^>^^ ^- *^ % :'»': ^^1 0^' :^-. ^-o/ :^: V/ f^', ^^ M SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM SMITH, OF VIRGINIA, ON THE BILL FOR THE AMISSION OF MINNESOTA; DEl.iViJRED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY «, 1356. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRE^IONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1858. The Conslitutinn bas conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturah- Eation.and this is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so.—Vred Scott vs. Sanford; Federalist, Nos. 32 and 42, &c. Naturalization is the mean? by which an alien is introduced into the body-politic and clothed with all the rights and privileges of one born in the country.— Fa/ose and intention of our fathers to provide a Consti- tution for persons v^ho were not citizens of the United States? I beg gentlemen to pause here, and to look at the question in this single light. In the formation of our Federal Constitution was it designed for any others than the people of the United States, being citizens thereof.' I main- tain, sir — I have frequently maintained, and am prepared, if I can gain the attention of the House, to maintain now — that in the action of our system, in all its ramifications and parts, we must look to this great fundamental principle, that our Consti- tution was framed for the people of the Union, being citizens of the United States, and for no others. I will refer to Vattel — in .sections one hundred and twenty-two, two hundred and twelve, two hundred and thirteen, and two hutidred and fourteen — for the purpose of showing that the term " country" signifies " the State of which one is a member;" and is " thus understood in the law of nations." This doctrine is fully maintained in the Dred|_ Scott decision. Chief Justice Taney, in deliver- ing the opinion of the court, said: " The words ' people of the United States' and ' citizens, are synonymous terms, and mean the same tiling." He also said: " It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Coti- stilurion recognized as citizens in the several States, be- came also citizens of tliis new political hody, but none other. It was tormed hy them, and for them and their posterity} hut for no one else. And the personal rij^hts and privileges guarantied tooitizensof this new sovereignty were iiuendet^ to embrace those ordy who were then members of the sev-' eral State communities, or who should afierwajTs by birth- right or otherwise become members, according to the pro- visions of the Constitution, ami the principles on which it was founded. It was the iniion of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communi- tio-, into one political family, whose power, for certain spe- cified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States." This is the true doctrine; and, if rememberet^ and respected, will furnish an easy solution of many of the questions involved in this discussidn. The distinction between citizens and aliens wil^ be found laid down in Vattel, sections two hun- dred and twelve and tv/o hundred and tliirteeii. The distinction between citizens and foreigners 'is clearly marked there. In the two hundred and[ fourteenth section it is laid down that naturaliza- tion is one means, and the only means, by which a foreigner can be declared a citizen of acountryj This being the doctrine, I propose now to refte^ from various authorities on the subject, to show not only the policy, but the true doctrine which bears on this suiiject. It is known to us all that, in the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause designed to secure uniformity throu2:hout the Union in the naturalization of foreign born. But it is a subject so clearly demonstrated that it was absolutely necessary that the power should be confined to the Federal Government, that it did not produce the briefest discussion. It is a curi- ous fact that, in the convention which framed the , Constitution, there was not one word of discussion j on that subject. Mr. Randolph, who was the chair- j limn of the committee to whom the subjectof draft- ing the Constitution was first referred, says: j «•' nut as the c-onvoritior, !i;iil nii'iinrued fmni Virainia, and ] Jiirt c<»ll<;;i>:ii*'s slIpl)<)^l;ll tliut sojiu: propositidrt 'viis (-xpcctod i fnmi them, tliey had iniix)=cd this tusk upon him.'" i Mr. Randolph also said: ; '• A provision for harmony amang the States, as in tradf, i ratHralization, Stc, mnit be mailc.