to show that he is entirely mistaken in that | United States; in other words, we made him

respect. The rule is rather the reverse, if there be any rule on the subject. The fact is, that there has been a variety of laws on that point. In some territories where there was no contest about it, the right was confined to citizens of the United States; in others, all the inhabitants possessing certain qualifications were allowed to vote. In all the N. W. Territory, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, aliens, under certain conditions, were permitted to vote, not only while those states were territories, but when they became states; and this provision was not peculiar to the North-Western States, as has been supposed.

Mr. CLAY. It has not been done at the South.

Mr. DOUGLAS. My friend from Alabama is mistaken in saying that it has not been done at the South. I remember well that I served some years ago on the committee of elections in the House of Representatives when there was a contested seat between Mr. John W. Jones and Mr. John M. Botts; and it turned out that Mr. Jones had received some eightynine votes, I think, of foreigners unnaturalized according to the laws of the United States, but who were legal voters according to the laws of Virginia. There certainly was a class of persons in Virginia, who, under her laws, were allowed to vote, although they were not naturalized citizens of the United States, and they did vote in that election between Jones and Botts under the law of Virginia, authorizing them to become voters, although they were not citizens of the United States according to the laws of the United States. It was under some special law. The impression is on my mind firmly, because I was on the committee that investigated this question.

Mr. HUNTER. Virginia, as you well know, Mr. President, has a naturalization act of her own, making citizens of Virginia, or prescribing the qualifications on which persons shall be citizens of the state of Virginia; but the provisions of that act are quite as stringent as those of the United States.

Mr. DOUGLAS. There is the very point. Virginia prescribes who shall be citizens of Virginia, and in some cases has not confined the right of voting to citizens of the United States. That is just what Michigan did when she came into the Union with a constitution, providing that all citizens of the United States should be permitted to vote, and also, all other persons who were inhabitants of the state at the time of the adoption of the constitution. By that constitution, Michigan made those other inhabitants who had not been naturalized, but possessed certain specified qualifications, citizens of the state of Michigan, although they were not citizens of the United States. That is precisely what we did in Illinois under the old constitution. We allowed an unnaturalized foreigner who possessed certain qualifications to vote in that state, although he had not become a citizen of the

a citizen of the state of Illinois, and authorized him to vote at our elections, notwithstanding the fact that he had not complied with the law of Congress in regard to citizenship. That is all Virginia has done, and I believe it is only in limited cases.

But, sir, I did not wish to open a debate on this subject. I referred to the Virginia case only for illustration. The simple question here is, shall we authorize the present legal voters of Minnesota to vote for the election of delegates to form a state constitution? I hope the amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. BROWN. I do not know that I quite concur with my friend from Pennsylvania on the point that you have no constitutional power to do this; I do not know that I am prepared to go quite so far as he goes on that question; but on the point of its expediency, in every possible sense in which the question can be presented, my mind is entirely free from all doubt. A man who votes in reference to the organization of a state-who settles the institutions of an infant state just coming into the Union, affects not only the rights of that state, but the rights of all the other states; he adds a new member to the confederacy-he aids in bringing two more votes on this floor. If he does not think well enough of the country to have shown his allegiance to its constitution and to its laws, what business has he, and upon what principle ought he to be allowed to take an active participation in moulding the institutions of a new member of the confe deracy? If he desire to vote, let him make himself a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the laws passed in obedience to your constitution. If his heart is in fatherland-if he is so much devoted to the land of his birth that he will not take the oath of allegiance, and will not take the preparatory steps to make himself a citizen of the country, I maintain that he ought to have nothing to do with this government, the making of its laws, or the shaping of the institutions of infant states.

Mr. MASON. Under the laws of Virginia, as they existed prior to 1850, there was a mode by which alien friends might become citizens of the state of Virginia. It was a part of her domestic policy. It was an old law, passed in 1792, the purpose of which was to invite emigration of valuable citizens either from without or within the United States to reside in Virginia, and certain privileges were given to them. Under that law, according to my recollection (and I have recently looked at it), it was provided only that, in addition to citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, such as the state of Virginia in her own good pleasure might deem proper to consider as her citizens under her laws, should be entitled to certain privileges, but not to all the privileges of citizens. It was provided, for instance, that any alien friend, who could give evidence of good character, migrating into Virginia for the

purpose of residing there, and who would, ka and Kansas to vote for delegates to form a take an oath of fidelity to the commonwealth state constitution; and the organic act authoof Virginia, should become a citizen of Vir-rized persons who had declared their intention ginia for certain purposes; but until he had to become citizens of the United States, and resided five years after that oath, he was de- had resided in the territory for twelve months, clared ineligible to any office, judicial, execu- to vote. The Senator from Mississippi moved tive, or otherwise; nor could he hold any to strike out that provision, so as to confine office until he had given some evidence of the qualifications of electors for members of the permanent attachment by intermarrying with convention to citizens of the United States. a citizen of Virginia or a citizen of the United A discussion was had on that amendment, States, or purchasing a freehold estate of a and by the vote which I have before me it was adopted. That was the last bill adopted by this body in relation to this matter. The amendment of the Senator from Mississippi was adopted by a vote of twenty-two to fifteen. The votes were:

Mr. BELL, of Tenn. In 1787 all were regarded as citizens, and so they were until we made the constitution, and prescribed a uniform rule of naturalization.

