sanction either in the territories or states, may be mentioned Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson, 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 comments have been made by several gentlemen. The views of that distinguished statesman have been presented as authority on their side. I have simply this to say about that speech: I cannot find it in the Globe. I can not 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 was 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 admission 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 the right. He did not raise any objection to the admission of the state as far as I can find, because of alien suffrage being allowed in her constitution. Again on the 26th of July, 1848, the Clayton compromise bill for the organization of certain territorial governments passed the Senate. The fifth section of the act provides gan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson oʻ Mason, Phelps, Rusk, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, TurLouisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, ney, Westcott, and Yulee-33, "NAYS.-Messrs. Allen. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Bradbury, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Metcalfe, Miller, Clark, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts. Dayton, Dix. Dodge, Niles, Underwood, Upham, and Walker.-22." Mr. Calhoun was on the committee which reported this provision, and he does not ar pear The same principle, as I have said, was incorporated in the same words, I think, in the bill for the organization of Washington Territory in 1853, and in the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854. The gentleman 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 enemy? By no means, sir; the person of foreign birth, who is entitled to vote under this constitution, has first to purge himself of his allegiance to other powers. He must have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and sworn to support the Constitution of the same. This is the condition precedent. By no possibility, therefore, could an alien enemy legally vote in Minnesota. Now, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States has beer. read and commented on by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. DAVIS], who led off in this dis cussion, and whose speech I listened to with great deal of interest-an argument as well got up and made on that side of the question as 1 think it possible for ingenuity, ability and tal rested his argument mainly on the decision of ent, united with eloquence, to present. H the Supreme Court in the Dred Scout case where Judge Taney says that the word tution, are synonymous with "eiciens." After 'people of the United States," in the Consti reading that part of the decision, the gentle 66 "That every free white male inhabitant, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office in said Territory; but the qualification of voters, and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assem-man quoted an article in the Constitution which bly: Provided, That the right of suffrage, and of holding office, shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall hare declared on oath their intention to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act." On the engrossment of this bill, the vote was "YRAS.-Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Ilaune This speech will be found on page 39 of this work. says that "the House of Lepresentatives shal it will take me but a moment, by recurring to that clause of the Constitution and comparing it with others, to show that the object 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 electing Senators, and not the class of voters. The House was to be elected by the people by a popular 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 Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States," There the gentleman stopped. What follows? -" and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legisla ture." There, coupled with what the gentleman read, is the right 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 members of this House. Immediately after the words he read, sir, without a semicolon separating them, is the express declaration that the states shall fix the qualification of electors or voters. 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 subject, have never parted with any of their sovereignty. It is their right, therefore, to fix the qualifications 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 thereof." 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 from 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 repre sent 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 oppused; and, strange to tell, by Massachusetts The idea that prevailed at the formation of our constitution was, that representation and taxation 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 colonies were taxed and not allowed representation; and if you trace the history of this government down, you will find this great American idea running throughout— that taxation and representation should go together. Whoever pays taxes should vote—that is the idea. Great confusion seems to exist in the minds of gentlemen from the association of the words citizen 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, or the right to vote, is the creature of law. There are citizens in every state of this Union, I doubt not, who are not entitled to vote. So, in several of the states there are persons who by law are entitled to vote, though they be not citizens. If there be citizens who cannot vote, why may there not be individuals, who are not citizens, who may nevertheless be allowed to vote, if the sovereign will of the state shall so determine? In all the states nearly there are other qualifications for voting, even with the native-born, besides citizenship. Residence for a certain length of time. Virginia, for instance, requires of all citizens of other states, native-born citizens of Maryland or North Carolina, a certain term of residence. They shall not vote in Virginia unless they have been there twelve months. In Alabama, I think, the provision is the same. Why, sir, in my own state, where we have universal suffrage, as it is called, no man can vote unless he has paid his taxes, and resided in the county six months. There are thousands of citizens in Georgia, and I suppose in every other state, who are not entitled to the right of suffrage under our constitution and laws, Citizenship 