^' Mark you, sir, that Mr. Randolph, in making: j his report, said that there were certain great sub- j jects in which there should be no division of opm- j ion, in which there should be harmony between I a'l the States. One of these is naturalization. j That is not all. In May, 17ri7, Mr. C. Pinck- uey submitted a draft of a Constitution, in which is found the power " to ostalilisli uniform rules of naturalization." June 15, 1787, Mr. Palter- 6T>n, of New Jersey, submitted a draft of a con- stitution, in which is found a power " that the rule of naturalization ought to be the saine in every State." Sir, as I said before on this specific grant of power, there appears to have been no discussion. Its necessity, its propriety, its fitness, seem to have been universally conceded; and 1 desire to call attention to the tact for the purpose of ena- bling the House to follow me, I trust satisfaclo- cilyfto the conclusions which I shall draw. But, sir, that is not all. Judge Story, hi his essay on the Constitution of the United States, treats this subject. He depicts the evils to be avoided; and, although I may weary the House, wet I will read froin that book. In sections 109d and 1099, volume three, of the edition in my pos- session, Judge Story says: " 1093. The propriety of coiifidiiii; the powftr to establish a uniform rule ofiuaurali/.atioii toUic iiaiional Governineut seems not to have occasioned any doulit or controversy in the convention. For au;;ht that appears in the joarnais, it was concet^d without objection. Under tlie Confedera- , tion, the Suues possessed the sole authority to exercise the | power; and the dissiniihirity of the system in ditferent i States was generallv adniitled. as a prominent defect, and ] »aid the foundation' of many delicate and intricate (jues- ] tinns. As the free inhabitants of each State were entitled j to all tlie privilt:(;<;s and immunities of citizens in all the j Other States, it followed that a sinijle State posscs.sed the ! fion-er of foieioL' into every other State, with the enjoyment i of every ininiunity and pi-ivilego. any alien whom it mi^'ht Choose to incorporate into its own society, however repuc:- ■ant such admission miKlit he totheir polity, conveniences, and even prejudices. In effect, every State possessed the power of iiaturalizins aliens in every other State a power as mischievous in its nature as It was indiscreet in its actual exercise. Jn one State, residence for a short time might, and did, confer the rights of citizenship. In others, quah- ficatious of greater importance were required. Au alien, therefore, incapacitated for the possession of certain rights toy the laws of the latter, might, by a previous residence and naturalization in the former, elude at pleasure all their sal- Wary regulations for self protection. Thus, the laws of a Biiigle Swtc were preposterously rendered paramount to the laws of all the others, even within their own jurisdiction. And it lifis been remarked, with equal truth and justice, that it was owing to mere casualty that the exercise of this power, under the Confederation, did not involve the Uui'ui in the most serious etiiharrassnients. There is great wis- (Som, therefore, in confiding to the natioinl Government the power toestahlish a uniform rule of naturalization through- out the United States. It is of the deepest interest to the Whole Union lo know who are entitled to enjoy the rights of citizens in each State, since they thereby, in elfect, be- come entitled to the rights of citizens in all tlie Stales. If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single State, the UnioH itself might he endangered tty an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable ot a due e-timale of its privileges. " lO'JD. It follows, from the very nature of the power, that to be useful, it must be exclusive ; for a concurrent power in the States would bring back all the evils and einharrai-s ments which the uniform rule of the Constitution was de- signed to remedy. And, accordingly, though there was a momentary hesitation, when the Consiiuilion first went into oper.iiion, wheiher the power might not still be exer- cised by tlie States, subject only to the control of Congress, so tar as the legislation of the hitter extended, as the su- preme law, yet ihii »• -. ..,. .i,„,i prenie law, vet the power is now firmly established to be exclusive. (See the Federalist, No. 32, 4-2 ; Chirac r. Chirac, •2 Wheat. U, 959, 269; Rawie on the Const, ch. 9, p. 84, b.'i, to 88; Ilousten i>. Moore, .5 Wheat. R. 48, 49; Golden r. Prince,/! Wash. Cir. Ct. R. 313,322: I Kent's Comm. l.ect. 19, p. .397 ; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 25.') to 959.) The Federalist, indeed, introduced this very case, as entirely clear, to illustrate the doctrine of an exclusive power by implication, arising from the repugnancy of a similarpower in the States. ' This power must necessarily be exclusive,' say the autliors ; ' becnuse, if each Stat;; had power to pre- scribe a distinct rule, there could be no uniform rule.' " Mr. Speaker, I have called attention to these clauses in this standard authority upon