The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-04-09
Aliens and Real Estate.

and especially The night confer foreign citizens and
.obscts by treaty spulahons the privilege 10 acquire
and bold lands in The dhrn, States OF the oonlederaey
We did not egard those numallons worthy Of com
usnt until yesterday. when the National Iaielhgersr
vubished an article which IL says is from the pen Of
Al emnsai larsl, pretending 10 make more specific
statement Of the question al issue. and contendBg thai
The night ia question vested in general government,
IS an ineidsAi 10 the power make treaties We do not.
Of course pretend 10 know how The points Of secret
debate have beeH made pubic; and we cannot imagine
tnst peading such debate would so far for
gel himsef 10 address The public anonymously with
regard TO ii through the columns Of newspaper Bal
the communication in The Inisiiige~aer is marked BY
degree Of particularly which induces 70 notice il,
From the article alluded TO- learn that the treaty with
Switzerland b. The lae administration gives 10
ioregn Swiss citizens The right 10 inherit real estate in
ny of The States OF This conederacy notwithstanding the
mohib,ory enactnenis Of the State governments, We
learn from the same that Mr. Butler. OF South
C.rona The chairman OF The judiciary Committee OF the
Ssuuie denies the tight claimed by the late admnisra
ion under the treaty making power, and that MIR Ever
eft, late Secretary Of Stsis and senator from Mas
saehusens has shown that similar provision has been
Incorporated in many OF the treaties which the United
States have formed with different foreign powers. When
and where MIR Everett has shown this, we not told
We are not aware OF any public document emanalng
from him which makes out. preiends TO make out,
such case and il be has attempted such task in the
Senate. which is probable considering bis connexion
with the late administration, the correspondent who has
Undertaken 10 enlighen the public the peadng ques
hon shoald have specified the cited by the senator
pt. bo
and be does mol refer 10 them furnished by Mr. Ever
s neither OF which the authority commended for
part OF the treaty making power. The first is The
treaty with England in 1883, and the second that with
France in l7sSbosh before the adoption OF the pres
emf constitution. which formed relations between
The State and federal governments. This fact OF
itself is suficien, TO overthrow the precedent which is
sought to be established By reference those treaties but
does mol stand alone The treaty with England did
not pretend 10 conIer ON British subjects The right
cure lands IN the States of the confedsrscy II simply
stipulated that the rights existing before The revelation
should Re respected. Ii did not confer privileges bat
only prohibited the conhscalon Of existing privileges
BY providing that British subjects holding lands in the
United S,aes and their heirs, far regards those
lands and the remedies incident thereto, should be
considered aliens The operation OF tins provision
was confined 10 lands held by valid title previous
the treaty. and did not confer on British subjects The
rYh, 10 acquire any other lands either by descent
purchase, or in any other manner. The cases cited
(H4rlin "a, Fisher. Wheat 800. and Martin rs Hunters
lessee Wheat sso) do ao extend the treaty so as 10
permit the acquisition OF lands on the contrary they
expressly limit rights existing before the treaty
made The treaty with France concluded in I7ss.
Il a. II.
citizens The right 10 ssqaire real property in France,
and French subjects similar rights in the States of
the eonfsderaey. That treaty. dictated by the feelings
growing ost Of the closing events OF the revolu,op.
when France ally Of such character that
the federal authority since created could venture 10
initiate il for it established sneh relations between the
contracting parties as 10 peril peace by threatening
enangle European in the FIRST instance, and u
maely with France herself because we did no, make com
with her. An act OF Congress abrogaed the
treaty. and the subsequent convention of 1900 disposed
Of the right OF French citizens hold real estate by
providing that, the laws OF either OF the
tracing powers should Restrain strangers from the
oise OF the rights OF property with respect such
sies they might be sold Otherwise disposed OF aft
iahsbuaais Of The eoua,ry vhers might BE- II
thus appears that the irea,y-nakng power did moi in
$500 claim the power exercised in 7ss under The articles
Of confederation 1t left the rights OF aliens TO be dis
posed Of By other authority only resevng TO them the
night to dispose Of their property during life States
where IL would Otherwise be esebeaiable Such is the
construction OF the convention Of 1900 given BY the Su-
preme Coar, in the case Of Chrac Is Chirar Wheat
2js-ihe very cited by the Iaieigeacsrs cores.
Ponden, support the right of the federal government
confer on foreign citizens and subjects The night to acquire
and devise lands in the different States Of this Uaoo
!, Is no, our purpose al The present moment 10 20 iuio
general Argument this Subject, to define the lin
rs oil the treaty making power. But il passing
strange that after si1yiour years have elapsed, during
'ubeci, the treaty power should claim the night
70 bulfy their laws and establish system Of absentee
ism in defiance OF them Such claim put forward BY
The federal government in the ordinary way would be
startling, and II is doubly when the right claim.
ed rs 10 be exercised IN secret. and without consult
ing The national legislature. The Iateiigenors cor
respondent says chat this power has been constant
y exercised BY the executive in The formation OF
treaties, by Congress 10 framing laws, and repeat
edly ,aRcioned BY jodeia decisions OF the highest
tribunals. We respectfully cs for the treaties. laws,
and decisions recognising such principle The treaties
and decisions which have been cited do susisn such
ssension and il there is any act OF Congress which
does, We have heard OF i. and has attempt
ed 10 enforce Il Ga the contrary. the States have hth
er'o taken urs LECTION of the subject and the Supreme
.0o has recognised the validity Of their action 10