quence, that we might have among our constituents persons who have not the right to claim the protection of the government, or to present a petition to it. I would ask my colleague if he would willingly bear the relation of representative to those who could not claim his aid, as Senator, to protect them from oppression, or to present à petition through him to the Senate, praying for a redress of grievon the principle for which he contends. volves, in my opinion, a confusion of ideas, | aliens, and it will follow, as a necessary conse which must lead to innumerable absurdities and contradictions. I propose to notice but a few. In fact, the discussion has come on so unexpectedly, and has been urged on so precipitately, through the force of party discipline, that little leisure has been afforded to trace to their consequence the many novel and dangerous principles involved in the bill. I, in particular, have not had due time for reflection, which I exceedingly regret. Atten-ance? And yet such might be his condition dance on the sick-bed of a friend drew off my attention till yesterday, when, for the first time, I turned my thoughts on its provisions. The numerous objections which it presented, and the many and important amendments which were moved to correct them, in rapid succession, until a late hour of the night, allowed but little time for reflection. Seeing that the majority had pre-determined to pass the bill, with all its faults, I retired, when I found my presence could no longer be of any service, and remained ignorant that the Senate had rescinded the order to adjourn over till Monday, until a short time before its meeting this morning; so that I came here wholly unprepared to discuss this and the other important questions involved in the bill. Under such circumstances, it must not be supposed that, in pointing out the few instances of what appear to me the absurdities and contradic-politic, those who might be placed in so detions necessarily resulting from the principle against which I contend, there are not many others equally striking. I but suggest those which first occurred to me. But a still greater difficulty remains. Suppose a war should be declared between the United States and the country to which the alien belongs-suppose, for instance, that South Carolina should confer the right to vote on alien subjects of Great Britain residing within her limits, and that war should be declared between the two countries; what, in such event, would be the condition of that portion of our voters? They, as alien enemies, would be liable to be seized under the laws of Congress, and to have their goods confiscated, and themselves imprisoned, or sent out of the country. The principle that leads to such consequences cannot be true; and I venture nothing in asserting that Carolina, at least, will never give it her sanction. She never will assent to incorporate, as members of her body graded a condition, and so completely under the control of the general government. But let us pass from these (as it appears to me conclusive) views, and inquire what were the objects of the Constitution in conferring on Congress the authority of passing uniform laws of naturalization-from which, if I mistake not, arguments not less conclusive may be drawn in support of the position for which I contend. Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to what other rights appertain to a citizen, all must at least agree that he has the right to petition, and also to claim the protection of his government. These belong to him as a member of the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of In conferring this power the framers of the the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. Constitution must have had two objects in To suppose that a state can make an alien a view: One to prevent competition between the citizen of the state or, to present the ques-states in holding out inducements for the emi tion more specially, can confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him a direct and immediate control over the action of the general government, from which he has no right to claim the protection, and to which he has no right to present a petition. That the full force of the absurdity may be felt, it must be borne in mind that every department of the general government is either directly or indirectly under the control of the voters in the several states. The Constitution wisely provides that the voters for the most numerous branch of the legislature in the several states, shall vote for the members of the House of Representatives-and, as the members of this body are chosen by the legislatures of the states, and the Presidential electors either by the legislatures or voters in the several states, it follows, as I have stated, that the action of the general government is either directly or indirectly under the control of the voters in the several states. Now, admit that a state may confer the right of voting on all gration of foreigners, and the other to prevent their improper influence over the general government, through such states as might naturalize foreigners, and could confer on them the right of exercising an elective franchise, before they could be sufficiently informed of the nature of our institutions, or were interested in their preservation. Both of these objects would be defeated, if the states may confer on aliens the right of voting and the other privileges belonging to citizens. On that supposition, it would be almost impossible to conceive what good could be obtained or evil prevented by conferring the power on Congress. The power would be perfectly nugatory. A state might hold out every improper inducement to emigration as freely as if the power did not exist; and might confer on the alien all the political rights and privileges be longing to a native-born citizen; not only to the great injury of the state, but to an improper control of the government of the Union. To illustrate what I have said-suppose the passing uniform laws of naturalization, or, as I have shown, simply to remove alienage. To this extent it may clearly go under the Constitution; and it is no less clear that it cannot go an inch beyond without palpably transcending its powers, and violating the Constitution. Every other privilege, except those which necessarily flow from the removal of alienage, must be conferred by the Constitution and the authority of the state. My remarks are, of course, confined to the states; for within the territories the authority of Congress is as complete in this respect as that of the states within their respective limits, with the exception of such limitations as the ordinance to which I have referred