the Con- stitution, for the purpose of marking what I deem important in reference to the ultimate conclusion at which I propose to arrive, it is a doctrine which will not be questioned by any one; but it will be contended tliat it does not present the real fjuestion involved in the bill before us. 1 propose to show tliat it docs. 1 desire now to call attention to what i.s said in the Federalist upon the subject, because it was a eotemporaneous exposition of the Constitution; it was designed to present the Constitution in sucli a light to the American people as to secure its adoption; it was the exposition, too, of great and impartial minds, and I propose to read from two of the numbers, one by Mr. Hamilton, and the other by Mr. Madison. In the one by Mr Hamil- ton, he"gnes on to classify the circumstances un- der which powers are denied to the Slates. He says theyare of three descriptions or classes. One is where exclusive power ia granted in terms to the General Government; another is where powers are denied to the States; and the third is where the pov/er is totally contradictory and repugnant if exercised by the Stales; and 1 lake this occasion here to read his emphatic and delightful doctrine upon the .subject of the true construction of the i Constitution. He says: '• But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the riglits of sovereignty which they hefore had, and which were not, by that act, culiisivelii delegated to the United .States." Again: "And where it granted an authority to the Union towhich a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally coiuradiciory and repugnant." Further on he says: "The third will be found in tli-xt clause which declares that CoUL're.ss shall have power to establish a uniform rolk of natur.-ilization tliroughout the United States. This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a distinct rule, there could be no cniform RULE !" But Mr. Madison wrote upon this subject also, and I desire to call particular attention to his views upon it. Mr. Madison, in treating the same ques- tion, for it was one, I lieg you to remember, that interested deeply the American people, goes over the same ground with his characteristic power andcltaruess. In the ffiriy-second tiumber of the Federalist, Mr. Miulison says: "Tlie (lissiiiiilariiy in the rulft?; of naluralizatimi \v\< Ion;; been remark(;(i as afaiill in our system, and as laying iUbiiiiii .ttioTi tor intrica'c and (Iniipate questionn. In tlie fmirtli aiticlR ol'tlie Confedoratioii it is declared 'that tho/rce in- A«Ai«((nriv ileges and immunities nf free citi:eni in tin; srvcral Slates ; and the peijile nl'each Stafp shall, in every othi'r, iMijoy all the privili'i^i.'s of trade and coininfrce, &e." 'J'hcro i.- a cou lUiiioii of lantiiaje here, which is remarkable. Why the term- Crec iiilialiititnt.i Rrf. n-icd in one part of th." article, free citi:eH<; in anmher, ami people in another ; or what was "meant hv .siiperaddins to -all privileses and immunities of free citizens,' ' all the privileges of trade and commerce,' cannot easily bedetermined. Itseems to h(^ a construction scarcely avciidahle, howm-er, that those who ccnne nnd.tr the denomination of free iuhahitunts of a Stat<>, altlioush not citizens of iich State, are entitled, in every otheat, and I desire it to be understood, that Federal authority does not relinquish ?ts control over the foreigner until his rijjlit to naturalization is f)erfectP(l. What is requisite to give a forei2;ner the rij;ht of suflVage ? He must make his declaration; he must be five years in the'country, and that must be proved by two citizens of the United States; he must show himsilf to be a man of probity and good (h/meanor, aiul to have borne an un(|ues- tionabli! character; he mti.^t show that he is ac- quainted with our instittuiotifi, and attached to the principles of our Government. Suppose that the foreie;iier should ask to be naturalized, and should fail ill any of these" requisites: can he ac- quire the right of citizenship.' Suppose that he turns out to be a man of bad character; suppose it is notorious that he is anything but friendly to our free institutions; snfipose, iiLstead of showing he is attached to the principles of our Govern- ment, that it is shown (hat he is still a monarch- ist: h(! cannot acq 11 iri; the rightsof naturalization; and thus it is, sir, he may be re;(>cted in the very last moment, after having been five years in the country, and when he appears in court to perfect his right to citizenship. Congress, then, does not lose its hold of him until the last hour: and, until he becomes an American citizen, the State has no pov/er to confer upon him the rights of suffrage in any Federal election. \ think that this is one of those propositions which cannot be contro- verted; and