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 subject of the states retaining the control over the subject of suffrage; showing how vigilantly this was watched and guarded by the state-rights inen. Gouverneur Morris had proposed to restrain the right of suffrage to freeholders. This gave rise to a long debate. Mr. Ellsworth said: and could not, by state laws, incorporated into that body-politic. But now mark what immediately follows that part of his decision: confound the rights of citizenship which a "In discussing this question, we must not state may rights of citizenship as a member of the Union." confer within its own limits, and the Here is the distinction. By naturalization, Congress 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 tion of this government, or the right of passis another; and the right to claim the protecport abroad, is the other. No state can confer these rights throughout the Union; but each “The qualification of electors stood on the most proper footing. The right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly guarded by most of the state constitutions. The people will not readily subscribe to the national constitution if it should subject them to be dis-state may confer them within her limits. franchised. The states are the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their own people." Again, he says, (I read from the Madison Papers): "Ought not every man who pays a tax to vote for the representative 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 sustained in my view by the highest authority. This subject of the qualification of electors, and who should determine it, was mooted at the settlement of the government; and it was left to the state legislatures, under state constitutions. Now, sir, a few moments on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Taney, in my judgment, fully confirms everything I have said. He says: "The words 'people of the United States,' and citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body, who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what are familiarly called the sovereign people; and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [Dred Scott was a negro] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty. We think they are not; and were not intended to be included under the word 'citizens' in the constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for, and secures to citizens of the United States." It was the first words of this clause of the decision 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, Each state may confer upon an alien the right but if Indiana or Georgia confers this right to hold lands. No man can question that; upon an alien, he cannot go into South Carolina and hold 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 guaranty her protection within her limits, but not throughout the Union. She cannot pledge the protec tion of the common government. But the court goes right on with this language: "It does not by any means follow, because he has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer 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 state, 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. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the 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 in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would 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 single clause in it, so far as alien suffrage is concerned, which Chief Justice Taney has not said she has a right under the Constitution of the United States to put in it? | thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, This is a right none of the states have ever and returned to the office of the Secretary of surrendered. Every state in this Union has State, by the marshal or other person to whom the right of fixing the status of all its consti- the same shall be directed. And in case any tuent elements absolutely, as each state may alien, so ordered to deport, shall be found at determine for itself, and also the right of de- large within the United States, after the time termining who may and who may not vote at limited in such order for his departure, and elections for public officers under her autho- not having obtained a license from the Presirity. What part of the constitution of Min- dent to reside therein, or, having obtained nesota, then, is in violation of the Constitu- such license, shall not have conformed thereto, tion of the United States? Why, then, should every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, she not be admitted? be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States: Provided always, and be it further enacted, that if any alien, so ordered to depart, shall prove, to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such person or per that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States shall arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States, for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he shall designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties, to the satisfaction of the person authorized by the President to take the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the President may revoke whenever he shall think proper. Let me say, in conclusion, that the constitution of Illinois has such a clause. Is not she an equal in this Union? Why not rule her out? Indiana has such a clause. Why not rule her out? Michigan has such a clause. Why not rule her out? Wisconsin has such a clause. I have the Journal here. When Wis-sons as the President shall direct, who are for consin was admitted, in 1848, Mr. Calhoun was in his seat and he did not even call the yeas and nays on it. And yet we are told that this is a great and dangerous example we are setting, if we admit Minnesota on an equal footing with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and all of the states. Deprive her of this great right, would she be their equal? Are Illinois and South Carolina now equal? Are Indiana and Massachusetts now equal? Why, then, if you deny Minnesota the power that Illinois and Indiana have, will she be equal to them? Things equal to one another are equal to each other. If those in the Union now are equal, will not Minnesota be unequal if you deprive her of this right? If you put upon her a condition you have never 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 suffrage upon those born abroad, who purge themselves of their foreign allegiance and swear to support the Constitution of the United