling naturalization papers that
have been altered or changed, when
Democrat, accompanied the party who
presented them, it is only necessary to
tell the following story:
Jacob Hoppeller came to the United
States long years ago. He took out his
first papers at st. Louis, March 25,
1869. He never had taken out his sec
ond papers, and had lost his declara-
ton of intention.
Hoppeller desired to vote this fall and
came to the Democratic naturalization
bureau. He explained his case to the
gentleman in charge. As he had lost
his first papers it became necessary to
write to the county clerk at St. Louis
appertained to Hoppeller's declaration
OF intention. This certified copy was in
time received at the Democratic bureau.
dicated that Hoppeller had taken
ont his first papers March 25, 1892.
This was clearly an error. So the pa
pers were again returned TO the county
clerk at St. Louis, for a proper correc-
ton. Instead of taking new certificate
and filing it out, the clerk simply
erased, with an ink eraser aud knife,
the figures 90 and wrote SO, SO as to
make the paper read that Hoppeller had
declared his intention of becoming q
citizen March 25, 1869, instead of March
i 70, 1892. The consequence was that
Hoppeller's certificate bore plain evil
dence Of having the date altered.
Now, as soon as the certificate
arrived, at the Democratic bureau, it
was turned over to Hoppeller. He
| presented it in department one Of the
superior court, and asked to be made a
| citizen. Judge Smith examined the
paper very closely and asked about the
alteration in the dates. It was explained
to him, but the explanation was not sat
tistactory. He refused to give Hoppeller
his naturalization papers that day. The
! judge then telegraphed to the county
clerk at st. Louis, to- ascertain on what
date Hoppeller took out his first papers.
The reply came back "March 25tb,
1862" Then the Judge, when Hop
peller again petiti6ned him, gave
him his final papers, and the telegram
he ndOe. ItCtlftu rII0m the St. LOUIS
county clerk was sffixed. to Hoppeller's
declaration, and fled with County Clerk
Ward. elisS
How different. though, is the Judge
when q good Republican brings in a
foreign-born resident for naturalization.
His tireless vigilance relaxes, and his
eyes grow DIM When John A. Pirtle
brought in Robert A. Taylor to be
naturalized, then Judge Smiths keen
sight failed to observe what was plainly
evident-that the figure had been
made into z. Not observing it. he
makes no inquiry as to how, or why,
or when, or where the certificate was
doctored, and makes citizen out of
man who is not entitled to citizenship.
How different, how observing, and how
sharp his eyesight becomes when a
Democrat happens to bring in for
elgner whose declaration has been al
tered. OF course Judge Smith did per-
fectly right in ascertaining that the
correction of Hoppeller's was bona fide.
But why did not exercise the same eau
tion in Taylor's papers? If he had done
30 he would have probably saved a
number of Republicans considerable
trouble, which may yet put them in the
grip OF the law. In court of Justice
all persons are supposed to be treated
alike. e,ia It, f