Mr. РUGH. Let us see what the ordinance of 1787 says:

"Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years; and in either case he shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within the same: Provided, also, That a freehold of fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the states, and being a resident in the district, or the like free hold and two years' residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative."

was applied with the anti-slavery clause to Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. It was applied, excepting the anti-slavery clause, to every other territory you had, down, I believe, to the case of Florida; and I do not know but that it was extended to Florida. Therefore, when Senators say, as the Senator from South Carolina has said, that here is a proposition different from anything we have heard of before, I say that, until the year 1846, when the proviso was inserted in the Iowa and Wisconsin bills, I have not been able to find a case in which such a prohibition as that was put upon a new state. That is all I have to say on that point.

Now, one word to my friend from Mississippi, [Mr. Adams.] He refers to the vote

taken in the Senate at the last session on the

If that is not alien suffrage, I confess myself unable to understand the English language. He may be a citizen of the United States or not; and in either case the pro-Kansas pacification bill, and says that the perty qualification is superadded and a certain residence required-less residence for a citizen than an alien. That is the ordinance of 1787, which I say was extended over Tennessee while she was a territory; and when she formed her constitution, and applied for admission, it was formed by the qualified electors mentioned in that ordinance.

Mr. BELL, of Tenn. I ask the honorable Senator again, if, up to the time when the uniform rule of naturalization was passed by Congress under the constitution, aliens were admitted or not at pleasure?

Mr. Puan. There was a uniform rule of naturalization at the time the act constituting the territorial government of Tennessee was passed. There was an express distinction.

Mr. BELL, of Tenn. There was no notice taken of it. It was a mere extension of the provisions of the ordinance, with nothing excepted but a single clause.

Mr. PUGH. The Senator is right in saying there was no question about it; but it is my purpose to show that the question has been raised of late years. Tennessee came in with it. The same ordinance of 1787, with the exception of the anti-slavery clause, was extended over Louisiana, and she came in with it. It was extended over Mississippi and Alabama, and they came in with it. It was extended over Arkansas and Missouri; and the famous Missouri compromise of 1820 expressly admits alien suffrage. I have it here. Here is the third section of the act of 1820, to authorize the people of Missouri to form constitution and state government:

a

"That all free white male citizens of the United States, who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and

Senate, by its vote, struck out the permission to aliens to vote in Kansas. I voted against that; but I think the Senator will recollect the argument which he himself stated. What

was it? In the Kansas-Nebraska bill we au

thorized aliens to vote at the first election; but thereafter they were to vote or not as the torial legislature, which is said to have repreterritorial legislature provided. The first terrisented the pro-slavery party, voted the aliens out. That was the action of that branch of the people. The Topeka constitution, which the people, voted them out, too, so that it was was said to represent the free-state branch of said to be the unanimous vote of the people of Kansas, on both sides, that aliens should not vote; and, therefore, although I voted against striking it out in the Kansas pacification bill, I did not think it of much import

ance.

Mr. ADAMS. It is the vote of sensible men

everywhere, in all countries.

Mr. PUGH. I do not know that it is. The

Senator may think so. In the state I represent, undoubtedly in the territorial organization aliens were entitled to vote under the ordinance of 1787; and the first constitution of the state, by its proper language, would have admitted them, though, in practice, they did not vote to any great extent. By-and-by the legislature passed an election act, and excluded them. The present constitution excludes them. It is not a question in which I have any interest, because there has never been actually alien suffrage in my state since

it has been a state.

Here is the point: You passed, in 1849, a have resided in said territory three months previous to the law organizing a territorial government in day of election, and all other persons qualified to vote for rep- Minnesota, and followed nine-tenths of the resentatives to the General Assembly, shall be qualified to be elected, and they are hereby qualified and authorized to precedents, overruling the exceptional cases vote to choose representatives to form a convention, who of Iowa and Wisconsin; and you said to shall be apportioned among the several counties as follows." everybody: "Go there and settle, and you Who are authorized to vote? All persons may be a citizen of the territory." They who, under the ordinance of 1787, could vote. have gone over, lived peaceably, and elected That was the only territorial law you had. a local legislature. You have had no disturb Your whole territorial legislation was in ap-ance or trouble there. You have not had to plying the general principles of the ordi- proclaim martial law, as in other territories. nance of 1787, excepting the anti-slavery You have never had any disturbance. Still, elause, to all except certain territories. It on an abstract proposition, you propose to

