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 declared ineligible to any office, judicial, executive, or otherwise; nor could he hold any office until he had given some evidence of permanent attachment by intermarrying with a citizen of Virginia or a citizen of the United States, or purchasing a freehold estate of a certain value.

That was the law of Virginia; and such people were entitled to vote in the state of Virginia, under the laws of Virginia; a right that I hold pertains to every state, and which it is not in the power of the Federal Government to qualify or take from them in any way. The Constitution of the United States has reserved to the government a power to declare uniform rules of naturalization; and the only effect of that is, when under those laws of naturalization an alien is made a citizen of the United States, to entitle him to what? To such privileges of citizenship as the Constitution confers, but no further; nor does it derogate in the slightest degree, in my humble judgment, from the right of every state of its Sovereign will and pleasure to declare who shall be citizens, and who shall not be citizens, within its own limits, subject, of course, and subject only, to so much power as the state may have parted with to the Federal Government.

Upon the particular provision now before us, I shall vote certainly for the amendment offered by the honorable Senator from North Carolina, because I deny absolutely that there is any power, or ought to be any power, delegated to any territory, or to the people of any territory, to declare who shall, as citizens of the territory, vote to erect themselves into an independent state, and by association with the states in the Union, to take their share in the administration of the government of the United States, and their partition in the policy of the United States. When the territory become a state under the Constitution, she is placed upon the footing of all the states, and has all the power that any other state has; and then, if in the pleasure of the state she chooses to admit any persons to citizenship, or to vote, who are neither naturalized by the laws of the states, nor the laws of the United States, well and good; it is her power and her pleasure.

Mr. BIGGS. It will be recollected that a discussion took place here during the first session of the present Congress in regard to the bill authorizing the people of Kansas to form a state constitution. On that occasion an amendment was offered by the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. ADAMS,] differing in form, but in substance precisely the same character as this. That bill, as reported by the Committee on Territories, allowed those persons who were qualified voters by the organic law passed for the territories of Nebras

had resided in the territory for twelve months, to vote. The Senator from Mississippi moved to strike out that provision, so as to confine the qualifications of electors for members of the convention to citizens of the United States. A discussion was had on that amendment, 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:

YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bell of Tenn., Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Clay, Clayton, Collamer, Crittenden, Fessenden, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Foster, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Mallory, Mason, Reid, Thompson of Ky., Yulee. NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Bigler, Bright, Cass, Dodge, Douglas, Jones of Ia., Pugh, Seward, Stuart, Slidell, Toucey, Weller, Wilson, Wright.

I put it to the Senator from Illinois, now, whether there was any authority by the law creating the Territories of Indiana and Illinois, or authorizing them to form a state constitution, to allow any but citizens of the United States to vote?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Clearly.

Mr. BIGGS. I do not so understand.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The organic law of Indiana territory was the ordinance of 1787; the or ganic law of Illinois territory was the ordinance of 1787; and so with all the northwestern territories. The ordinance of 1787, which constituted the organic law of those territories, expressly provided that citizens of the different states residing there and having a certain amount of property should vote; and it expressly authorized unnaturalized persons to vote, as well as naturalized citizens, provided they owned property. If my friend will look into the matter he will find that there is no question that, under the organic law of those territories, unnaturalized foreigners could and did vote while they were territories; and then the acts authorizing those territories to form constitutions and state governments, provided that all citizens of the United States could vote, and also, all such other persons as were qualified to vote in the territories by existing laws, showing clearly that there was an express recognition of the rights of unnaturalized foreigners to vote who were authorized to vote under the territorial laws. That brings those cases exactly within the limits of the bill now under consideration.

Mr. TOUCEY. Mr. President. I do not rise for the purpose of debating this question: but as I differ from some of my friends on this point, I wish to state the grounds of my own action.

That clause in the Constitution of the Unite: States which prescribes the body of electors for the election of members of the House of Representatives, refers it to the constitution and laws of the several states; so that every state determines for itself its own electoral

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. PUGH. Let us see what the ordinance of 1787 says:

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, “Provided, That no person be eligible or qualified to act when Senators say, as the Senator from South as a representative unless he shall have been a citizen of Carolina has said, that here is a proposition ɔne of the United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district different from anything we have heard of three years; and in either case he shall likewise hold in his before, I say that, until the year 1846, when own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within the proviso was inserted in the Iowa and Wisthe same: Provided, also, That a freehold of fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the consin bills, I have not been able to find a states, and being a resident in the district, or the like free-case in which such a prohibition as that was hold and two years' residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative."

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 property 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. PUGH. 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 a constitution and state government:

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

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 Kansas pacification bill, and says that the 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 thorized aliens to vote at the first election; was it? In the Kansas-Nebraska bill we aubut thereafter they were to vote or not as the territorial legislature provided. The first territorial legislature, which is said to have represented the pro-slavery party, voted the aliens out. That was the action of that branch of the people. The Topeka constitution, which was said to represent the free-state branch of the people, voted them out, too, so that it was 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

taken in the Senate at the last session on the

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, clause, 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 in 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 inind to introduce this measure again it is not my fault. The time of the Senate would have almonished 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.

Mr. PUGH. 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:

Foster, Green, Hale, Harlan, James. Johnson. Jones of la.,

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 YEAS.-Messrs. Allen, Bell of N. H., Bigler, Bright, Cass, against the admission of Minnesota if they Collamer, Dodge, Douglas. Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, refuse to put in this amendment. I intend to Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey, put myself right before the country in rela- Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Yulee-31. tion to what I said, for I do not like, as a head, Brown, Butler, Clay. CRITTENDEN, Evans, Fish, Fitz lawyer, to say anything that is not maintain-patrick, Geyer, HOUSTON, Hunter, Mason, Pratt, Reid, Rush, able by the statute. The act in regard to Siidell, and THOMPSON, of Ky.—21. Alabama provides:

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

of the United States"—

that excludes women

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, Jimes 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.

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:

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-presented for the first time, and claiming a more full and deliberate consideration than can be bestowed on it now. It is not necessarily involved in the present question. The point now at issue is, not whether a state or territory has a right to make an alien a citizen, but whether Congress has a right to prescribe the qualifications of the voters for members of the convention to form a constitution, preparatory 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.

Her

Kentucky, and that the exercise of such right does not involve, in any degree, the question whether a state has a right to confer on an 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 do not deem it necessary to follow my colleague and the Senator from Kentucky, in their attempt to define or describe a citizen. Nothing is more difficult than the definition, or even description, of so complex an idea; and hence all arguments resting on one definition, in such cases, almost necessarily lead to uncertainty and doubt. But though we may not be able to say, with precision, what a citizen is, we may say with the utmost certainty, 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 naturaliza tion. 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. 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.