4 O 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ '<.-.;• G^ '^o 
 
 * ^^ 
 
 ^^- 
 
 4 O 
 ■a? ^<^ 
 
 
 
 - cT* "j^^^. '^ v"^ /^ 
 
 
 -^^0^ 
 
 
 
 
 * <i- 
 
WW* ^^^^ v^ •-!^P^,*,^^ -^^ \^A^/ >= ^^, 
 
 -^^0^ 
 
 < o 
 
 .' .^^% 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 .v^v -^ ^-^^w* ^j^^'^'V ^^K*" '^^^% ^'^^^^/ ^^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .^^^ 
 
 tf^^t^iv' 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 . Tiurjj. 
 
 ^R H. ST 
 
 OF GEORGIA, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA AND ALIEN SUFFEAGE; 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPR ESENT ATI VES, M A Y 1 1 , 1858 
 
 »v. 
 
 cor. 
 
 ii^l^iiv- 
 
 WASHT37GTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THF CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 
 1858. 
 
Wlo 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 The House having under consideration the bill for tlie 
 admission of the State of Minnesota into the Union — 
 Mr. STEPHENS said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: My time will not allow me to 
 answer all the objections that have been made to 
 the admission of Minnesota. I do not think it 
 necessary, however, to consume time, or to ex- 
 haust my feeble strength in answering all the ob- 
 jections that have been raised. Many of them are 
 of small import, while some of them are grave, 
 important, and go to the \ery foundation princi- 
 ples of our Government. Tliis latter class of ob- 
 jections are not new; they are not novel; they in- 
 volve principles coeval with our institutions. In 
 reply to theim, I must be brief in the forty min- 
 iates allotted to me. They involve two inquiries. 
 The first question in reference to them is, whether 
 they be well taken in fad; and the second is, 
 whether, if well founded, they amount, in them- 
 selves, to a good and valid ground for the rejec- 
 tion of a State. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Garvett] 
 objects because of the State boundaries violating 
 the stipulation between Virginia and the United 
 States in the cession of the Northwest Territory. 
 In point ©f fact, I do not consider that objection 
 well taken; but if it were good, it ought to have 
 been taken when the enabling act was jiassed last 
 Congress, fixing the boundaries of Minnesota. 
 That portion of the old Northwestern Territory 
 now included in the State of Minnesota was in- 
 cluded then, and the objection should have been 
 taken then, if at all. There is, however, but a 
 small portion of the old cession of Virginia in- 
 cluded in this State. Twenty-odd thousand square 
 miles of that cession, it is true, have been added to 
 the ninety-odd thousand square miles constituting 
 the main body of Minnesota. This was for con- 
 venience. Only a small portion, therefore, of the 
 original Virginia cession has been taken off and 
 added to the large extent of country that makes 
 the State of Minnesota, for the public convenience. 
 There has been no injury resuking anywhere, and 
 no breach of faith, in my judgment. 
 
 It was stated, also, that the number of delegates 
 
 who formed the State constitution was larger than 
 that ordered in the enabling act. That objection 
 has been well answered by the gentleman's col- 
 league, [Mr. Jenkins.] The act of Congress pro- 
 vided that as many delegates should be chosen as 
 there were representatives in the Territorial Le- 
 gislature. Well, sir, the people of Minnesota con- 
 strued that to embrace their Senators or Council- 
 men as well as Representatives in the lower House. 
 The bill admitted of a doubt. I do not couceive 
 that that objection has much force in it. 
 
