with a view to see if the Constitution does not supply the means of redressing an evil which is of the most flagrant character. I allude to the want of uniformity in the state constitutions in regard to the right of suffrage by foreigners. By the constitution of Virginia, none but citizens of the United States can vote, and as no one can legally become a citizen of the United States unless he has been a resident of the country for five years, it follows that no one can be a voter in Virginia, who has not been a resident of the United States for five years. But by the constitution of Illinois, it is provided (Art. 2, s. 27), “that in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, having resided in the state six months next preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector." Now as the vote of every man cast in Illinois for members of the legislature which elects U. S. Senators, for members of Congress, and for Presidential electors, has a direct bearing on the interests of Virginia, it is well worthy of inquiry whether Virginia is, under the Constitution, to be governed by the votes of aliens. It is a new and a grave question. There is certainly a difference in form between the question of elective franchise and the question of naturalization. But is not this system of allowing aliens to vote before they are naturalized an abuse, if not an evasion of the Constitution? A sensible writer on the subject has well remarked, "if individual states can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the federal power over naturalization becomes a nullity, but a minority of actual citizens, by the aid of aliens, may control the government of the states, and, through the states, that of the Union." pass such a law imposing a penalty of £50 on masters of vessels who should land convicts in this state. In 1836, the matter was brought to the attention of Congress by Mr. Davis of Massachusetts, who made a long and able speech to the Senate, on presenting certain resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts on the subject. In 1838, Mr. Van Buren, in reply to a call of the House, sent a message to Congress, accompanied by many documents. A bill was reported to correct the evil, but amidst the press of business it was overslaughed.-See Congressional Globe 1837-38, page 489, and 1838-39, page 168. In 1845, Mr. Berrien made an elaborate report on the subject, accompanied by a great mass of testimony establishing in the most conclusive manner the certainty and magnitude of the evil.-See Sen. Doc. 173, 28th Cong. No final action, however, was taken. In 1847, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, adopted measures to obtain information on the subject, and a report was made by Mr. A. D. Mann, on the 13th September, 1847. On 1st January, 1855, Mayor Wood, of New York, addressed a strong letter to Presi dent Pierce, invoking his aid. He says: “It has long been the practice of many governments on the continent of Europe to get rid of paupers and convicts by sending them to this country, and most generally to this port, (N. Y.) The increase of crime here can be traced to this cause, rather than to defect in criminal laws or their administration. An examination of the criminal and pauper rocords, shows conclusively that it is but a small proportion of these unfortunates who are natives of this country. One of the very heaviest burdens that we bear, is the support of Who will deny that this is a crying abuse, these people, even when considering the diand that all the constitutional powers of the rect cost, but when estimating the evil influgovernment ought to be brought into requisi-ence on society, and the contaminating effect tion to correct it? 2. It is proposed to exclude by state and federal authority, convicts and paupers from landing on our shores, to corrupt the morals of citizens, to plunder our property, to fill our penitentiaries and alms-houses, and to burden our people with taxation for their support. This is no new policy, and it will at once commend itself to the favorable regard of all reflecting men. It is an evil which attracted the attention of the founders of the republic t an early day, and has from time to time been pressed upon the attention of the government, but thus far no adequate measures of prevention have been adopted. On the 16th of September, 1788, the Continental Congress, then about to close its labors, adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, that it be, and it hereby is recommended to the several states to pass proper laws to prevent the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the U. S."Journal, page 867. upon all who come within the range of their depraved minds, it becomes a matter exceedingly serious and demanding immediate and complete eradication."* Mayor Wood being a Democrat and in no way attached to the American party, I presume he will be regarded as good authority, and I will here rest this branch of the subject, and I hope I may console_myself with the reflection, that as far as we have On the 13th November, 1788, Virginia did 1,902 foreign. progressed in the examination of the proposi- | high importance to the respectability and tions of the American party, nothing has yet been discovered in conflict with "the cause of civil and religious freedom." No. 3. The boon of citizenship is one of the highest privileges which any country can bestow on the subjects or citizens of another. It carries with it rights and duties of the gravest character. It imposes on the person naturalized the obligation of obedience to the laws, and it confers on him the right to protection, in his person and property, by the whole power of the government. It is a privilege which, in most countries, both ancient and modern, was and is conferred with great caution. Among the Romans it was a mark of great distinction, prized as of the highest value; and the simple announcement by an individual, "I am a Roman citizen!" was a passport to respect throughout the world. In our country this privilege has been granted more freely than in any other, and I think there is a growing conviction in the