Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1854-11-14
NUMBER 2.

power, whilst exercised by the States, pro-
duced the evils of conflicting legislation, and
contradictory rules That evil was to be RENE
died, 1t was remedied by transferring tho
power to the national legislature, where II most
properly belongs. Is not, then, this power in
Congress cxclusive2 Rawle so considers it,
IN his treatise before cited, page IS. Bayard
80 considers 1t, in his view Of the constitution,
page II. He says:
| This power is, from Its nature, exclusive;
for, If the several States could legislate on this
subject they might require very different quail
ifications for citizens, and aliens would become
citizens of the United States upon very unequal
terms, according to the laws of the particular
States in which they might be naturalized."
| Itwas held in the circuit court Of the Uni
ted States, at Philadelphia, in 1892, in the case
of Collet cs. Colet 2 Dallas, 294, that the State
| governments had concurrent authority with
Congress, upon the subject Of naturalization.
But this decision has been overruled. In tho
circuit court in 1914, Judge Washington de-
cided in the case Of Golden ps. Prince, 8 Wash
ingtons Circuit Reports, 814, that this power
was exclusive in Congress. And at n later pc
riod in the case Of Chirac vs. Chirac, 2 Whea-
ton, page 269 Chief Justice Marshall said, that
"it certainly ought not to be controvertcd, that
the power of naturalization was vested cxclu-
|
rs. Moore, 5 Wheaton, page 40, Justice Story,
alluding to this power, considers it exclusive,
on the ground Of their being direct repugnan-
cy or incompatibility in the exercise of it by
the States.
In the very able commentaries of this same
judge, upon the Constitution Of tho United
States vol g. chap 16, sec. 538, he uses tho
following language "It follows from the very
nature of this power, that to be useful, it must
be exclusive: for concurrent power in the
States would bring back all the evils and cm-
barrassments which the uniform rule Of the
Constitution was designed to remedy. And
accordingly, though there was a momentary
hesitation when the constitution first went into
operation, whether the power must not still be
exercised by the States, subject only to the
control of Congress, so far as the legislation Of
the latter extended, as the supreme law, yet II
is now firmly established to be exclusive in
Congress"
Chancellor Kent, i'll commenting upon this
subject, and reviewing the authorities, does not
hesitate to say, that " the weight of authority,
as well as OF reason may therefore be consd-
cred in favor of this construction If then,
the opinions of Bayard, Rawle, Story, and
Kent, sanctioned by the decisions Of the cir
cult and Supreme Courts of the United States,
are to be regarded as authority, the position is
impregnable, and the question clear beyond all
controversy, that Congress has the exclusive
power Of legislation on the important subject
of naturalization. Indeed, if it were other
wise, what would prevent New York, or any
other State, from naturalizing million Of AZ
ricans who, ipso .tacto, would be T" entitled to
all the privileges and immunities Of citizens in
the several States" under the I'd section of the
4th article of the constitution Justice rea-
son, and authority, forbid such a construction
as this. If it should still beinsisted however,
that because tho Supreme Court has decided
that the power Of Copgresa to pass uniform
bankrupt law is not exclusive, but that in the
absence of lsw of Congress, State may pass
insolyent or bankrupt laws, and that for as
much as the power Of Congress over this SUBJ
| ect is conferred in the same clause with the
| power to establish uniform rule Of naturaliza
ton, therefore the same principle Of construc~
| ton should apply it may be answered, that
the effect Of the exercise Of the two powers by
individual States, would be totally different
| We have seen that If the several States could
naturalize foreigners whilst the clause Of the
| constitution comforting upon the citizens of
each State all the immunities of citizens Of the
several States, is unrepealed, it would be in the
power Of any one State to confer upon foreign
ers the right to be citizens of oil the other
States. But the insolvent or bankrupt laws Of
an individual State could only operate within
| its limits. It has been decided repeatedly, that
the discharge of an insolvent under State
law will not discharge debt due to citizen
of another State who does not make himself a
party to the proceeding under the law" See
I'd vol. Kents Com, page 392, and the cases
there cited. II may also be observed, that
4 whilst the power over the subject Of naturaliza-
| ton was conferred upon Congress to remedy
an evil would again prevail under the construc-
ton that this power in Congress is not exclu-
sive, the power to establish an uniform bank
rupt law was not conferred to remedy any
particular existing evil, but granted to enable
| Congress to effect positive good, whilst the
| failure Of Congress to exercise the latter power
would not result in any immediate general mis-
! chief For these reasons doubtless, the samo
! courts and the same jurists have held the ono
power TO be exclusive and the -other not so.
We repeat, then, that the power of Congress
over the subject Of naturalizing foreigners is
general, comprehensive, and exclusive. The
individual States, therefore, cannot pass laws
of naturalization, for they have surrendered
! this power to Congress, and it may be excr-
cised or not in the discretion Of that body. If
exercised therefore, il would seem also to be
indisputablc, that Congress may impose what
ever conditions, limitations, and restrictions
! it may please in reference to the time, mode,
and terms Of naturalization.
! We have thus, feow-citizens presented our
views on this question, in order to meet fully
this objection made to our action. But it
must not be forgotten that we do not propose
that Congress shall repeal the present laws of
naturalization, without, at the same time, cx-
ercising their clear and unquestioned powers
| in the enactment Of other provisions upon the
subject.
So far, therefore, as we may at any time in
| fuence the legislation Of Congress, there will
be no failure on the part Of that body so to ex-
ercise the power granted that there may be no
pretext on the part Of the several States to at
| tempt to resume its exercise nor do we think
it indispensable to effect our objects, that the
right Of Congress to impose conditions upon
the recipients Of naturalization excluding them
from the polls, should be recognised. Clear
and undoubtcd as it would seem, this power of
| nrcccrib;no tho pndo time and tnrtua nc MAIN