may impose. dominant party in New York, finding politi- | Congress the right of prescribing who should cal power about to depart from them, should, or should not be entitled to vote in the state, to maintain their ascendancy, extend the right and exercise the other privileges belonging to of suffrage to the thousands of aliens of every citizens; and portrayed in strong language language and from every portion of the world, the danger to the rights of states from such that annually pour into her great emporium-authority. If his views are correct in this how deeply might the destiny of the whole respect, the danger would indeed be imminent, Union be affected by such a measure! It might but I cannot concur in their correctness. Unin fact, place the control over the general gov-der the view which I have taken, the authority ernment in the hands of those who know of Congress is limited to the simple point of nothing of our institutions and are indifferent as to the interests of the country. New York gives about one-sixth of the electoral votes in the choice of President and Vice President; and it is well known that her political institutions keep the state nearly equally divided into two great political parties. The addition of a few thousand votes either way might turn the scale, and the electors might, in fact, owe their election, on the supposition, to the votes of unnaturalized foreigners. The Presidential election might depend on the electoral vote of the state, and a President be chosen in reality by them; that is, they might give us a king, for, under the usurpations of the present chief magistrate, the President is in fact a king. I ask my colleague if we ought wil- But to pass to the question immediately be lingly to yield our assent to a principle that fore us. This, as I have stated, does not involve would lead to such results, and if there be any the question whether a state can make an danger on the side for which I contend, com- alien a citizen; but whether Congress has a parable to those which I have stated? I know right to prescribe the qualifications to be poshow sincere he is in the truth of the position sessed by those who shall vote for members of for which he contends, and that his opinion a convention to form a constitution for Michiwas founded anterior to this discussion. We gan. Reason and precedent concur that Conhave rarely differed in our views on the ques- gress has the right. It has, as I have stated, tions which have come before the Senate; and been exercised in every similar case. If the I deeply regret, as I am sure he does, that we right does not exist in Congress, it exists noshould differ on this highly important sub- where. A territory, until it becomes a state, ject. is a dependent community, and possesses no My colleague cites the example of Louisi-political rights but what are derived from the ana, which was admitted into the Union without requiring the inhabitants, at the time, to conform to the act of naturalization. I must think the instance is not in point. That was the case of the incorporation of a foreign community, which had been acquired by treaty, as a member of our confederacy. At the time of the acquisition they were subjects of France, and owed allegiance to that government. The treaty transferred their allegiance to the United States; and the difficulty of incorporating Louisiana into the Union arose, not under the act of naturalization, but the right of acquiring foreign possessions by purchase, and the right of incorporating such possessions into the Union. These were felt, at the time, to be questions of great difficulty. Mr. Jefferson himself, under whose administration the purchase was made, doubted the right, and suggested the necessity of an alteration of the Constitution to meet the case; and if the example of the admission is now to be used to establish the principle that a state may confer citizenship on an alien, we may all live to regret that the Constitution was not amended according to the suggestion. * * * My colleague insists that to deny the right for which he contends, would be to confer on community on which it depends. Who shall or shall not exercise political power? and what shall be the qualifications possessed by them? and how shall they be appointed? are all questions to be determined by the paramount community; and in the case under consideration, to be determined by Congress, which has the right under the Constitution, to prescribe all necessary rules for the government of the territories not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. This very bill, in fact, admits the right. It prescribes that the people of Michigan shall vote for the convention to form her constitution on becoming a state. If it belongs to the territory of Michigan (she is not yet a state) to determine who shall vote for the members of the convention, this attempt on our part to designate who shall be the voters would be an unconstitutional interference with her right, and ought to be objected to, as such, by those opposed to our views. But if, on the other hand, the view I take be correct, that the right belongs to Congress, and not to the territory, the loose, vague, and indefinite manner in which the voters are described in the bill affords a decisive reason for its recommitment. I ask, who are the people probity and good demeanor, and to have borne an unquestionable character; he must show that he is acquainted with our institutions, and attached to the principles of our Government. Suppose that the foreigner should ask to be naturalized, and should fail in any of these of Michigan? Taken in the ordinary sense, it means everybody, of every age, of every sex, of every complexion, white, black, or red, aliens as well as citizens. Regarded in this light, to pass this bill would sanction the principle that Congress may authorize an alien to vote, or confer that high privilege on the run-requisites, can he acquire the right of citizenaway slaves from Kentucky, Virginia, or elsewhere; and thus elevate them to the condition of citizens, enjoying under the constitution all the rights and privileges in the states of the Union which appertain to citizenship. But my colleague says that this must be acquiesced in, if such should be the case, as it results from the principles of the constitution. I know we are bound to submit to whatever are the provisions of that instrument; but surely my colleague will agree with me, that the danger of such a precedent would be great; that the principles on which it is justified ought to be clear and free from all doubt; and I trust I have, at least, shown that such is not the fact in this case. But, we are told that the people of