public mind that it has been rendered too cheap. I have had neither the time nor means to make a complete investigation of the subject of naturalization by the colonies and states, before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. But I will furnish a few striking incidents. The 42d section of the constitution of New York, adopted in 1777, conferred power on the legislature of that state to naturalize foreigners, but with the following restriction: "Provided, all such persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in, and become subjects of this state, shall take an oath of allegiance to this state, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and state, in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil." See Kent Com. v. 2, p. 73. character of the American name; the veneration he had for, and the attachment he had to this country, made him extremely anxious to preserve its good fame from injury. He hoped to see the title of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as a citizen of old Rome. I am clearly of opinion that rather than have the common class of vagrants, paupers, and outcasts of Europe, that we ha better be as we are, and trust to the natural increase of our population for inhabitants. If the motion made by the gentleman from S. C. should obtain, such people will find an easy admission indeed to the rights of citizenship; much too easy for the interests of the people of America. Nay, sir, the terms required by the bill on the table are, in my mind, too easy. I think before a man is admitted to enjoy the high and inestimable privilege of a citizen of America, that something more than a mere residence among us is necessary. I think he ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the time be able to bring testimonials of a proper and decent behavior. No man, who would be a credit to the community, would think such terms difficult or indelicate; if bad men should be dissatisfied on this account, and should decline to immigrate, the regulation will have a beneficial effect, for we had better keep such out of the country than admit them into it." Theodore Sedgwick of Mass. in the same debate said :- "He was against the indiscriminate admission of foreigners to the highest rights of human nature, upon terms so incompetent to secure the society from being overrun by the offcasts of Europe; besides, the policy of settling the vacant territory by immigration is of a doubtful nature. * The citizens of America preferred this country, because it is to be preferred; the like principle he wished might be held by every man who came from Europe to reside here; From this clause it will be seen that New but there were at least some grounds to fear York, at that early day, went a bow-shot be- the contrary; their sensations, impregnated yond the American party-she requiring a with prejudices of education, acquired under renunciation of ecclesiastical and civil allegi- monarchical and aristocratical governments, ance, whilst the Americans demand only a may deprive them of that wish for pure rerenunciation of civil or temporal allegiance.publicanism, which is necessary, in order to By act of 1779, Maryland required the applicant for naturalization to subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion, and to take, repeat, and subscribe an oath of fidelity, and that "I do not hold myself bound to yield allegiance or obedience to any king or prince, or any state or government.' The first law of the United States on this subject of naturalization, was approved 26th March, 1790. The bill was without any opposition in either House of Congress, but a number of members availed themselves of the opportunity to express sentiments which are almost identical with those of the American party of the present day. taste its beneficence with that magnitude which we feel on the occasion. Some kind of probation, as it is termed, is absolutely necessary to enable them to feel and be sens ble of the blessing-without that probation, we should be sorry to see them exercise a right which we have so gloriously struggled to attain." Michael J. Stone of Md. said :— "A foreigner, who comes here, is not desirous of interfering immediately with our politics, nor is it proper that he should. His immigration is governed by a different principle: he is desirous of obtaining and holding property. I should have no objection to his doing this from the first moment he sets his He conceived the present subject to be of foot on the shore in America; but it appears James Jackson of Ga. said: to me that we ought to be cautious how we admit foreigners to the other privileges of citizenship, and that for a reason not yet mentioned; perhaps it may allude to the next generation more than to this; the present inhabitants were most of them here when we were engaged in a long and hazardous war. They have been active in rearing up the present government, and feel, perhaps, a laudable vanity in having effected what its most sanguine friends hardly dared to contemplate. There is no danger of these people losing what they so greatly esteem; but the admission of foreigners to all places of government may tincture the system with the dregs of their former habits, and corrupt what we believe the most pure of human institutions." Here we have the principle of the American party, on this subject, clearly expounded by patriots of the earlier and better days of the republic. The act of 1790 was very short and simple in its provisions. The substance of it is embraced in the clause which enacts, "That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer." influence had been brought to bear with fear- In 1795, a much more stringent naturaliza- and he was required further to swear "to support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject." In the progress of the discussion of this bill, many sound American sentiments were expressed, which precisely accord with the sentiments of the American party of the present day. Samuel Dexter, jun., of Mass. led off in the debate, expressed himself opposed "to the facility with which, under the existing laws, aliens may