Stanley I. Evans
Oakland, CA 94601
Stan@StanleyEvans.com
Date: November 4, 2025
The Honorable Lateefah Simon
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Subject: Request to Enter Historical Evidence into the Congressional Record — Non-Authentic Attesting Signatures on Connecticut’s 1813 Legislative Records Concerning the Titles of Nobility Amendment
Dear Representative Simon,
I am writing as a constituent and researcher who has spent many years studying the ratification history of the proposed Titles of Nobility and Honor Amendment (TONA) of 1810. During this research I obtained certified copies of two primary Connecticut state records—(1) the House Journal of May 1813 and (2) the Committee Report on the amendment from the same session—both now held by the Connecticut State Library.
After comparison with multiple verified 1813 exemplars of the relevant officers’ handwriting, it appears that the attesting signatures on those two records are not authentic. The handwriting on the questioned “Chs. Denison, Clk.” and “Theodore Dwight, Chairman” signatures differs materially from the known signatures of those officers appearing on other contemporaneous documents. As those attestations are the sole official authentication of Connecticut’s alleged “dissent” from the amendment, the records cannot lawfully serve as evidence of legislative action under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Under controlling Supreme Court precedent—Hawke v. Smith (253 U.S. 221 [1920]), Dillon v. Gloss (256 U.S. 368 [1921]), and Leser v. Garnett (258 U.S. 130 [1922])—only duly authenticated state acts have constitutional effect. Consequently, Connecticut’s current archival record of “non-ratification” rests upon unauthenticated documents and should not be relied upon in the federal amendment record.
I respectfully request that you enter this finding into the Congressional Record, either by statement or through the Extensions of Remarks, noting that the two Connecticut records purporting to show rejection of the Titles of Nobility Amendment bear non-authentic attesting signatures and are therefore invalid as evidence of legislative intent. Doing so would formally place Congress on notice of this archival discrepancy and preserve the documentation for historical and constitutional review.
For your convenience, I have enclosed certified copies of the questioned pages, exemplars of genuine signatures, and a short memorandum summarizing the forensic comparison and legal implications. I am happy to provide full documentation upon request.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to transparency in our constitutional history. I would be deeply grateful if your office could advise me whether you will be able to submit these materials for inclusion in the Congressional Record or refer them to the appropriate oversight committee for review.
Respectfully,
Stanley I. Evans
Oakland, California