I think that, as Congress controls him until all the conditions required by the naturali- zation laws are fully coini)lied with, it is conclu- sive evidence that the Stiiie has no power to con- fer upon him any political right uiid-r the Federal Constitution whatever. It is said, in this connection, that th.e States have always cxercisi-d this power. Tltat was said by some gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate. Allow me to say, that I think that is a great mistake. You know tliat this suiyect anxiously engaged the attentii>n of those who preceded us; and without dwelling upon it, I beg leave to call the attention of the l-louse to what, ill debating the naturalizatnni laws in 1795, Mr. Uallalin said. The quesiion came up in connection with the right of sulfrage in his own State. There were nr.tny persons naturalized un- der the State law who were excluded from all the rights of United States citizenship. I gel what 1 extract from Gales &, S«aton's AnnaLs: '• Mr. Gallatix wished to knov.' whether the provisions of this act are intended lo extend to person.s who were in the coiiiilry previous to the pa-siag ot the law of January, 1795, which requifesaresidi'mje of five years before an alien can become a citizen, but who iiave neglected to become citizens, as well as to all those aliens who have come to this country since January, 179,'j .'' , " Asain, he said, one reason which led him to mention this circumstance was, that there are agreatnumber of per- sons in the State of I'einisylvania, and many in the district from whence he caino, who, though they are not citizens of the United States, really believe they are. Thismi>tako has arisen from (an error coinnioa to moslofthe districts of the United Stales) a belii;f tiiat an alien's being naturalized by the laws of a rotate government, since tlie act of 1790, made him a cinzen of the United States. He always tlioiight that coiislriiclion to he wrong. f'oiigres!' bavins the pow.M to pass, and having passed, a uniform naturalization law, which, in his opinion, e.xcluded tlie idetiofadmission to ciiizcnship on difl'erent terms by llie individual Slates. But he knew the contrary opinion, till lately, generally prevailed. Indeed, ho knew that at tin; late election in that city, the votes of re- spectable merchants, who had obtained .\nieiiean registers for their vessels, on a pri;siiini)lion of their being citizens, were refu>ed on this ground. The same mistake had ex- tended to other parts of the Utiiim. " Mr. G. supposed that since the year 1790, from ten to fifteen thousand emigrants had come into the Slate of Penn- sylvania, two thirds of whom believed, till lately, that they were; citizens of the United States, from their having been naturalized bv the laws of that State. It ha.s now been dia- 6 cnverod that tliry are not citizens ; liut sinre that discovpiy was made, lli'y have not had an oppnrtiinity of bi.ing ad- mitted accoiilii)!; to the law ol' the United States. Hi're you see, in refurence to naturalization un- der Stale laws, Mr. Gallatin concedes that those thus naturalized wore not citizens, and that con- sequently the riy:ht of suffrafje sliouhl lie denied them. He himself was of foreign birth, and of course intere-^sted in the question, and would not hastily have decidi'd as lie did. Mr BLF.SS. Will the genileman yield to me for a moment.' Mr. SVHTfl. ofVirginia. C<;riainly. Mr. HLISS. 1 ri.se hiinjily for the purpose of asking ihe geiitleman from Virginia to give u.s, if he has the n(;t Ijefore him, the language of the Peniii^ylvania siatiiie upon that subject. Mr. WMITH, of Virginia. I have it not. I have reiid finm the debate of ]795. Mr. BLISS. I asked the question because I did not know exaeily what that statute was. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. The debate was upon till' sulijeet of naturalization. Mr. ELl^S. The question is this : whether the Pennsylvania statute, to which the gentleman re- fers, conferred the elective franchise, or under- took to naturalize generally.' Mr. IlliAGAN. 1 dt.'sire to say a word upon the point on which the gentleman fiom Oiiio has interrupted the jrentleman from Virginia. 1 will call llie atichtiun of the gentleman froin Virginia to the fact tliai, by an early decision of the courts of FeniKsylvania, it was held that a State had con- current jurisdiction with the Federal Government in the matter of the naturalizaiion of foreigii'Ts; and to the debaie growing out of that matter, 1 ap- prehend that the clause which the gentleman read referred. It did not relate to tht! question of the right of a citizen to vote', but related alone to the power to naiuialize. