The following speech of the Hon. John C. | tionable right to prescribe the qualifications Calhoun, of South Carolina, was delivered in of voters, as proposed by the Senator from the Senate of the United States, April 2, 1836, on the motion of Senator Porter, of Louisiana, to recommit the bill to establish the Northern boundary of Ohio, and for the admission of Michigan into the Union.

The speech will be found in vol. 2d of the Works of Mr. Calhoun, page 496 to 559.

Mr. Calhoun said:

Kentucky, and that the exercise of such right whether a state has a right to confer on an does not involve, in any degree, the question alien the rights of citizenship, I must repeat the expression of my regret, that my colleague has felt it to be his duty to raise a question so novel and important, when we have so little leisure for bestowing on it the attention which it deserves. But, since he considers its decision as necessarily involved in the question before us, I feel it to be my duty to state the reasons why I cannot concur with him in opinion.

I regret that my colleague has thought proper to raise the question, whether a state has a right to make an alien a citizen of the state. The question is one of great magnitude-pre- I do not deem it necessary to follow my colsented for the first time, and claiming a more league and the Senator from Kentucky, in full and deliberate consideration than can be their attempt to define or describe a citizen. bestowed on it now. It is not necessarily in- Nothing is more difficult than the definition, volved in the present question. The point or even description, of so complex an idea; now at issue is, not whether a state or terri- and hence all arguments resting on one defitory has a right to make an alien a citizen, nition, in such cases, almost necessarily lead but whether Congress has a right to prescribe to uncertainty and doubt. But though we may the qualifications of the voters for members not be able to say, with precision, what a citiof the convention to form a constitution, pre-zen is, we may say with the utmost certainty, paratory to the admission of a territory into the Union. I presume that even my colleague will not deny that Congress has the right. The Constitution confers on Congress the power to govern the territories, and, of course, to prescribe the qualifications of voters within them-without any restriction-unless, indeed, such as the ordinance and Constitution may enforce a power that expires only when a territory becomes a state.

what he is not. He is not an alien. Alien and citizen are correlative terms, and stand in contradistinction to each other. They, of course, cannot coexist. They are, in fact, so opposite in their nature, that we conceive of the one but in contradistinction to the other. Thus far all must be agreed. My next step is not less certain.

The Constitution confers on Congress the authority to pass uniform laws of naturalization. This will not be questioned; nor will it be, that the effect of naturalization is to remove alienage. I am not certain that the word is a legitimate one.

(Mr. Preston said, in a low tone, it was.) My colleague says it is. His authority is high on such questions, and with it, I feel myself at liberty to use the word. To remove alienage is simply to put the foreigner in the condition of a native-born. To this extent the act of naturalization goes, and no further.

The practice of the government has been in conformity with these views; and there is not an instance of the admission of a territory into the Union, in which Congress has not prescribed the qualifications of the voters for members of the state, on its admission. The power which Congress has thus invariably exercised, we claim to exercise on the present occasion, by prescribing who shall be the voters to form the constitution for the government of Michigan, when admitted into the Union. Michigan is not yet a state. Her constitution is not yet formed. It is, at best, but in an incipient state, which can only be consummated by complying with the constitution which we may prescribe for her admission. A convention is to be called, under this bill, to agree to these conditions. On motion of the Senator from New York (Mr. Wright), a provision was introduced into the bill, giving the right to the people of the territory at large-without limitation or restriction, as to age, sex, color, or citizenship-to vote for the members of the convention. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), while the I am now prepared to decide the question amendment of the Senator from New York which my colleague has raised. I have shown was pending, moved to amend the amend that a citizen is not an alien, and that alienment by striking out people, and inserting age is an inseparable barrier, till removed, to free white citizens of twenty-one years of age, citizenship; and that it can only be removed thus restricting the voters to the free white by complying with the act of Congress. It citizens of the United States, in conformity follows, of course, that a state cannot, of its with what has been usual on such occasions. own authority, make an alien a citizen withBelieving that Congress had the unques-out such compliance. To suppose it can, in

The next position I assume is no less certain: that when Congress has exercised its authority, by passing a uniform law of naturalization (as it has), it excludes the right of exercising a similar authority on the part of the state. To suppose that the states could pass naturalization acts of their own, after Congress had passed an uniform law of naturalization, would be to make the provision of the Constitution nugatory. I do not deem it necessary to dwell on this point, as I understood my colleague as acquiescing in its correctness.