acquire citizenship." He moved to strike out two years, as provided in the law of 1790. This act was passed at a time when the population of the United States was but little more than three millions, scattered mainly along the sea coasts, when we had boundless wastes of unsettled territory comparatively John Page of Va., although in general very unexplored, and when along our whole west-friendly to naturalization, said: "He approved ern frontier we were exposed to the incursions the design of the mover, because he thought of savage enemies, who required a strong force to keep them in check. There was then every motive to extend inducements to foreigners to emigrate to this country, to strengthen us against foreign and domestic enemies, and to subdue and bring into cultivation our wild and unsettled domain. It is not a matter of surprise, therefore, that the law was so loosely drawn as not even to require a renunciation by the applicant of his allegiance to his native sovereign. nothing more desirable than to see good order, Mr. Dexter said: 'America, if her political institutions should A very few years, however, sufficed to show on experience be found to be wisely adjusted, the mistake that had been committed. In and she shall improve her national advantages, 1793, citizen Genet, the representative of had opened to her view a more rich and gloriFrench Democracy, came to this country, and ous prospect than ever was presented to man. commenced a series of intrigues and proceed- She had chosen for herself a government which ings, in violation of our obligations of neu- left to the citizens as great a portion of freedom trality, and intended to involve us in a war as was consistent with a social compact. All with England. By his artifices he raised up believed the preservation of this government a strong French party in the country, and in its purity indispensable to the continuance when Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson in- of our happiness. The foundation on which terfered to arrest his unlawful proceedings, it rested was general intelligence and public he boldly denounced them both, and threat- virtue; in other words, wisdom to discern, and ened to "appeal from the President to the patriotism to pursue the general good. He people." Much excitement ensued, for foreign | had pride, and he gloried in it, in believing his people seemed to lose sight of their own affairs in their anxiety about the questions which agitated Europe to its centre. There were two great parties in the public councils, and amongst the people; one of which was partial to England, and the other to France. Foreigners flocked to our shores and openly attempted to control the politics of the country. "Much information [he said] might be ob- Under circumstances like these, the law of tained by the experience of others, if, in de- 1795 was found to be inefficient, and it was spite of it, we were not determined to be guided | deemed necessary to frame one better adapted only by a visionary theory. The ancient re- the exigencies of the times,-extending publics of Greece and Rome [said he], see the term of residence before naturalization to with what jealousy they guarded the rights of fourteen years, and requiring the applicant at citizenship against adulteration by foreign the time of making his declaration to enter on mixture. The Swiss nation [he said], in the record a description of his person, age, oomodern times, had not been less jealous on the cupation, nativity, &c., so as to establish his same subject. Indeed, no example could be identity, and to prevent imposition by a fraufound, in the history of man, to authorize the dulent use of his papers. This certificate was experiment which had been made by the to be filed in the office of the Secretary of United States. It seemed to have been adopt- State. ed by universal practice as a maxim, that the republican character was in no way to be formed but by early education. In some instances, to form this character, those propensities which are generally considered as almost irresistible, were appeased and subdued. And shall we [he asked] alone adopt the rash theory, that the subjects of all governments, despotic, monarchical, and aristocratical, are, as soon as they set foot on American ground, qualified to participate in administering the Sovereignty of our country? Shall we hold the benefits of American citizenship so cheap as to invite, nay, to almost bribe, the discontented, the ambitious, and the avaricious of every country, to accept them?" Mr. Wm. Vans Murray of Maryland, declared : "He was quite indifferent if not fifty emigrants came into this country in a year's time. It would be unjust to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. He was afraid that coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption, they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the American character." Mr. Ezekiel Gilbert of New York said:The terms of residence, before admitting aliens, ought to be very much longer than that mentioned in the bill." Mr. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts said: "He agreed to the idea of Mr. Gilbert. He wished that a method could be found of permitting aliens to possess and transmit property, without at the same time giving them a right to vote." This bill was fully discussed by many dis tinguished men, but having devoted so much space already to this branch of the subject, I cannot extract largely from that debate. There is one speech, however, which contains so able an exposition of the principles of the American party, that I cannot forbear from giving a paragraph or two from it. I allude to the speech of Robert Goodloe Harper. He said: He believed that it was high time we should recover from the mistake which the country fell into, when it first began to form its constitutions, of admitting foreigners to citizenship. This mistake, he believed, had been productive of very great evils to this country, and unless corrected, he was apprehensive these evils would greatly increase. He believed the time was now come when it would be proper to declare that nothing