 But I must pass on to notice the other objections 
 of a graver character. It was stated by the gen- 
 tleman from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] who opened 
 this debate, and has been repeated by several other 
 gentlemen, that the constitution of Minnesota is 
 violative of the Constitution of the United States 
 — in this, that it permits aliens to vote, or other 
 than citizens of the United States to vote, in State 
 elections. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, before arguing the point whether 
 this clause of the constitution of Minnesota doe.s 
 or does not violate the Constitution of the United 
 States, let me ask right here this question: sup- 
 pose it be true that that feature of their constitu- 
 tion does violate the Constitution of the United 
 States, or is inconsistent with it: is that a good 
 ground for her rejection .' I put it strongly and 
 broadly in the fore front of the argument — sup- 
 pose that be conceded: is it a legitimate ground 
 of objection to the admission of a State that a pro- 
 vision of its constitution is inconsistent with the 
 Constitution of the United States.' I say, sir, not. 
 I say it as a State-rights man, advocating the prin- 
 ciples of the State-rights school. We can only 
 look into the constitution of a new State applying 
 for admission, to see that it is republican inform, 
 and that it legally and fairly expresses the will of 
 the people. If there be conflicts, the Constitution 
 of the United States points out how those conflicts 
 are to be settled. After coming into the Union, 
 such clause, if it be in, will of course have to yield 
 to the supreme law of the land. Sir, the case of 
 Minnesota, if this be true of her constitution , will 
 not be a singular one. 
 
TheconstitutionofllliNois declares that no man 
 shall be eligible to a Federal office wlio has been 
 elected to and has accepted a judgeship in that 
 State within two years after the expiration of the 
 term for which he accepted it. A Senator from 
 that State, now holding a se^t in the other wing of 
 the Capitol, [IMr. Trumbull,] was elected to that 
 body during the term of a judgeship of a State 
 court, which he had been elected to and had ac- 
 cepted. In the Senate of the United States, the 
 question was raised as to his eligibility, and as 
 to whether the constitution of Illinois could, 
 under the Constitution of the United States, 
 impose such a qualification; in other words, 
 whether the qualifications for Senators set forth 
 in the Constitution of the United States were not 
 absolute and binding, and did not supersede the 
 provision of the constitution of Illinois. The 
 Senate so determined ; and that Senator now holds 
 his seat in the face, in the teeth, and against that 
 constitutional provision of his own State. 
 
 Whether that decision of the United States 
 Senate was right or wrong, I will not now stop to 
 inquire, or to express an opinion. 
 
 1 cannot take up my time in citing other analo- 
 gous cases. Many instances might be adduced 
 from decisions of the courts. It is enough for me 
 to affirm that the Constitution of the United States 
 declares that " this Constitution, and the laws of 
 the United States which shall be made in pur- 
 suance there()f, and all treaties made, or which 
 shall be made, under the authority of the United 
 States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and 
 the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, 
 anything in the constitution or laws of any State 
 to the contrary notwithstanding." I say, there- 
 fore, in answer to all liiat has been said in refer- 
 ence to theconstitution of Minnesota being in vio- 
 lation of the Constitution of the United States, that 
 even conceding the point for argument's sake, 
 (which I do not concede in fact,) this would not be a 
 just and valid ground on which to reject her admis- 
 sion. It is a question which can be properly de- 
 cided when it arises, if ever, by the proper judi- 
 cial tribunal before which it may arise. We, on 
 the question of admission, can only look into a 
 constitution to see that it is republican in form. 
 
 Mr. TRIPPE. I desire to ask my colleague 
 whether he concurs in the Green amendment to 
 the Kansas bill, which asserts the right of Con- 
 gress to inquire into the constitution of any State 
 applying for admission into the Union, in order to 
 see whether it is consistent with the Constitution 
 of the United States. > 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. My time is 
 short, and I want to argue other questions; but I 
 will say to my colleague that there was nothing 
 in the original Green amendment which did not 
 meet my cordial and hearty approval. There 
 was nothing in it which inquired into a constitu- 
 tion. It was altogether negative in its character. 
 
 Mr. TRIPPE. If my colleague will allow me, 
 I think that right was directly asserted in the 
 Green amendment. 
 
 The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to sug- 
 gest that the constitution of Kansas is not before 
 the House. 
 