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. Attendance 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 contradictions 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.

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 a petition through hin to the Senate, praying for a redress of grievance? And yet such might be his condition on the principle for which he contends.

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 the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a state can make an alien a citizen of the state-or, to present the question 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

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 politic, those who might be placed in so degraded 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.

In conferring this power the framers of the Constitution must have had two objects in view: One to prevent competition between the states in holding out inducements for the emi gration of foreigners, and the other to prevent their improper influence over the general gov ernment, 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 belonging 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

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 passing uniform laws of naturalization, or, as as to the interests of the country. New York I have shown, simply to remove alienage. To gives about one-sixth of the electoral votes in this extent it may clearly go under the Conthe choice of President and Vice President; stitution; and it is no less clear that it cannot and it is well known that her political institu- go an inch beyond without palpably transcendtions keep the state nearly equally divided into ing its powers, and violating the Constitution. two great political parties. The addition of Every other privilege, except those which nea few thousand votes either way might turn cessarily flow from the removal of alienage, the scale, and the electors might, in fact, owe must be conferred by the Constitution and the their election, on the supposition, to the votes authority of the state. My remarks are, of of unnaturalized foreigners. The Presiden- course, confined to the states; for within the tial election might depend on the electoral vote territories the authority of Congress is as comof the state, and a President be chosen in plete in this respect as that of the states within reality by them; that is, they might give us their respective limits, with the exception of a king, for, under the usurpations of the pre- such limitations as the ordinance to which I sent chief magistrate, the President is in fact have referred may impose. a king. I ask my colleague if we ought wil- But to pass to the question immediately belingly 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. 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 with- community on which it depends. Who shall out requiring the inhabitants, at the time, to or shall not exercise political power? and what conform to the act of naturalization. I must shall be the qualifications possessed by them? think the instance is not in point. That was and how shall they be appointed? are all questhe case of the incorporation of a foreign com- tions to be determined by the paramount community, which had been acquired by treaty, as munity; and in the case under consideration, a member of our confederacy. At the time of to be determined by Congress, which has the the acquisition they were subjects of France, right under the Constitution, to prescribe all and owed allegiance to that government. The necessary rules for the government of the tertreaty transferred their allegiance to the Uni- ritories not inconsistent with the provisions of ted States; and the difficulty of incorporating the Constitution. This very bill, in fact, Louisiana into the Union arose, not under the admits the right. It prescribes that the peoact of naturalization, but the right of acqui-ple of Michigan shall vote for the convention ring foreign possessions by purchase, and the to form her constitution on becoming a state. right of incorporating such possessions into If it belongs to the territory of Michigan (she the Union. These were felt, at the time, to is not yet a state) to determine who shall vote be questions of great difficulty. Mr. Jefferson for the members of the convention, this athimself, under whose administration the pur-tempt on our part to designate who shall be chase 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

If the

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

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 runaway 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. 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.

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 requisites, can he acquire the right of citizenship? 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.

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 estab- It is said, in this connection, that the States lished for the government of the territory, or have always exercised this power. That was are they those who, under the instrument said by some gentlemen who have preceded me called the constitution, are authorized to vote? in this debate. Allow me to say, that I think Why leave so essential a point in so uncertain that is a great mistake. You know that this & condition, when we have the power to re- subject anxiously engaged the attention of move the uncertainty? If it be meant by the those who preceded us; and without dwelling people of Michigan, the qualified voters under upon it, I beg leave to call the attention of the her incipient constitution (as stated by the House to what, in debating the naturalization Senator from New York), then are we sanc-laws in 1795, Mr. Gallatin said. The question tioning 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 IIoUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
MAY 6TH AND 11TH, 1858, ON THE QUESTION
OF ALIEN SUFFRAGE, AS ALLOWED IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNE-

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

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 ?

66

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