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. What is natural- ization .' It is tlie tciving to fnreigniTS rights whieh they did not |>ieviously possess, and among them the right to vote. Did the Pennsylvania law con- fer that right.' If it be the decismn of a statute, I care nm; but did the Pennsylvania law give that right. The answer is at hand. Says Mr. Gallatin: "Indeed, we knew that, in tliu late eloeiioi) i'l iliis city, theooAevoi re'.ipeetahle iiierehaiits. who had oliiaiued Amer- ican reeisi its ioi- tlieir vessils on a piesniniitien of their being eiiiz •ns, were refused on lliis ijrinlnd. The same luistalce IkhI extended lo other parts oi' the Uniiin." On what ground were they refused the right of suffrage.' Gentlemen talk about this Pennsylva- nia law not conferring the right of suffrage; and yet here it i.';: expressly said that it did confer the right of suffrage, and iliese men sought to exer- cise that right under the Pennsylvania naturaliza- tion law. I may not understand it; but here it is, and " he who runs may n>ad." If a man who came forwaril to vote under the provisions of tliat law was excluded, he was excluded upon the ground that he was not a citizen of the United States; and if he was jierinitted to vote, it would be upon the |iresumption liiai he was a citizen of the United States; and I undertake to say, and I have no doubt such will be the fact, that this Pennsylvania law was passed prior to tlie adop- tion of the Constitution. It was, no doul>t, the old Pennsylvania constitution ieji;ulating iliisques- tion, which was superseded, as was decided in a case in the State of Alaryland, by the adoption of the Federal Constitution. That will no doubt be found to be the state of things, and those respect- able merchants were denied thd riijht of suffrage, though located permanently in the country, be- cause they were not citizens of the United iStates, and not because of any oiher )irovision, citizen- ship being the fundamental condiiion to the ex- ercise of this high attribute of popularsovereignty. I think it will be found that this is the clew to the subject. Hut without dwelling at large upon this sub- ject, let me proceed. In a case which came di- rectly before the Supreme Court of the United States, as reported in second Wheaton, the court Went into a discussion of the question of property, and they sufterseded the law of the Slate of Ma- ryland, and gave the property a different direc- tion from what it would have taken if the ["irty claiming it had been a citizen of the United States. And why.' Because it was the purpose of the founders of the Republic to confine the right of suffrage, that great fundamental political right of popular liberty, to those who were citizens of the United Slates, whether naiive or foreign-born. I will now proceed to call the attention of the House to the sentiments of our fathers. Gentle- men have extraordinary notions upon this subject. They have the notion that anybody who comes here is at once entitled to pariicifiate in the right of suffraice. Every year adds some three hundred thousand foreigners lo our pojiulaiion, and they are not required to wait liie period of time speci- fied by the act of Congress, prescribing the rule of naturalization, but they are precipitated in hot hasie ujioii the ballot-box, and introduce'd into the political strugijles of the day. Is that right.' I beg, in this connection, to call ilie attention of the House lo what passed in the Federal con- vention. I know it is thought that there was a policy in thai day which required us to encour- age emigration. Yes, sir, there was a policy which requireii it to a limited extent. But how.' Ttj that matter I now call yourattention. Colonel Mason, of Virginia, then one of the leading members of Congress, who was for opening a wide door for emigrants, but did not choose to let foreigners make laws for us, said: " Were it iioi tliat many, not natives of this country, had aeiinired ureal rredii diiriji;; ihe Ri'VolutInn, he slioiilil be lor resiraininii Ihe elj;;il)ility into the Seiiule to natives." Mr. Butler, a very distingiiiislied man of that day, said that he — — '• was deeiii"dly opposed to the admi.ssion of foreigners vvitliout a lon^' residence in the eountry. They hriiiii Willi tliein, not only auaeliinents to other countrie,.s, hut ideas of C'lvernment.so di.