States, she has the right to do so. Any state in the Union now has the same right, if any see fit to exercise it. The several states cannot confer citizenship of the United States upon any body or class of persons; but every state, in her sovereign capacity, has a right to say who shall vote at elections in that state. Let us, then, drop this objection; let us admit Minnesota, and let her come in clothed with all the sovereignty that the other states possess. Alien and Sedition Laws. AN ACT CONCERNING ALIENS. Sec. 1. Be it enacted, &c., That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time as shall be expressed in such order; which order shall be served on such alien by delivering him a copy Sec. 2. That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof any alien who may or shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested, and sent out of the United States, such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom, and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien, so removed or sent out of the United States by the President, shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require. Sec. 3. That every master or commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port of the United States after the first day of July next, shall, immediately on his arrival, make report, in writing, to the collector or other chief officer of the customs of such port, of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation, and a description of their persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof; and, on failure, every such master and commander shall forfeit and Livingston of N. Y., McDowell of N. C., J. pay three hundred dollars; for the payment Smith of Md., spoke against the principle whereof, on default of such master or com- of the bills. Messrs. Otis of Mass., Sewall mander, such vessel shall also be holden, and of N. Y., Harper of S. C., Gordon of N. H., may, by such collector or other officer of the customs, be detained. And it shall be the Dayton of N. J., and Kittera of N. H., duty of such collector, or other officer of the defended it. customs, forthwith to transmit to the office of the Department of State true copies of all such returns. Sec. 4. That the Circuit and District Courts of the United States shall, respectively, have cognisance of all crimes and offences against this act. And all marshals and other officers of the United States are required to execute all precepts and orders of the President of the United States, issued in pursuance or by virtue of this act. Sec. 5. That it shall be lawful for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find convenient; and all property left in the United States, by any alien who may be removed as aforesaid, shall be and remain subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if this act had not been passed. Sec. 6. That this act shall continue and be in force for and during the term of two years from the passing thereof. [Approved: June 25, 1798.] The bill of the Senate eventually passed the House on the 21st of June, 1798, with some few amendments which were concurred The in by the Senate, and became a law. YEAS. Messrs. Allen of Conn., Baer of Ind., Bartlett of Mass., Bayard of Del., Brooks of N. Y., Bullock of Mass., of Conn., Craik of Md., Dana of Vt., Edmond of Conn., Evans Champlin of Conn., Chapman of Pa.. Cochran of N. Y., Coit of Va., Foster of Miss., Foster of N. H., Freeman of Mass., Glen of N. Y., Goodrich of Vt., Gordon of N. H., Greswould of Conn., Grove of N. C., Harper of S. C., Hindman of Md., Hosmer of N. Y., Imlay of N. J., Kittera of Pa.. Lyman of Mass., Matthews of Ind., Morris of N. Y.. Otis of Mass., Parker of Mass., Reed of Mass., Rutledge of S. C., Schure man of N. J., Sewall of Mass., William Shepard of Mass., Thatcher of Mass., Thomas of Pa., Thomson of Del., Tilling Sinnickson of N. J., Sitgreaves of l'a. Smith of Conn., hast of R. I., Van Alen of N. Y., Wadsworth of Mass.-46. NAYS. Baldwin of Ga., Bard of Pa., Benton of S. C., Blount of N. C., Brent of Va., Burges of N. C., Claiborne of of S. C., Spregg of Md., Stanford of N. C., Sumpter of S. C., The legislative history of the above act is AN ACT IN ADDITION TO THE ACT, ENTITLED this: On the 25th of April, 1798, in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Hillhouse, a Senator from Connecticut, offered a resolution for a committee to inquire what provision of law ought to be made, &c., as to the removal of such aliens as may be dangerous to the peace of the country, &c. This resolution was adopted the next day, and Messrs. Livermore of N. H., Hillhouse of Conn., Read of S. C., Sedgewick of Mass., and Lawrence of N. Y., were appointed the committee. "AN ACT FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES." Sec. 1. Be it enacted, &c., That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person, holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or On the 4th of May, 1798, Mr. Livermore, persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure, any insurfrom said committee, reported a bill concern-rection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combinaing aliens. It passed the Senate on the 8th tion, whether such conspiracy, threatening, of June, 1798, by yeas and nays, as follows:- counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the proYEAS-Messrs. Bingham of Pa., Chipman of Vt., Clayton posed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed of Del. Foster of R. I., Goodhue of Mass., Hillhouse of Conn., guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, on convicLatimer of Del.. Lawrence of N. Y. Livermore of N. H., tion before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished. by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months, nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his good behavior. in such sum and for such time as the said court may direct. : Lloyd of Md., Martin of N. C.. North of N. Y., Paine of Vt., Brown of Ky., Marshall of Ky., Mason of Va., Tattnal of Ga., and Tazewell of Va.-7. On the same day on which the Senate bill passed that body, a bill to the same effect was reported in the House by Mr. Sewall of Mass., from the Committee for the Protection of Com merce, &c. Both it and the Senate bill were Messrs. Gallatin of Williams of N. C., debated in the House. Pa., Baldwin of Geo., utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to Sec. 2. That if any person shall write, print, be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall, knowingly and willingly, assist or aid |