 ^Mr. TRIPPE. The same principle iarolved 
 in the amendment to the Kansas bill, to which I 
 have referred, is contained in this bill. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I cannot dis- 
 cuss thatquestion now. There were words added . 
 to the original Green amendment that 1 considered 
 liable to objection; but, being negative, were not 
 insuperable with me. Now, Mr. Speaker, I lay 
 down this proposition, that there is nothing, in 
 my judgment, in the constitution of Minnesota, 
 inconsistent with the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] who 
 led off in this debate, argued that there was no 
 clause in the constitution of Minnesota by which 
 the present elected members of the Legislature 
 could be prevented from holding for life. Well, 
 sir, suppose the gentleman was correct — but I do 
 not concede the fact: the constitution would not 
 therefore be anti-republican. I would not vote 
 for such a constitution if I were there. But, sir, 
 what constitutes a republican form of govern- 
 ment.' It is, as I understand it, a division of the 
 three great branches of government — the execu- 
 tive, the judicial, and the law-making powers. 
 That division is certainly in this constitution. 
 Several of the States have made the judiciary 
 elective, or holding office for life. Does that make 
 their constitutions anti-republican ? The Consti- 
 titulion of the United States does this. If the 
 judiciary can hold office for life, why not the ex- 
 ecutive.' and why may not representatives as 
 well, if the people see fit to make such a consti- 
 tution ? It would not cease to be republican in 
 consequence. It might and would be, in my 
 judgment, a very bad constitution; but I say that 
 of that we cannot rightfully judge. 
 
 I now come to the main question in this debate — 
 the alien suffrage clause, as it is called, in this con- 
 stitution. I have said that it was no new ques- 
 tion. It is a grave and important one, but it is co- 
 eval with the Government. Mr. Speaker, if there 
 v/asany subject which was seriously watched and 
 guarded, in the formation of the Constitution of 
 the United States, above all others, it was that the 
 Federal Government should not touch the right 
 of suffrage in the States. The question of who 
 should vote in the several Slates was left for each 
 State to settle for itself. And so far as I am con- 
 cerned, I say for myself that there is nothing in 
 the doctrine of State-rights that I would defend 
 and stand by longer, and fight for harder, than 
 that which denies the right of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, by its encroachments, to interfere with 
 the right of suffrage in my Stale. The ballot-box — 
 that is what each State must guard and protect for 
 itself; that is what the people of the several States 
 never delegated to this Government, and of course 
 it was expressly, under theConslitution, reserved 
 to the people of the States. Upon the subject of 
 alien suffrage, aboutwhich we have heard so much 
 lately, I wish in this connection to give a brief his- 
 tory. I state to this House that the principle was 
 recognized by the ordinance of 1787, which w&h 
 before the Government was formed. 
 
 It was recognized by the act of 7th August, 
 1789, soon after the Government was formed, one 
 
of the first acts signed by Washington — an act 
 making provisions for carrying out that ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 It was recognized in the territory South in the 
 cession by Nortii Carolina, on the 2d April, 1790. 
 
 It was again recognized in the bill creating a 
 government for the Territory of Tennessee, on 
 the 26ih May, 1790. 
 
 It was recognized in the act of settling the limits 
 of the State of Georgia, and creating the Missis- 
 sippi Territory, on the 7th April, 1798. 
 
 It was recosnized in a supplemental act to the 
 last, on the 10th May, 1800. 
 
 It was recognized in the division of Indiana Ter- 
 ritory, on the 3d February, 1809. 
 
 It was recognized in an act for Illinois Terri- 
 tory, on the 2bth May, 1812. 
 
 It was recognized in the act organizing the 
 Michigan territorial governnient: the date of this 
 I do not recollect. 
 
 But I cannot take up ray time by referring to 
 other instances in their order. I know that in 
 • some cases voting in the Territories was restricted 
 to citizens. This was the case in the Territories 
 of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, and New 
 Mexico; while alien suliVage was again recog- 
 nized, in express terms, in the Territories of Ore- 
 gon, Minnesota, Washington, Kansas, and Ne- 
 braska. 
 
