Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1854-12-16
involved should be thoroughly examined. Ell,

nknt1 anu vi SieiNohe, v" 50
| limits. This question Is Of the highest impor-
lance. Prior 10 the adoption Of the Federsi Con.
slituton, this power was possessed and exercised
by the several States The consequence OF it was,
that there were various and discordant rules adopt
| ed. Mr. Madison, in page 2o2, Of the Federalist,
advocating the adoption of the Federal Constitu-
! ton, says:
aim one State residence for short time con-
fers all the rights of citizenship; in another, quail
fcations of greater Importance are required. An
alien, therefore, legally ncapacitated for certain
rights in the latter may, by previous residence
only in the former, elude his incapacity and thus
the law of one State be preposterously rendered
paramount to the law Of another, within the juris-
diction OF the other" v
" This was the condition of things whilst the
different States exercised the power Of naturaliza
ton. The evils of IL are manifest. Another
writer, Rawle the Constitution, page S. after
describing the evils of these conflicting provisions
adds as
90 The evil could not be better remedied than
by vcsting the exclusive power In Congress-
"The provisions of the constitution on this sub
ject are in the following words: In article l. Sec
| ton Q, II reads
"'Congress shall have power TO establish uni
form rule Of naturalization
In article I, section 0, II reads
"'The migration or importation of such persons
any Of the States now existing shall think proper
to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress
prior to the year lS0S.' F g
In article Nv, section Q, it reads
go The citizens Of each State shall he entitled
to the privileges and imnunities of citizens in the
several States
"These are all the provisions of the constitution
affecting this question. BY the first clause cited
above, the general power Is granted to establish
uuifn rpIla Rv Ia cla c;ta al xIa
power of prohibiting immigration is conferred,
The suppression Of the slave trade was no doubt
particularly aimed at in this clause; but the term
migration or importation Of such persons &C.,
cannot be confined to any specific class Of persons.
They are general and comprehensive terms; and,
there being no ambiguity Of expression, they must
be construed to mean what they plainly import.
The third clause cited makes the citizens of each
State citizens of the whole United States. I'm
der those three clauses, It seems plain that the
most ample authority is conferred upon Congress
to regulate the whole question of immigration ex-
clusivey. Congress- may establish the rule change
the rule, abrogate the rule, and prohibit foreign
immigration entirely. The power, while exercised
by the States, produced the evils of conflicting
legislation, and contradictory rules That evil was
to be remedcd. 1t was remeded by transferring
the power to the National Legislature where 1t most
properly belongs. Is not, then, this power in
Congress exclusive? Rawle 80 considers it, in his
treatise before cited, page IS. Bayard so considers
it, in his view Of the constitution page II. He
SAYS
"tThis power is, from its nature, exclusive; for,
If the several States could legisate this subject
they might require very different qualifications 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.'"
ut was held in the circuit court of the United
States at Philadelphia in 1892 in the case of Collet
u.s. Collet, Dallas, 294, that the State govern
ments had concurrent authority with Congress,
upon the subject Of naturalization. But this de-
cision has been overruled In the circuit court
in 1914, Judge Washington decided in the case of
Golden Us. Prince, 8 Washngton's Circuit Reports
Sl4, that this power was exclusive in Congress-
And at later period in the case Of Chirac ga
Chirac, 2 Wheaton, page $50, Chief Justice Mar
shall said that, it certainly ought not to be con-
troverted, that the power Of naturalization was
vested exclusively in Congress- In the case of
Houston Us. Moore, 5 Wheaton, page 40, Justice
Story, abiding to this power, considers 1t exclu-
sive, on the ground Of there being direct repug-
nancy or incompatibility in the exercise of it by
the States.
In the very able commentaries Of this same
judge upon the Constitution Of the United States,
vol. 3, chap. Is, sec. 53S, he uses the following
language: II follows from the very nature Of
this power, that to be useful il must be exclusive
for a concurrent power in the States would bring
back all the evils and endorsements which the
uniform rule of the constitution was designed to
remedy. And, accordingly, though there was
momentary hesitation when the constitution first
went into operation, whether the power might not
still be exercised by the States subject only to the
control OF Congress, far the legislation of the
latter extended, the supreme law, yet II Is now
firmly established to be exclusive in Congress-
Chancellor Kent, in 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 considered 10
favor of this construction II, then, the opinions
Of Bsyard, Rawle, Story, and Kent, sanctioned by
the decisions Of the circuit and Supreme Courts Of
the United States, are to be regarded as authority
the position Is mpregnable and the question clear
beyond all controversy, that Congress has the en-
elusive power Of legislation on the important sub
ject Of naturalization. Indeed, If il were other
wise, what would prevent New York, or any other
State, from naturalizng million Of Afrcsns, who,
ipso facto, would be entitled to all the privileges
and immunties Of citizens in the Several States
under the I'd section Of the 4th article Of the
stitutiony Justice reason, and authority forbid
such construction as this.
!" But, connected with the question now under
consideration, we viii advert to the recently
avowed constitutional power of State 10 confer
tne TlBut Vi huHfhgc upon uuihturhlzeu fOfelgnefs
We are at loss 70 imagine the grounds upon
which the assumed power rests. We have dis
cussed the point and we hope placed il beyond all
cavi that the power to naturaize foreigners dweis
only in Congress oH
The right Of free suffrage is the most exalted
privilege Of citizenship. In almost all civilized
countries alien friends permitted TO holdproperty
In some countries this permission or allowance Is
more in others less limited I'M Of the States of
this Union, property may be held and transmitted
by Aliens This permission bya State to aliens does
not affect the rights or interests of other States
No objection can with propriety be made by spy
State, or by Congress, TO whatever provisions the
legislatures Of other States may enact on this sub
ject. Free negroes and mulattoes, transient per-
sons, females, criminals, NIL are allowed the privi-
ledge of holding and enjoying property in every
State In the Union; nor can Congress abridge this
right for IL has no jurisdiction over such internal
regulations Of any State as do not interfere with
the exercise Of the powers granted to Congress.
Whilst, therefore, by naturalzing foreigners, Con-
gress (if no conditions are annexed) places them
footing with native citizens, II cannot control
Al. r. o.