but birth should entitle a man to citizenship in this country. He thought this was a proper season for making a declaration. IIe believed the United States had experience enough to cure them of the folly of believing that the strength and happiness of the country would be promoted by admitting to the rights of citizenship all the congregations of people who resort to these shores from every part of the world. Under these impressions, which, as he supposed they would have the same force upon others as upon himself, he should not detain the committee by dilating upon,-he proposed to amend the resolution by adding to it the following words, viz.: 'that provision ought to be made by law for preventing any person becoming entitled to the rights of a citizen of the United States, except by birth.' Mr. Harper said he was for giving foreigners every facility of acquiring property, of holding property, of raising their families, and of transferring their property to their families. He was willing they should form citizens for us; but as to the rights of citizenship, he was not willing they should be enjoyed, except by persons born in this country. Ile did not think even this was desirable by the persons themselves. Why, he asked, did foreigners seek 、 law of 1798, which had been passed under the administration of his great rival and political antagonist, John Adams, so as to reduce the term of residence to five years. But it will be seen that Mr. Jefferson's calm judgment in 1781, when he wrote his Notes on Virginia, and his practice whilst President, as I shall hereafter have occasion to show, conformed to the doctrines of the American party. In his Notes on Virginia, he says:— Every species of government has its specific principle. Ours are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from residence in this country? He supposed it | dency, he relaxed his opposition to foreigners was either to better their condition or to live to a very considerable extent, and that after under a government better and more free than his election he recommended a change in the the one they had left. But was it necessary these persons should at once become entitled to take a part in the concerns of the government? He believed it was by no means necessary, either to their happiness or prosperity, and he was sure it would not tend to the happiness of this country. If the native citizens are not indeed adequate to the performance of the duties of government, it might be expedient to invite legislators or voters from other countries to do that business for which they themselves are not qualified. But if the people of the country, who owe their birth to it, are adequate to all the duties of the government, he could not see for what reason strangers should be admitted; strangers, who, how-natural right and natural reason. To these ever acceptable they may be in other respects, could not have the same views and attachments with native citizens. Under this view of the subject, he was convinced it was an essential policy, which lay at the bottom of civil society, that no foreigner should be permitted to take a part in the government. There might have been, Mr. H. acknowledged, individual exceptions, and there might be again, to this rule, but it was necessary to make regulations general, and he believed the danger arising from admitting foreigners, generally, to citizenship, would be greater than the inconveniences arising from debarring from citizenship the most deserving foreigners. He believed it would have been well for this country, if the principle contained in this amendment had been adopted sooner; he hoped it would now be adopted." It will be perceived that Mr. Harper went further than the American party now propose to go, and that too, at a time when the practical evil was not of one-tenth the magnitude it has now attained. Yet who questions his patriotism? Who dreamed that he was arrayed against the "cause of civil and religious freedom?" In the same debate Wm. Craik, of Maryland, aid : He was disposed to go much further than 8 proposed in the bill, in restricting aliens rom becoming citizens of this country. He should have no objection to say that no foeigner coming in this country after this time hall ever become a citizen." James A. Bayard, of Delaware, said :— Aliens cannot be considered as members of the society of the United States. Our laws re passed on the ground of our policy, and whatever is granted to aliens is a mere matter of favor, and if it is taken away they have no ight to complain.” Upon the general principle of discouraging xcessive immigration, I will, on this branch of the question, quote but one other authority, nd that is from the writings of Thomas Jef erson. Candor compels me to admit that, when Mr. efferson became a candidate for the Presi nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchy-yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the government they imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, and distracted mass. I may appeal to experience during the present contest for a verification of these conjectures. But if they be not certain in event, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven years and three months longer for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceful, more durable? Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here." In 1797, Mr. Jefferson was quite as emphatio and much more practical in his opposition to foreigners. In a petition to the legislature of Virginia, which he prepared in that year, he said: “And your petitioners further submit to the two Houses of Assembly, whether the safety of the citizens of this commonwealth, in their persons, their property, their laws and government, does not require that the capacity to act in the important office of a juror, grand or petty, civil or criminal, should be restrained in future to native citizens of the United States, or such as were citizens at the date of the treaty of peace which closed our revolutionary war, and whether the ignorance of our laws, and natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not reasonable |