 Of the Presidents of the United States who, 
 in* some form or other, gave the principle their 
 sanction either in the Territories or States, may 
 be mentioned Washington, the elder Adams, Jef- 
 ferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Fillmore, and 
 Pierce. 
 
 Reference, sir, has been made in this debate to 
 a speech made by Mr. Calhoun on this subject, 
 in the Senate, in 1836, on the act providing for 
 the admission of Michigan, upon which com- 
 ments have been made by several gentlemen. The 
 views of that distinguished statesman have been 
 presented as authority on their side. I have sim- 
 ply this to say about that speech: I cannot find 
 it in the Globe. I cannot find it in the debates of 
 the day. * 
 
 Mr. RICAUD. I think it is in his published 
 speeches. 
 
 Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I have seen it 
 in his published works, but I cannot find it in the 
 published reports of Congress. It is stated to 
 have been made in 1836, on the bill authorizing 
 Michigan to form a constitution. Michigan wa"s 
 admitted with alien suffrage in her constitution, 
 on the 3d March, 1837; and Mr. Calhoun does 
 not appear to have made any objection to her ad- 
 mission on that ground. I find speeches made by 
 him upon that bill, but none objecting to this 
 clause. I find he offered a substitute for the bill 
 admitting Michigan without objection to the alien 
 suffrage clause in .her constitution. Still, it is 
 stated that this speech of his was made the year 
 before, on the Occasion referred to, and I do not 
 wish to be understood as questioning it. That 
 was on Congress conferring tlie right. He did 
 not raise any oJ:)jection to the admission of the 
 State as far as I can find, because of alien suffrage 
 being allowed in her constitution. 
 
 Again: on the SSth of July, 1848, the Clayton 
 compromise bill for the organization of certain 
 territorial governments passed tiie Senate. The 
 fifth section of the net provides — 
 
 " That every free white male iiihahitant, above tlie age 
 of twenty-one years, wlio shall have lieen a resident ol'said 
 Territory at the time otlhe passage of tliis act, shiill he en- 
 titled to vote at the first election, awd shall be eligible to 
 any office in said Territory ; bnt the qualification of voters, 
 and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be 
 such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly : 
 Proidded, That the right of sutiVagc, and of lioUlinK office, 
 shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and 
 those who shall have declared on oath their intention to ba- 
 come sxich, and shall have taken an oath to support the Con- 
 stitution of the United States and the provisions of this act." 
 
 On the engrossment of this bill, the \wte was — 
 
 "Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Atherfon, Benton, Berrien, 
 Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis 
 of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Hanne- 
 iran, Houston, Hunter, Johnson oi' Maryland, Joliiison of 
 Louisiana, John.son of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, 
 Mason, Phelps, Rusk, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Tur- 
 ney, Westcott, and Yulee — 33. 
 
 "Nays — Messrs. Allen, Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Brad- 
 bury, Clark, Corwin, Davis of Massachuseiis, Dayton, Dix 
 Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Metcalfe, 
 Miller, Niles, Underwood, Upliani, and Walker — 22." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun was on the committee which re- 
 ported this provision, and he does not appear as 
 liaving objected to it. And though he may have 
 made that speech in 1836, yet it is equally certain 
 and true that twelve years afterwards he voted for 
 the very principle he had previously opposed. 
 His vote for the principle in 1848, in my opinion, 
 is a sufficient answer to his speech against it in 
 1836. This is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, no new 
 question. 
 
 The same principle, as I have said, was incor- 
 porated in the same wordi|| I think, in the bill 
 for the organization of Washington Territory in 
 1853, and in the Kansas-Nebraslia bill in 18i)4. 
 
 Thegentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Maynard] 
 put this question to some gentleman the other day: 
 whether, if this bill should pass, Minnesota might 
 not confer the right of voting upon an alien ene- 
 my? By no means, sir; the person of foreign 
 birth, who is entitled to vote under this constitu- 
 tion, lias first to purge himself of his allegiance Lo 
 other Powers. He must have declared his inten- 
 tion to become a citizen of the United Slates, and 
 sworn to support the Constitution of the same. 
 This is the condition precedent. By no possibil- 
 ity, therefore, could an alien enemy legally vote in 
 Minnesota. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States has been read and com- 
 mented on by the gentleman fromMarylantl, [Mr. 
 Davis,] who led off in this discussion, and whose 
 speech 1 listened to with a great deal of interest — 
 an argument as well got up and made on that side 
 of the question as J think it possible for ingenuity, 
 ability, and talent, united with eloquence, to pre- 
 sent. He rested his argument mainly on the decis- 
 ion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, 
 where Judge Taney says that the words " people 
 of the United States," in the Constitution, are 
 synonymous with "citizens." After reading that 
 part of the decision, thegentleman quoted an article 
 in the Constitution which says that " the House 
 
6 
 
 of Representatives shall be composed of members 
 chosen every second year by the people of tlie sev- 
 eral States;" and his argument was, that as the 
 Supreme Court had defined that the word " peo- 
 ple" was synonymous, in the Constitution of the 
 United States, to " citizens," tlierefore members 
 of this House could be elected by none but " citi- 
 zens of the United States." Tliat was the gen- 
 tleman's argument; but I am far from concurring 
 with iiim in it. His argument rests upon the 
 assumption that tlu^ Constitution of the United 
 States, in the clause quoted, intended to define the 
 class of voters in the several States, and to limit 
 suffrage. I think that it ^i\\ take me but a mo- 
 ment, by Kccuiring to that clause of the Constitu- 
 tion and comparing it with others, to show that 
 the oliject of that clause was simply to point' out 
 the mode of the election of the members of this 
 House in contradistinction from the mode of elect- 
 ing Senators, and not the class of voters. The 
 House was to be elected by the people by a pop- 
 ular vote, by the masses; while the Senate was to 
 be elected by the State Legislatures. That is all 
 that is meant in that clause. The Constitution is 
 in these words: 
 
 " The House of Rtpresontatives shall he composed of 
 members cho.seii every second j'ear by the people of the 
 several Slates," — 
 
 There the gentleman stopped. What follows ? 
 
 — " and the electort in each State shall have the qualifica- 
 tions requisite for electors of the niost numerous branch of 
 the State Legislature." 
 
 There, coupled with what the gentleman read, 
 is tiie rigiit which I say that the people insisted 
 upon beyond all others — the reserved right that 
 the General Government should never interfere 
 with suffrage in the States; not even for mernbers 
 of this House. Imi^iediately after the words he 
 read, sir, withrfut a semicolon separating them, 
 is the express declaration that thfe States shall fix 
 the qualification of electors orvoters. Who shall 
 say to each State in this particular, thus far mayest 
 thou go, and no further? Who shall say to the 
 sovereignties where they shall stop? The States, 
 over this subjeat, have never parted with any of 
 their sovereignty. It is their right, therefore, to 
 fix the qnalifii^ations of voters unrestrictedly and 
 absolutely. If they say an alien may vote, it is 
 their right to do so. 
 
 The other clause of the Constitution to which 
 I referred, showing what was meant in the first 
 part of the one read by the gentleman, is in these 
 words: 
 
 " The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 
 two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature 
 Uiereof." 
 
 The first clause the gentleman read the other 
 day refers simply, as it clearly appears, to the 
 manner of the election, the mode of the election, 
 the constituency of those elected — to distinguish 
 them fnim the constituency of the Senators. The 
 one was to be the people, contra-distinguished 
 from the Legislatures of the States; this was one 
 of the points of difficulty in forming the Federal 
 Constitution. It was finally determined that the 
 House should represent the people and the Senate 
 should represent the States. 
 
