The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1855-06-20
THE DISCUSSION AGAIN.


Branch and Miller TO which we desired ia
call public attention.
In the first place. Mr.. Branch contended
that each State has the right, in the face Of
the provision OF the Constitution Of the Uni
ted States and the act Of Congress, to natur-
alize foreigner--to make him citizen and
invest him with the right to vote in the House
OF Commons as soon as such foreigner lands
on our soil. Mr.. Miller denied that any
State has such right--that the power Of nat
uralization is in Congressional the Consti.
tuition requires the rule to be uniform--thai
to concede to each State the power to confer
the right Of citizenship on foreigners would
be abrogating the authority given to Congress
would let in all the evils that the concession
Of the power to Congress was intended Il
preyent--that it would be ruinous in its OPP
GRAFTON. especially to the South. In support
of his position Mr.. Miller referred to many
authorities. He cited the case Of Reuch Us
Williamson, Is lredell, l4l,) in which oui
Supreme Court say that the latter part Of oui
State Constitution, which declares that 70.
reigner. after taking an oath Of allegiance
To, and residing one year in. the State. +" shall
be deemed free citizen" has been repealed
by the Constitution Of the United States which
has conferred on Congress the power to es-
tablish uniform rule of naturalization.
lie also cited Story's Commentaries, vol 3,
page lst,, and kent's Commentaries, vol /,
page 425. That distinguished jurist says
1.-THE very purpose Of the power given to
Congress on this subject was esciusiUe. II
was to deprive the States individually Of the
power ofnaturalizing aliens according to their
own will and pleasure, and thereby giving
them the rights and privileges Of citizens IN
every other State. If each State can natu-
raize upon one years residence, when the
act Of Congress requires five, how does it be-
come Uniform rule p He referred also to
various decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States. and read in support ofhs po-
sition a number of extracts from the great
speech Of Mr.. Calhoun, made in 1856. on the
Bill for the admission Of Michigan into the
Union. This argument Mr.. Millerpronounc
ed unanswerable, and as MIR. Calhoun was
the " high priest" ofState rights. in the esti-
nation Of Mr.. Branch and his friends, he
tMr. NJ presumed what he said on this point
would be Of high authority. Mr.. B. and his
friends could not answer that mastery argu
ment OF their own political demigod in half a
century. The American party, said Mr. NJ,
oppose any such doctrine as that advocated
b. Mr.. Branch. as dangerous and unconstl.
tutional, as well calculated to bring the coun-
try completely under the political influence
Of foreigners. lie warned the people against
such doctrines, and showed most conclusive
~ that, under their operation. the South would
be overwhelmed
Mr.. Miller replied at length TO Mr.. Branch's
positions on the subject Of foreign iinmigra-
ton. He denied that foreigners could claim
political power in this country as their right,
and proceeded to show the dangers which
threaten US from the influx Of a horde OF ig-
norant, corrupt, and reckless foreigners. Be.
tween the years 1898 and 1850, the average
number Of foreigners who came into the coun-
try amounted annually to about $4,000.
Since 1880, within four years time, about two
millions had poured in upon US, making an
average Of about 450, 900 per year! II this
continued, at the end Of the present decade,
nearly FIVE millions of foreigners will have
been added to the number here in 1860
Aine-tenihs Of these emigrants settle in the
Northern States, and become the most brawl-
Ing advocates and adherents Of abolitionism
Can the South view these facts without
ilarmS By such means the political strength
81 the North will be increased to degree,
which will render the South powerless. He
reminded Mr.. B. IL the denunciation which
vas heaped on Gen. Scott in 1852, at the
South, Tor having expressed opinions lavora.
DE to tie annexation IL Canada 10 The Union.
He Washeld upto the execration Of the South.
Would Mr. Branch favor the annexation Of
Eanadas II not, what is the difference On
he effect on u.s. between annexing Canada
ind transferring her inhabitant, across The
inc into the territory Of the United States
Would YOU refuse TO annex the Canadians,
lnh open yonr bosom TO the same number
# Turks. Irish, iIindous, Kamsclatkans. and
Chinese We cannot shut our eyes against
hese Inconsistencies on the part III those who
lssai the American party Tor its efforts TO
heck foreign immigration, aud resist its
lllghting and dangerous influence Mr.. VI.
asked attention. TO the fact that under the in
lucement held out By Tie bounty Of leo acres
Il land, offered BY Congress TO each settler,
foreigners would continue 10 pour into the
rev territories uf Kansas and Nebraska, and,
n few years. State after Stale, with pop
ilation deadly hostile tous and infected with
very species 81 foreign prejudice and doc
rine. will be amitted into the Union. Is no.
hing 70 be done to preserve the nationality
i our country: Shall we 50 lar forget our
,Rn safety, so far lose sight Of this law Of
10 people. as 20 confer pc
iticsl power and official patronage. indiserim.
nately, on men who have but little, il any,
81 lie cllanetcrand genius Of our
.iyil aud political institutionsi J. the pre-.
erenee 81 an American over foreigner for
he Offices of our government TO be denounc.
d as crime?
Mr.. Miller showed Tie inacrnracy of Mr.
,fsnth's statistics. The latter stated that there
re ~ tits time but Two millions Of foreigners
"A. ~.