Rhode-Island constitutionalist. [volume] (Providence [R.I.]) 1834-1834, 1834-03-12

anu .Dy Mr. DaFlu DaHieis, VI NuhIoei
land, on the ground that when the Nat
uralization Laws of the United States
have placed foreigner upon level with
native citizen, it is questionable how
far distinction to his disadvantage, as
to the right of suffrage, is constitutional.
This objection was replied to by Mr..
Il. w. Dorr, who said, that he contended
for the doctrine ofnatural rights; subject
only to the imposition ofsuch restrictions
as the greatest good of the whole impera-
lively required. He thought that public
necessity justified the restriction imposed
in this resolution upon persons born out
of the jurisdiction of the United States
The proposition was, that upon becoming
qaturalized, having resided, &c. and
owned landed estate, of the value OF
one hundred and thirty-four dollars, Tor
length of time to be determined by
those who may frame Constitution, such
persons should be permitted to vote;
This provision would place naturallzed
foreigners upon a better footing than
that of freeholders under the present sys-
TEN; for they lost their vote on parting
with their land, which would not be the
case with the naturalized foreigner.
That the good of the whole required
this partial restriction would appear from
the condition of large portion OF the
yearly emigration to this country, as 1t
respects fitness for participating IN a
republican government. One hundred
and fifty thousand persons had IN one
year emigrated from different parts OF
Europe to North-America by far the
greater portion of whom had come direct
ly to the United States. Most of them
had been the subjects of great oppression
in the countries from which they came,
where they were kept in ignorance and
imbued with the ideas of a monarchical
system. They were welcome to our
shores and to the greater freedoms and
security of our laws. But they ought to
become in some measure assimillted to
our habits and feelings, and acquire a
knowledge of our institutions, and an at
tachmcnt to them before being admitted
too perfect equality ofpolitical privileges.
The State naturally looks for some evil
dence of an intention Of permanent resi-
dence, and form those attachments to
the adopted country which grow up nat
urally in the mind of the native citizen.
Mr.. Dorr desired to dsclaim any other
than friendly feelings toward those of
foreign birth now resident among us,
among whom are some of our most valu-
able and eminent citizens. But notwith-
standing these feelings, it was necessary
to bear in mind the principle of the great
est good of the whole, aud make such a
restriction as in this instance it seemed
to demand.
Mr.. Dorr replied to the objection, that,
after naturalization, foreigner is an
American to every intent and must
stand on the same footing in each of the
States, with all native citizens. lie con-
tended that the only effect of naturaliza-
ton was to place the foreigner under the
protection of the general government as
an adopted citizen, to make.him eligible
to office under that government, to ena-
BILE him to hold lands in each of the
States, which he could not do before, un-
less permitted by special act of a State !;
and to place him in condition of COM
potency to receive such political privile-
ges as the different States might allow to
him, upon his settlement in either OF
them. The Constitution of the United
States makes no special provision for the
privileges Of the naturaized foreigner in
the several States. The article which
has been cited cannot, with any proprie-
ty, be so construed as to make the pro-
posed restriction upon those who are
born abroad, unconstitutional. That ar
ticle provides, that the citizens of each
State shall be entitled to the privileges of
citizens in the several States. The
meaning of it is this "a citizen going
from one State to another, does not take
with him the political rights which he en-
joyed in the former, but partakes of such
as arc established in the latter, and in
tho same deuree with its own citizens