Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1855-03-15

skill and another is, that the foreigners who
come here exercise an undue and hurtful In
fuence in elections What ought to be done
to pre- ent these evils, and what are the RENEE
dies proposed The great Know-Nothing
specific is the repeal of the naturalization laws,
or what is almost equivalent to it, an enlarge
ment of the probation to twenty -one years.
Why twenty-one years should be adopted 1t Is
not easy to perceive. The reason assigned Is,
that native born American must be twenty
one years old before he can cote. If we should
go SO far as to assume that the foreign adult
is as ill-prepared to vote understandingly as a
new born American infant We hare still. in
order not to violate the plainest rules of logic,
to assume that naturalization and the right to
vote are one and the same thing A propo-
sition that is palpably absurd for it is evident
that one can exist without the other. The
right to vote is notderived from naturalization
and may be conferred though naturalization
may be denied siss s
Let us inquire what viii be theprecise effect
of thus modifying or repeating the naturaliza-
tion laws; and how far such modification or
repealwill affect the evils complained of. And
first, as to the matter of voting Citizenship
and the right to vote are distinct. One is
regulated by the National Government and the
other is left BY the Constitution to be regulated
by. the States. A man may be citizen of
the United States, and yet not entitled to vote
in any State of this Union. He may not be a
citizen of the United States and yet the right
! to vote may be conferred upon him by any
State of the Union. In vain may Know
Nothing platforms proclaim the doctrine that
a State has no right TO regulate the elective
franchise as respects foreigners. The PROPOSE
ton have just laid down are. incontfoverti-
bic. The Constitution has nowhere granted
to the Federal Government the power to pre-
scribe the qualifications ofvoters in the several
States, and has nowhere placed any restriction
upon the exercise of this power by the States.
The effect Of fnaturalizing foreigners simply
to establish certain relations between him and
the Federal Government. 1t entities him to
Its proteetionagains other Governments, and
J gives him the right to hold certain Offices in
the Federal Government. His social relations
and duties are regulated by State law, and can
only be regulated by State law. A State may
confer upon him the right to acquire property,
to hold it, and to transmit it to his deseen-
dants. State laws provide for him the means
of protecting his life, his liberty, and his pro-
perty and State laws confer upon him the
right to vote. If he should select Massachu-
sets for his home. when the election comes on
hedoes not look to the Constitution and laws
of the United States, to ascertain whether he
can vote, but to the constitution and laws of
Massachusetts As to elections of state offices,
1T cannot be pretended that Congress can inter-
fere without utterly destroying every vestige
of State sovereignty, and the Constitution has
expressly declared that the qualifications for
elections for members of the House of Repre-
sentatiyes shall be the same as the qualifea-
tions of electors of the most numerous branch
Is he Isaos ola nd
tions can only be fixed by the States. What
Congress cannot do directly it cannot do indi-
rectly, The election of Senators is con6ded
to the State Legislature, however composed.
The qualifications of the members of these
Legislatures can, of course, be fixed by the
State only. The result is, that legis-
lation by Congress the subject of natural-
cation laws will not touch the influence of
foreigners in elections Their influence in the
presidential elections is most loudly complained
of, and yet the Constitution has given, In ex-
press words, to the State Legislatures unlim-
tied discretion in determining who shall choose
the electors. They may confer the power to
choose electors exclusively on native Ameri-
cans if they think proper. They can confer
itupon one man or. ten men, or upon all the
inhabitants of the State collectively.
AS to foreign paupers and convicts it is IN
the power of the States to prevent their being
landed on their shores, or to expel them after
they are landed There seems to be doubt
in some mnds-as to the effect of decision of
the Supreme Court on question growing out
of foreign emigration; the decision was made
In the well known passenger cars of Boston
and New York. Both the majority and
minority of the court, which was divided ON
the main question in these cases, which was
the rights of the States to tax passengers IN
vessels coming from foreign ports, concurred
in the opinion that as to paupers, convicts, and
criminals, the States had full power to prohibit
their introduction Mr. Chief j Justice fancy,
In an opinion remarkable for clearness and
force of reasoning, goes further, and says that
the States can prohibit the landing of foreign
ers if they think them dangerous to their
peace and safety whether falling under the
denomination of paupers and criminals or not;
that Congress cannot force upon State popu-
lation which such State may regard as inju-
rious to its repose, to It's health, or to its
morals. Then as respects the two great evils
of immigration complained of, the repeal of
of the naturalization laws can have no int'u-
ence whatever, they are subjects of State lcgis-
lation, and ought to act. The condition of
Massachusetts and New York may demand
resort to rigorous and restrictive legislation,
because these evils are pressing heavily upon
them. But the new States of the West, where
these evils, if they exist at all, exist in a mti-
al policy. They want population, and it may
be their interest to invite foreigners to settle
there By holding out the inducement of an
early participation in the political privileges
of their citizens. In Mississippi, the infiu-
f<lx II