-iinel Ironi ours that in every point of view they are damterou.s. lie ai knmvh'ilL'ed ihat, it he himself h:i(i been called into public lile vviihm a short lime aller his e<;mini» to AneTiea, his foreiyrn habits, opinions, and attaetl- inents, would have rendered hiiii an improper agent in pub- lie afiairs." •• .Mr. R\NUot.i'n did not know butjt mi|,'ht be [iroblem- atieal wheiher eini;>rants lo this country were, on the whole, useful or not." " Mr. GiaiKY wished that in future the eligibility might be eoiifnieil u> natives." " Mr. VVii.i.iAM.soN moved lo insert nine years instead of sev.'i!. lie wislied this eouniry toaetpiire, as fast as possi- ble, nalion.il haliils, VVeallhy einiunuils do more harm, by their lu\'urious h.ibits, than good by the money tin y bring with them. '4 ".Mr. linTi.KR was strenuous against admitting foreigners into our pnlilie entnieils." '•.Mr. iSuKRMAN. The United Slates have not invited foreiijiiers, nor pledged their faitli that they should enjoy ecjual privileges with native citizens. Theiudividual Slates ainiiie liave drtne tliis. Tlie former, tlicreforp, am at liberty to in:ikft any (lisprimiiiaiioiis they may ju(l<;e rtKinisiti!." " Mr. Mmmson iiiiuiiadvcrted on llu; pcriiliarity of tlip doctriiiH of Ml-. .Slierrnaii. ft was a siihtilty by wliicli eviMy national fiii;.i'.'ciii''nt iiiiKlit bo evad.'il." " ColonrI Masov \va-:>lnif k.not, like Mr. Madison, with the pcnilldriti/. hut iUf proprirliioi'Uw dootriiiHOtMr. Slii-r man. 'I'he St:iti>s h.-ivi'lbriiii'dditfiMent nUM.hticalionstlieai selves for enjoying dillcrent rights of citizenship." I ri?a(l tlii;se rftnarks for the purpose of lettiii.": the House see HDil understand what was the tem- per and tone and sentiment of tliose who framed our organic law. I want the [louse to under- stand ttiat even at that day, wh^'U we were in a state of almost [iniitical dissolution —a weak and feeble people, tiireatened with the any;er of the British lion — even then the riu;lits of Ameriean cit- izens were highly a]ipreciated, and ihe privilege of foreigners sharing in them was guarded with jeal- ousy and care. Nor is that all. I propose to read, for the information of the House, the debate 'd by the I gentleman from South (Carolina. Tf lie had gone; no (in tlier in liis inotinn than to trive aliens a right to piircliase and hold lands, the objection would not have been so great ; but if the words are stricken out that lie has moved for, an alien will be entitled to join in the election of your otficers at the first mom lit tie puts his loot on shore in America, when it is impossible, t'rom t!ie nature of things, that lie can be qual i/ied to exercise such a talent." Mr. Madison said: '' I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of nat- uralization excluded a single person of good fame that reallv meant to incorporate himself into our society ; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privi lege, but such as wuiild be a real addition to the wealtli or strength of the United States." Here is the doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Mad- ison, that I maintain. Tliis is the pusition 1 oc- cupy. This is the ground upon which I can stand before the country. But to proceed: " Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, thouglit some restraint proper, and tiiat they v.'ould tend to raise the Government in the 0[iiiiion of good men, who are desirous of emigrating ; as for the privileze o*" electing or being elected, he conceived a man ought to be some lime in the country before lie could pretend to exercise it. " He said, the intention of the present motion is, to en- able Ibreigners to come here, purchase and hold lands; but this will go biryond what the mover has required ; and there- fore, it will be better to drall a separate clause, admitting theiri to purchase and hold lands upon a qualified tenure and preemption right, than thus admit them at once to interfere in our politics. The quality of being a freeholder is requi- site, in some States, to give a man a title to vote for cor|)o- ration and parish offi' ers. Now, if every emigrant who pur chases a small lot, but perhaps for which he has not paid, becomes in a moment qualified to mingle in their parish or corporation politics, it is possible it may create great uneasi- ness in neighborhoods which have been long accustomed to live in peace and unity. " Mr. Hartlky .said, an alien has no right to hold lands in any country ; and, if they are admitted to do it in this, we I are authorized to annex to it such conditions as we think j proper. " He also said, with respect to the policy of striking out the words allogeiher frimi the clause, and reqiiirin;; no res- I ideiice before a man is admitted to the rights oi election, the j objection-j are obvious. If, at any time, a number of people 1 emigrate into a seapori town — tor example, from a neigh- boring cob.iiy iiilii t!ie State of New York — will tliey not, by taking the oath of allegiance, lie abb- to decide an election contriiry to the wishes and iiii-lination-; of the real citizens." "Mr. iM^nisoN sairl, wlietlnr residence is, or is not, a proper quality to be attached to the citizen, is the question ? In his own mind, he had nodonbi Init residences was a proper prerequisite, and lie was prepareit to decide iii favor of it." '■Mr. SKnc.wifK said, som.' kind of prohiition, as it has been termed, IS abrolnti ly