Mr. ADAMS. My remark was not a general one. I said paupers and criminals came here, and Congress refused to pass any law to prohibit them. I did not say the respectable portion of them were so, but I said paupers and criminals came here.

condemn these gentlemen in the lump. My | tinctly that they intended to exclude aliens. friend from Mississippi said they were pau- This is the act admitting Alabama, and it is pers and criminals; and I believe his col- the same m the other cases. They never league [Mr. Brown], the other day, said they thought in that day of allowing a commonwere led up in a body to vote. I do not find wealth to come into the confederacy under it so in my neighborhood. I find they are the auspices of alienage. I am opposed to about as much divided in their votes and the whole of the doctrine which would proopinions as native-born citizens. scribe the foreigner; I am his friend; and I say to the foreigner who comes here with a view to adopt this as his country, "Be jealous of the right which you have to come here; do not let every one come to compete with you." The foreigners that came here twenty and thirty and forty years ago, came from choice; they came here on principle, understanding that they were to abide by the institutions and comply with the laws of this country. They did not come here as upstarts to take their place upon the political chess-board before they were invited. When my friend from Ohio undertakes to say that these states were admitted by foreigners, I say it is not so-I speak of the act admitting Alabama, now.

Mr. PUGH. The criminals will never find their way to your territories. They will never go there to settle. It is peaceable men who go there. The criminal infests your cities. There is no danger of his voting under this bill. As to a pauper, if gentlemen mean by that term a man who has no great amount of property, instead of considering him an injury to the country, I consider him a great benefit, and hope they will all come.

Mr. STUART. We are pretty near the end of this day, and pretty near the end of this session, and therefore, I simply ask the Senate to proceed to a vote. It seems to me we ought to proceed to take a vote on the question.

Mr. BUTLER. I am not to be called to vote suddenly on a matter of this kind when other people introduce it; and if gentlemen have a mind to introduce this measure again it is not my fault. The time of the Senate would have admonished me not to have it taken up; but as they have taken it up, the Senator from Michigan is mistaken if he supposes I will not probe it to the bottom.

I say my friend from Ohio is in error; and when Senators undertake to force me on a matter so deeply affecting us, I shall vote against the admission of Minnesota if they refuse to put in this amendment. I intend to put myself right before the country in relation to what I said, for I do not like, as a lawyer, to say anything that is not maintainable by the statute. The act in regard to Alabama provides:

"And be it further enacted, That all white male citizens

of the United States"

that excludes women

"who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years"— that excludes minors

"and have resided in the said territory three months pre

vious to the day of election-"

that excludes all who did not go there and were not there within three months

"and all persons having in other respects the legal qualifications to vote for members of the General Assembly of the said territory, be, and they are hereby authorized. "

What persons are excluded? Indians, negroes, and aliens. If it meant anything, it intended to give the power to vote only to those who had the right to vote. I suppose it was intended to give it to all white persons who had been there longer than three months, and the fact that it enumerated white male citizens twenty-one years of age, showed dis

Mr. РUGH. I use that very act to prove what I said. The gentleman has only to read it to the Senate to show that I am right.

Mr. BUTLER. I have read it; and I venture to say there are no two men in the Senate, when you get them in a corner, who will deny my construction. I have no doubt that here, when you have a big crowd with you, you will be sustained; but take them by themselves, and ask them to tell the truth, and every one will agree with me.

Feb. 25, 1857, Mr. Green moved to reconsider the above vote.

Mr. Biggs called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 31, nays 21; as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Allen, Bell of N. H., Bigler, Bright, Cass,

Collamer, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot,
Foster, Green, Hale, Harlan, James, Johnson, Jones of Ia,
Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Yule-31.
head, Brown, Butler, Clay, CRITTENDEN, Evans, Fish, Fite
patrick, Geyer, HOUSTON, Hunter, Mason, Pratt, Reid, Rusk,
Sidell, and THOMPSON, of Ky.-21.

Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey,

NAYS.-Messrs. ADAMS, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs. Brod

Democrats in italic, Republicans in roman, Americans in small caps.

So the vote adopting the first amendment was reconsidered.

The presiding officer, [Mr. Foot in the chair.] The question is upon the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. Biggs.)

Mr. ADAMS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 24, nays 32; as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. ADAMS, Bayard, BELL of Tenn., Benjamin,
Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, CRITTENDEN, Fish,

Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, HOUSTON, Hunter, Iverson, Jones of
Tenn., Mason, Pratt, Reid, Rusk, Slidell, and THOMPSON of

Ky.-24.

NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Bell of N. H., Bigler, Bright, Cass, Collamer, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Green, Hale, Harlan, James, Johnson, Jones of Io., Mallory, Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Yulee.-32.

Democrats in italic, Republicans in roman, Americans in small caps.