 I will refer briefly to the same authority on that 
 point. I read from Yates's Minutes of the Debates 
 in the Federal convention, the fourth resolve: 
 
 " That the members of the first branch of the national 
 Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several 
 States was opposed ; and, strange to tell, by Massachusetts 
 and Connecticut, who supposed they ought to be ehosc^n by 
 the Legislatures; and Virginia supported the resolve, al- 
 leging that this ought to be the democratic branch of the 
 government, and, as such, immediately vested in the peo- 
 ple." 
 
 Again, Mr. Pinckney moved: 
 
 " That the members of the first branch, (that is, this 
 House.) be appointed in such manner as the several Staie 
 Legislatures shall direct." 
 
 Mr. Madison said: 
 
 " I oppose the motion." 
 
 Mr. Mason said: 
 
 " I am for preserving inviolably the democratic branch ef 
 the Government. True, we have found inconveniences 
 from pure democracies ; but if we mean to preserve peace 
 and real freedom, they must necessarily become a compo- 
 nent part of a national Government. Change this neces- 
 sary principle, and if the Government proceeds to ta.\ation 
 the States will oppose your power." 
 
 The idea that prevailed at the formation of our 
 Constitution was, that representation and taxa- 
 tion should go together. It was mainly upon that 
 ground that the men of that day went to the war 
 with the mother country; it was because the col- 
 onies were taxed and not allowed representation; 
 and if you trace the history of this Government 
 down, you will find this great American idea run- 
 ning throughout — that taxation and represent- 
 ation should go together. Whoever pays taxes 
 should vote — that is the idea. 
 
 Great confusion seems to exist in the minds of 
 gentlernen from the association of the words citi- 
 zen and suffrage. Some seem to think that rights 
 of citizenship and rights of suffrage necessarily go 
 together; that one is dependent upon the other. 
 There never was a greater mistake. Suffrage, oi 
 the right to vote, is the creature of law. There art 
 citizens in every State of this Union, I doubt not 
 who are not entitled to vote. So, in several of th( 
 States there are persons who by lav/ are entitlet 
 to vote, though they be not citizens. If there b< 
 citizens who cannot vote, why may there not b( 
 individuals, who are not citizens, who may nev 
 ertheless be allowed to vote, if the sovereign wil 
 of the State shall so determine ? In all the Statei 
 nearly there are other qualifications for voting, evei 
 with the native-born, besides citizenship. Resi 
 dence for a certain length of time. Virginia, fo 
 instance, requires of all citizens of other States 
 native-born citizens of Maryland or North Caro 
 Una, a certain term of residence. They shall no 
 vote in Virginia unless they have been ther 
 twelve months. In Alabama, I think, the provis 
 ion is the same. 
 
 Why, sir, in my own State, where we hav 
 universal suffrage, as it is called, no man can vot 
 unless he has paid his taxes, anjj resided in th 
 county six months. There are thousands of citi 
 zens in Georgia, and I suppose in every othe 
 State, who are not entitled to the right of suffrag 
 under our Constitution and laws. Citizenshi 
 and suffrage by no means go together in all cases 
 My time will not allow me^to enlarge on that idea 
 
I will only refer briefly again to what was said | 
 in the Federal convention on the subjec of the 
 Slates retaining the control over the subject of 
 Bufr.a-e,showin-how vigilantly this was watched 
 and guarded by^he State-rights men. Gouycr- 
 neur Morris had proposed to restrain the right 
 of suffVage to freeholders. This gave rise to a 
 long debate. Mr. Ellsworth said: 
 
 "Thp nualification of electors stood on the most proper 
 footh,^? ^Tl e ri. U of .ulfrage wius a tender point, and 
 sno '"IV- guarded In- n.o.t of ti.e. State constitutions, lie 
 p le wlu not readily subscribe ,o the -"t.onal Coi^stUu^ 
 tion if it should subject tlicm to be disfranchised. The b ates 
 are the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their 
 •wu people." 
 