lequi-ite, to enable them to feel and be sensible of the blessing. Without that probation, he should be sorry to see them exercise ii right which we have glori'iislv striiL'Lded to attain." '• Mr. Smith, of ;-!oiilli Carolina, said, for his part, he was of opinion, fiiat a iinilorm rule of naturalization would tend to make aiiiiiforin rule ofcilizenship pervade ilie whole con- tinent, and decide the riirhi of a tiireimier to be admitted to elect, or be elected, in any of the States." " Mr. TucKKR said, he was oilierwi-e satisfied with the clause, so (ar as to make residence a term of admission to the privilege of election " Mr, BISHOP. Do I understand the gentleman to take the ground that no person is entitled to vote in any State except he be a citizen of the United States .' Mr. S.MITH, of Virginia. Yes, sir, in all Fed- eral elections. Mr. RISHOP. And that a person born out of the country must be in the United States a certain number of years before he is a citizen, according to the laws of tlie country .' Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Yes, sir; he must be naturnlizi'd. Mr. BISHOP. I would nov/ like to inquire how, on that gnuiiid, when Texas v/iis admitted into the Union, the persons livinij in Te.vas could be entitled to vote in that Stale until Texas had been in the Union for a period of five vear.s.? Mr. S.MiTH, of Virginia. Tnat was under a se})arate clause, and a power altogether different in its character, firoviding for such a case. Mr. STEVENSON. 1" would like to propound this question to the gentleman from Virjrinia. I find, by the Constitution of the Unite-d States, that there is a limitation on (he qualifications of electors for President and Vice President of the United States; but I find, by the same clause, that under the Constitution of the United Stales the whole number of the electors may be aliens; that there is no restriction of citizenship in any part of the Consiitution. Although there is a limita- tion as to offices, there is none as to citizenship as a qualification of electors for President and Vice President; and I should like to hear from the gentleman on that point. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. I am very much obliged to the gentleman for bringing me to that point. He is an American citizin. He has a country which extends its wings over him. He has a country 's flag to stand by, and sustain him; and will he ever forget that tliat country is com- posed of those who are the people of tlie United States, and the citizens thereof? Tlie Constitution had no more idea of providing against the mania France, or the man in Turkey, being an elector, than against any other absurdity. In speaking of electors, and declaring, in the preamble and else- where, that the people of the United States have formed this constitution, its fi-amers, ex vi termini, restricted its character, and confined it in iill its 8 relations to the people for whom it was formed. Will the gentleman remember that the rights of foreigners are grants— that even the right to gentle treatment is strictly social, and pariicuhirly that political rights are never his except by express grant, and that presumptions are always against and never for him ? Why, sir, I am amazed — perfectly amazed, thai here, in this Government of onrs, under our Con- stitution, in this glorious land, there should be an idea that, because a constitution framed for the people or citizens of the United States does not exclude foreigners from the highest functions of Government, therefore that foreigners have a right to them. Foreigners have no rights except what are granted to them. They have no right even to hold land in the United States, or in the States thereof, without the powei' is conferred. They are aliens outside of our system, and are as uileily destitute of power as the man in the moon. Instead of showing that there is nothing against it, you have to show that the power exists and is granted. I lay it down that the Federal Constitution gives to this Governnient the exclusive power of saying who of the for- eign-born shall be citizens, and having exer- cised that authority and said wlio siuill be citi- zens, the exclusive power is in the State govern- ment to say who of her citizens shall exercise the right of sulTrage. I might produce auti-.orities if I had time. 1 might refer to Chancellor Kent, who assumes, as a matter of course, that nobody but a citizen has a right to exercise the right of suffrage. It is a political postulate which lie does not consider it worth while to argue. Having stated the principles — all that I can do in the present exigency, my time beifig nearly ex- hausted — I now apt)ly them. Let us look at the evils which this system is to inaugurate. A ma- jority of foreigners settle one of tiie States of the American