Michigan means, in this case, the qualified voters. Why, then, was it not so expressed? Why was vague and general language used, when more certain and precise terms might have been employed? But, I would ask, who are the qualified voters? Are they those authorized to vote under the existing laws established for the government of the territory, or are they those who, under the instrument called the constitution, are authorized to vote? Why leave so essential a point in so uncertain a condition, when we have the power to remove the uncertainty? If it be meant by the people of Michigan, the qualified voters under her incipient constitution (as stated by the Senator from New York), then are we sanctioning the rights of aliens to vote. Michigan has attempted to confer this right on that portion of her inhabitants. She has no authority to confer such right under the constitution. I have conclusively shown that a state does not possess it-much less a territory, which possesses no power except such as is conferred by Congress. Congress has conferred no such power on Michigan--nor, indeed, could confer it as it has no authority, under the Constitution, over the subject, except to pass uniform laws of naturalization. Debate in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SOTA. Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, of Virginia, said:What is requisite to give a foreigner the right of suffrage? 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 himself to be a man of ; ship? 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; suppose, instead of showing he is attached to the principles of our Government, that it is shown that he is still a monarchist: he cannot acquire the rights of naturalization and thus it is, sir, he may be rejected 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 power to confer upon him the rights of suffrage in any Federal election. I think that this is one of those propositions which cannot be controverted; and I think that, as Congress controls him until all the conditions required by the naturalization laws are fully complied with, it is conclusive evidence that the State has no power to confer upon him any political right under the Federal Constitution whatever. It is said, in this connection, that the States have always exercised this power. That 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 that this subject anxiously engaged the attention of those who preceded us; and without dwelling upon it, I beg leave to call the attention of the House to what, in debating the naturalization laws in 1795, Mr. Gallatin said. The question came up in connection with the right of suffrage in his own State. There were many persons naturalized under the State law who were excluded from all the rights of United States citizenship. I get what I extract from Gales & Seaton's Annals: "Mr. GALLATIN wished to know whether the provisions of this act are intended to extend to persons who were in the country previous to the passing of the law of January, 1795, which requires a residence of five years before an alien can become a citizen, but who have neglected to become citizens, as well as to all those aliens who have come to this country since January, 1795? Again, he said, one reason which led him to mention this circumstance was, that there are a great number of persons in the state of Pennsylvania, and many in the district from whence he came, who, though they are not citizens of the United States, really believe they are. This mistake has arisen from (an error common to most of the districts of the United States) a belief that an alien's being naturalized by the laws of a state government, since the act of 1790, made him a citizen of the United States. He always thought that construction to be wrong, Congress having the power to pass, and having passed, a uniform naturalization law, which, in his opinion, excluded the idea of admission to citizenship on different terms by the individual states. But he knew the contrary opinion, till lately, generally prevailed. Indeed, he knew that at the late election in that city, the votes of respectable merchants, who had obtained American registers for their vessels, on a presumption of their being citizens, were refused on this ground. The same mistake had extended to other parts of the Union. "Mr. G. supposed that since the year 1790, from ten to fifteen thousand emigrants had come into the state of Pennsylvania, twothirds of whom believed, till lately, that they were citizens of the United States, from their having been naturalized by the laws of that state. It has now been discovered that they are not citizens; but since that discovery was made, they have not had an opportunity of being admitted according to the law of the United States." Here you see, in reference to naturalization under State laws, Mr. Gallatin concedes that those thus naturalized were not citizens, and that consequently the right of suffrage should be denied them. He himself was of foreign birth, and of course interested in the question, and would not hastily have decided as he did. Mr. BLISS. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment? Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. Certainly. Mr. BLISS. I rise simply for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Virginia to give us, if he has the act before him, the language of the Pennsylvania statute upon that subject. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. I have it not. I have read from the debate of 1795. Mr. BLISS. I asked the question because I did not know exactly what that statute was. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. The debate was upon the subject of naturalization. Mr. BLISS. The question is this: whether the Pennsylvania statute, to which the gentleman refers, conferred the elective franchise, or undertook to naturalize generally? Mr REAGAN. I desire to say a word upon the point on which the gentleman from Ohio has interrupted the gentleman from Virginia. I will call the attention of the gentleman from Virginia to the fact that, by an early decision of the courts of Pennsylvania, it was held that a State had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Government in the matter of the naturalization of foreigners; and to the debate growing out of that matter, I apprehend that the clause which the gentleman read referred. It did not relate to the question of the right of a citizen to vote, but related alone to the power to naturalize. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. What is naturalization? It is the giving to foreigners rights On what ground were they refused the right of suffrage? Gentlemen talk about this Pennsylvania law not conferring the right of suffrage; and yet here it is expressly said that it did confer the right of suffrage, and these men sought to exercise that right under the Pennsylvania naturalization law. I may not understand it; but here it is, and " he who runs may read." If a man who came forward to vote under the provisions of that law, was excluded, he was excluded upon the ground that he was not a citizen of the United States; and if he was permitted to vote, it would be upon the presumption that 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 the adoption of the Constitution. It was, no doubt, the old Pennsylvania Constitution regulating this question, which was superseded, as was decided in a case in the State of Maryland, by the adoption of the Federal Constitution. That will no doubt be found to be the state of things, and those respectable merchants were denied the right of suffrage, though located permanently in the country, because they were not citizens of the United States, and not because of any other provision, citizenship being the fundamental condition to the exercise of this high attribute of popular sovereignty. I think it will be found that this is the clew to the subject. But without dwelling at large upon this subject, let me proceed. In a case which came directly 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 superseded the law of the State of Maryland, and gave the property a different direction from what it would have taken if the party 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 States, whether native or foreign born. I will now proceed to call the attention of the House to the sentiments of our fathers.Gentlemen have extraordinary notions upon this subject. They have the notion that anybody who comes here is at once entitled to par ticipate in the right of suffrage. Every year adds some three hundred thousand foreigners to our population, and they are not required to wait the period of time specified by the act of Congress, prescribing the rule of naturalization, but they are precipitated in hot haste upon the ballot-box, and introduced into the political struggles of the day. Is that right? I beg, in this connection, to call the attention of the House to what passed in the Federal convention. I know it is thought that there was a policy in that day which required us to encourage emigration. Yes, sir, there was a policy which required it to a limited extent. But how? To that matter I now call your attention. 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 not that many, not natives of this country, had acquired great credit during the Revolution, he should be for restraining the eligibility into the Senate to natives." States have formed different qualifications themselves for enjoying different rights of citizenship." I read these remarks for the purpose of let ting the House see and understand what was the temper and tone and sentiment of those who framed our organic law. I want the House to understand that even at that day, when we were in a state of almost political dissolution—a weak and feeble people, threatened with the anger of the British lion-even then the rights of American citizens were highly appreciated, and the privilege of foreigners sharing in them was guarded with jealousy and care. Nor is that all. I propose to read, for the information of the House, the debate on the first bill passed on the subject of naturalization, in which the healthy tone of public sentiment, on the part of our fathers, cannot fail to be highly refreshing to us, their sons. On the first bill establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, a protracted debate sprang up, in which the following sentiments were expressed, in which it was assumed that natu Mr. Butler, a very distinguished man of that ralization was necessary to give the right of day, said that he,--suffrage. The debate commenced February 3, 1790, Mr. Hartley said: was decidedly opposed to the admission of foreigners without a long residence in the country. They bring with them, not only attachments to other countries, but ideas of government so distinct from ours that in every point of view they are dangerous. He acknowledged that, if he himself had been called into public life within a short time after his coming to America, his foreign habits, opinions, and attachments, would have rendered him an improper agent in public affairs." "Mr. RANDOLPH did not know but it might be problematical whether emigrants to this country were, on the whole, useful or not.” Mr. GERRY wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to natives.” Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to insert nine years instead of seven. He wished this country to acquire, as fast as possible, national habits. Wealthy emigrants do more harm, by their luxurious habits, than good by the money they bring them." 'Mr. BUTLER was strenuous against admitting foreigners into our public councils." "Mr. SHERMAN. The United States have not invited foreigners, nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native citizens. The individual states alone have done this. The former, therefore, are at liberty to make any discriminations they may judge requisite." "Mr. MADISON animadverted on the peculiarity of the doctrine of Mr. Sherman. It was a subtilty by which every national engagement might be evaded." "Colonel MASON was struck, not, like Mr. Madison, with the peculiarity, but the propriety of the doctrine of Mr. Sherman. The "The policy of the old nations of Europe has drawn a line between citizens and aliens; that policy has existed, to our knowledge, ever since the foundation of the Roman Empire. Experience has proved its propriety, or we should have found some nation deviating from a regulation inimical to its welfare. From this it may be inferred that we ought not to grant this privilege on terms so easy as is moved by the gentleman from South Carolina. If he had gone no further in his motion than to give aliens a right to purchase and hold lands, the objection would not have been so great; but if the words are stricken out that he has moved for, an alien will be entitled to join in the election of your officers at the first moment he puts his foot on shore in America, when it is impossible, from the nature of things, that he can be qualified to exercise such a talent." Mr. Madison said: "I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real adition to the wealth or strength of the United States." Here is the doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Madison, that I maintain. This is the position I occupy. This is the ground upon which I can stand before the country. But to proceed: |