 Again, he says, (I read from the Madison Pa- 
 pers:) _ j 
 
 tcniiuht not everv man who pays a tax to vote for thp_ 
 Rep°sf a"ive who is to levy 'and dispose of his money.' | 
 Taxation and representation ought to go together." , 
 
 I barely refer to this to show that I am sus- 
 tained in my view by the highest authority. This 
 subject of Ihe quaHfication of electors, and who 1 
 should determine it, was mooted at the -^ tlemei t , 
 of the Government; and it was left to the fetate , 
 Legislatures, under State constitutions. i 
 
 Now, sir, a few moments on the decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Ta- 
 ney, in my judgment, fully confirms everything 
 I have said. He says: 
 
 "The words 'people of the United States,' and'citi-|j 
 zens!' areTvnonymous terms, and mean the same tlmg. : 
 ™ both describe the political body who, according to onr 
 republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and "ho h Id 
 the DOwer and conduct the Government throHgh their Uep- ! 
 reaeSves They are what are familiarly called the sov- 
 erei" , neop e; and every citizen is one of this people, and ; ^ 
 a co°n" titu It inember of this sovereignty. The question , ; 
 before u "is, whether the class of persons described in the 
 Dleai^i abatement [Dred Scott was a negro] compose a por- j . 
 - Son of thfpeople, and are constituent meinbers ot this sov. I i 
 erei-nty We Uii'nk they are not ; and were not intended , 
 W behicluded under the word ' citizens' in the constituuon i 
 and can therefore claim none of the rights and privdeges j 
 which that instrument provides for, and secures to citizens | 
 ol" the United States." | 
 
 ■ It was the first words of this clause of the de- 
 cision the gentleman from Maryland relied on, but ^ 
 he did not pursue the argument far enough. 
 
 The object of the Chief Justice was to show that 
 persons of the African race descended from those , 
 who were bought and sold as slaves, were not in , 
 the original body-politic, and cotild not, by State 
 laws, incorporated into that body-politic. But 
 now mark what immediately follows that part ot 
 his decision: 
 
 " In discu^-^in" this question, we must not confound the 
 rights of'cilizenship which a State may confer wniin its 
 ovvn limits, and the rights of citizenship as a merabei ot the 
 Union." 
 
 Here is the distinction. By naturalization, Con- 
 crress can confer citizenship throughout the Union. 
 What are the rights created by that? Three in 
 all The right to hold land is one; the right to 
 sue in the Federal courts is another; and the right 
 to claim the protection of this Government, or the 
 ricrht of passport abroad, is the other. No State 
 call confer these rights throughout the Union ; but 
 each State may confer them within her limits. 
 Each State may confer upon an alien the right to 
 
 hold lands. No man can question that; but if 
 Indiana or Georgia confers this right upoti an 
 alien, he cannot go into South Carolina and hoM 
 land there by virtue of that. If he were naturalized 
 he could. So each State may give the right to an 
 alien to sue in its own courts; but, therefore, he 
 does not acquire a right to sue in any other State 
 court or the Federal courts. Each State may 
 o-uaranty her protection within her limits, but not 
 i throughout the Union. She cannot pledge the 
 1 protection of the common Government. 
 I But the court goes right on with this language: 
 " It does not bv anv means follow, because he has the 
 I rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be 
 • a citizen ot" the United States. He may have all the rights 
 and privileges of a citizen of a State, raid yet not he emitled 
 . to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State ; 
 I for previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the Uni- 
 i ed States, every State had the undoubted right to cotifer 
 ' on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to 
 endow him with all its rights ; but this character of course, 
 was confined to the boundaries of the Stale and gave him 
 no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured 
 ' to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. 
 I '■ Nor have the several States surrendered the power of con- 
 ' ferrin- these rights and privileges by adopting the Cons itu- 
 I ; tion of the UnitTnl Slates. Each State may sull conferthem 
 i upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any cla^ 
 I or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen m 
 1 ' Ue sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of 
 ;'' the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its 
 ! ' courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen m 
 ' the other States. The rights which he would acquire would 
 j I be restricted to the State which gave them." 
 
