116 NATIONAL ORIGINS PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION LAW 
In the case of the two services, the Navy and the Army, the sim- 
plicity of warfare in those days enabled a man to be a seaman or sailor 
one day and a soldier the next day. } 
These facts are well recognized, and I should like to read from the 
introduction, or, rather, the preface, of Volume 1 of Massachusetts 
Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, which is a “ compila- 
tion of the records of the Massachusetts soldiers and sailors who 
served in the Army and Navy during the Revolutionary War, as 
shown in the archives in the office of the secretary,” and is stated : 
“ * * In crediting service to any given individual, no attempt has been 
made to force identification where a person of similar name has been found 
upon the rolls as serving at a distant and separate interval of time, in a differ- 
ent command, and without any place of residence stated * * * many of the 
rolls furnish no proof whatever as to residence of the men borne upon 
them * * * The principle was adopted of bringing together scattered 
records of service and crediting them to one individual where identification was 
proven by place of residence, by continuous service, or by service in the same 
command at not too widely separated intervals, when it might be fairly pre- 
sumed that the proofs of continuous service had failed of preservation and were 
only lacking from the State's collection. All records that failed to meet these 
tests are simply printed as they are found, and must stand as wunidenti- 
fed, * * = 
Now, here is another statement from the Massachusetts Soldiers 
and Sailors of the Revolutionary War: 
As the same name may appear under various forms, each carrying some por- 
tion of a record of service, it is necessary in order to obtain the complete record, 
as far as preserved, of any given individual, to examine all the forms under 
which a name is stated to appear in the record index * 
By way of illustration I will cite a few of these various ways of 
spelling the same name: 
Casady, Casaday, Casedy, Casety, Casity, Cassaday, Cassadey. 
Cassady, Cassiday, and so forth. 
Donahue, Donahew, Donehue, Donnahu, Donnohew, Donogho, 
Donohew, Dunahew, Dunehu, Dunnahew, 10 ways of spelling Dona- 
hue; numberless ways of spelling Farrel, numberless ways of spell- 
ing Ryan, and countless ways of spelling Sullivan; countless ways 
of spelling Murphey, Mahoney, Malone, and Maloney. So it is name 
after name. 
I examined about 20 out of 28 names which Mr. O’Brien listed and 
which he referred to in this way. He gave in one column the sur- 
name, in another column a number of times that he said that name 
appeared on the Revolutionary muster rolls, and then in another 
column the number of times it occurred in the census of 1790 in order 
to show the disparity between the two. I only took 20 out of those 
28 names for comparison, because after that 8 of the 28 names there 
are so many different ways of spelling them that it was practically 
impossible to judge just how far to go or when to stop. But I took 
20 of them, and out of those 20 names I listed what were in all prac- 
tical certainty 127 duplications. Out of those 425 total number of 
persons that he claims those represented I found 147 duplications. 
Now, as a matter of fact, in my opinion it is not at all improbable 
that instead of 147 there would be 247 duplications, because I was 
very caretul to take only those particular names which were palpably 
duplications. 
As a matter of fact, the burden of proof ought to be upon the 
person who maintains that two similar names in the Revolutionary