Republic. They give i"orm to the funda- mental organization of that State. That is not all; they say who shall vote. Here is the section of this Minnesota constitution upon the subject of suffrage : "Sec. 1. Evi-ry male person of the ,igK of twenty-one year? or upivjirds, belonging to either of tlic following class- es, who shall havo ri-si(ii;d in the Utiited Status one ynar, and in this State for four months next preceding any eU^c tion, shall be entitled to vote at such election, in tne elec- tion district of which he shall at the time have becnforten iays a resident, lor ail officors that now are, or hereafter may be, elective by the people : " 1. White citizens of the United States. "2. VVliite persons of foreign birth, who shall have de- wlared their intentions lo become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United .States upoji the subject of naturali zation. "3. Pcrsonsof mixed white and Indian blood, who liave adopted the customs and Imblis of civilization. "4. Persons of Indian blood residing in this State, who have adopted the laiiguagef customs, and habits of civili xation, after an examination before any district court of llie State, in such manner as may be provided by law, and shall have benn pronounced by said court capable of enjoy- ing the rights of citizenship within the Slate." Now, for whom are they to vote.' They are to vote for a member of tiie House of Represent- tlivcB. He comes here, and we have a right to look into the qualifications of the voters who sent him here, and we have a direct right to ascertaitj whether he has been duly elected by citizens of the United States. That is not all, sir. By their votes the Legislature of the State is elected, which elects United Stales Senators, and we have a right to ascertain whether those Senators have been elected by proper persons. But that is not all. These same persons have a right, it is contended, to cast their suffrages for electors of the President of the United States. They may decide a presi- dential election. And that is not all. The elec- tion f)f Pn.'sident may come into this House, and may turn upon the vole of a single State, and the election in that State may have depended on the vote of one individual, and that an unnatural- ized foreigner just landed. Will any gentleman say that the introduction of such a system, affect- ini;- as it does the House of Representatives, the S.-nate, and the Presidency of the United States, would not lead to a frightful mass of evils to the Federal oigunization .' If such an idea could have been thouglitot', dreamed of, or imagined by those wiio frameil the Federal Constitution, when they were seeking to secure uniformity in social inter- course among the States, is it to be supposed for an instant that they v/ould not have provided against it ? But no man ever dreamed that voters were to be made out of any but citizens of the United States; that the law for the naturalization of foreigners was itself to be practically repealed, and that foreigners, before they had remained here five years, and had acquired the moral and intellectual qualifications required, were to be put into full fel- lowship with ournative-born citizens, and allowed to wield as large a mass of political power. Look at the consequences of such a condition of things. From three to five hundred thousand foreigners — many of them, I admit, very merit- orious and unexceptionable persons — come into this country every year, and settle in our new States and Territories; and under this system they are to be permitted at once to organize themselves into States, to send representatives to this House and to the Senate, and to participate in ihe elec- tion of the President of the United States, with- out ever having conformed to the requisition of the naturalization laws, in the name of God ! is it not necessary to put a stop to this state of things? We are running downwards with hot haste. We are disregarding our ancestors and their wise and patriotic example. A new clement of progress has b'een introduced, but all progress is not iiTi[)rovement— -/(ici/is descensus Jiverni, sed revocare grudiim, &c. I insist upon it, then, that in view of the principles and doctrines of the Con- stitution, we ought not to tolerate the introduction of a system of franchise that inust be productive of such coiiseqtiencos, and which admits to the ballot-box men who, it may be, are unable to speak our language, unacquainted with our insti- tutions, and unfriendly to the principles of our Government. My time will not allow me to ex- pand this subject, and give other views which I would be glad lo lay before the country. f !^\^^ ^^ -Mp:-" ^^''\. "W#/' ^^' % .x^' ♦'■' ^V " - ^ u ' # o y^d^'r DOBBSBROS. ^^'i\K^^=$^ -" ^ '"^ >'NOV 7,8^ 0-^ ST. AUGUSTINE -^^ . ' ^^2084 ^'' ^ "^^al^y^