 I ask, then, if the constitution of Minnesota, 
 according to this Dred Scott decision, has an iota, 
 or a sino-te clause in it, so far as alien suftVage is 
 concerned, which Chief Justice Taney has not 
 said she has a right under the Constitution of the 
 United States to put in it.- This is a right none 
 of the State.'i have ever surrendered. Every State 
 in this Union has the right of fixing the status of 
 all its constituent elements absolutely, as each 
 State may determine for itself, and also the right 
 of determining who may and who may not vote 
 ' at elections for public officers under her authority. 
 What part of the constitution of Minnesota, then, 
 is in violation of the Constitution of the United 
 States.' Why, then, should she not be admitted.' 
 Let me say, in conclusion, that the constitution 
 of Illinois has such a clause. Is not she an e^ual 
 in this Union .? Why not rule her out.' Indiana 
 has such a clause. Why not ruleherout.' Mich- 
 igan has such a clause. Why not rule her out? 
 Wisconsin has such a clause. I havp tlip :'""_^1 
 here. When Wisconsin was admitted, in lb4s, 
 Mr. Calhoun was in his seat and he did not even 
 call the yeas and nays on it. And yet we are told 
 i' that this is a great and a dangerous example we 
 are setting, if we admit Minnesota on an equal 
 ■ footino- with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wis- 
 : consitf.and all of the States. Deprive her of this 
 ' o-reat ri"-ht, would she be their equal ? Are Illinois 
 !,and South Carolina now equal? Are Indiana 
 j: and Massachusetts now equal ? Why, then, if 
 you deny Minnesota the power that Illinois and 
 ! Indiana have, will she be equal to them? Things 
 I' equal to one another are equal to each other, if 
 !, those in the Union now are equal, will not Min- 
 ! nesota be unequal if you deprive her of this right? 
 If you put upon her a condition you have never 
 
8 
 
 put upon these others, will not you make her 
 unequal? and if you bring her in, would she be 
 upon an equal footing with her sister States ? If 
 she confers suflVage upon those born abroad, who 
 purge themselves of their foreign allegiance and 
 ffwear to support the Constitution of the United 
 btates, she has the right to do so. Any State in 
 Uie Union now has the same ri^ht, if any see fit 
 to exercise it. The several Stales cannot confer 
 eitizenship of the United States upon any body or 
 elass of persons; but every State, in hersoverei-n 
 capacity has a right to say who shall vote at ele^'c- 
 tions in that State. Let us, then, drop this objec- 
 tion; let us admit Minnesota, and let her come in 
 
 clothed with all the sovereignty that the other 
 states possess. My time is out. 
 One word about the amendment I have offered. 
 1 1 thought that by this time Minnesota would be 
 entu ed to three members. The enabling act enti- 
 tled her to one, with additional Representatives, 
 according to her population under the last appor- 
 Uoiiment. 1 he information I have received since 
 1 ottered my amendment has led me to believe 
 that her population at this time would not entitle 
 her to three members, but will to two; and there- 
 tore 1 withdraw my amendment, and hope the 
 House wi pass the bill as it came from the Sen. 
 ate^^j^il tor the previous question. 
 
 RD - 2.3 
 
 
■■}} 
 
^^-^^^ 
 
 
 
 ■a? -^ 
 
 .0 
 
 
 '^-o* 
 
 

 ^ov*. 
 
 '^^ 
 
 
 ^°-;^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 .'^ 
 
 o V 
 
 
 
 '> 
 
 V, "^ *V^ *^^ »-"• aO <^ 
 
 -• -.. .^ .•^, *.^^/ ,.^.._ -^^^«* 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 i<? "a • - . «. 
 
 .0' 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 \> ^ » • • '^ O fi^