The Opelousas patriot. [volume] (Opelousas, Parish of St. Landry, La.) 1855-1863, 1855-05-19
PRINCE FREDER1cxTowN, Calvert Co., Nd, |
Anril u. 1856, {

owing to the pressure Of other engagements, to an
swer it until now. + If- o-~ t5 .F7
You desire to know my views in reference to the
repeal or modification of the Naturalization laws,
and whether, for the purpose of excluding foreigners
from the exercise of the right of suffrage, and from
holding office either under the General or State Gov
ernments, any thing more is necessary than Il repeal
of those laws, passed by the Congress OF the United
States. This l understand to be the nature of your
inquiries, although not put in that precise form.
The question is an important one, and not unsur-
rounded with difficulties. As q rule firmly estab-
lished by the decisions of our highest tribunals, and
by the uniform practice of our Government, nothing
can be clearer than that when a particular power is
vested by the Constitution in the Government of the
United States, The exercise of that power is denied
to the States. But what is the power vested in
Congress by the eighth section Of the first article Of
the Constitution The power to establish q uni
form rule of Naturalization" Now what is Natural
%ization? The admission to citizenship of one born
without the limits of the United States, and, as Incl
dent to citizenship, the exercise of all the rights
which a native born citizen under the Constitution
and laws may exercise.
But, the question arises, was this provision intend
ed to deprive the States of the right of determining
what shall be the qualifications of the electors in the
States "a right which seems to be conceded by the
second section of the same article. Or, in other
words, Notwithstanding Congress unquestionably has
the right to establish a uniform rule of Naturaliza-
ton, can not q State, by its organic law or in absence
of any organic law upon the subject, provide for the
admission Of foreigners to all the rights Of citizenship
within her limits and so far as her domestic institu-
tions, are concerned, piihout having been admitted
to citizenship under the laws Of the United States!
1t il conceded that such a quasi citizenship would
confer no right to hold office under or exercise any
of the functions of an agent of the General Govern
ment; but still it is commended, by those entertaining
States Rights views, that they would have the right
to hold any office under the State Government, the
right of suffrage in the election of State officers, and
also, under the second section of the first article of
the Constitution, the right to vote for Representa-
tives in Congress.
Now, whatever may be the inclination of my own
mind in favor of the doctrine of the exclusive power
of Congress over this subject, believing, as I do, that
the trainers of the Constitution never designed that
Congress should grant one sort of citizenship and
the States another, but that by the term uniform
they meant that Congress should have the power to
establish such q rule as would operate equally and
uniformly upon all foreigners applying for the benefit
of that rule, in every State Of the Union still we
know that all questions that involve or eeem to
involve the rights of the States are treated as politi.
cal or rather as party questions, Notwithstanding
such questions may have been settled by the solemn
decisions of the highest judicial tribunals.
But upon this question the decision of our judicial
tribunals have themselves been conflicting.
In the Circuit Court Of the United States in Penn
sylvania it was decided, in the case of Collet Us.
Collet, I'd Dallas, 294, that the State Government
enjoyed concurrent authority with the United States
upon the subject of Naturalization, and that decision
had the sanction of two Of the Judges of the Supreme
Court. We know, too, that the State of Illinois,
entertaining these views, has recently by her organic
law provided for the admission of foreigners to all
the rights of citizenship within her limits, and the
State of Maryland, by providing that none but citi-
zens of the United States shall exercise the right of
suffrage, has conceded that without that provision
the Legislature of the State might admit foreigners
to the privilege. l have no doubt that other States
have made similar provisions, and that these views
are entertained by many leading and distinguished
politicians and statesmen in the country.
On the other side of the question, and in favor Of
the exclusive authority of Congress over the subject.
the authority of Justice Story and Chancellor Kent
may be invoked, as also the decision Of Justice Wash
ington overriding the decision in Collet Us. Collet, in
the same Court. am not aware of any decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States upon the
subject, but this l know, that if there was, no matter
how the question was decided. it would not have the
effect of removing it from the arena of party poll
tics; for we have abundant evidence, in the case of
the Bank of the United States and other cases, that
decisions of the Supreme Court avail but little in
Congress when they come in conflict with long cher
ished political opinions and party prejudices.
Now what, amidst all these conflicting opinions
and diversity of action by different States, is the plain
manifest course, both of policy and duty, of the
American Party? l answer, in a single sentence,
Let Congress repeal the Naturalization laws, and let
the States SO alter their organic laws and legislative
enactments, as to exclude all foreigners who may
hereafter come among us from exercising the right
of suffrage or from holding office. For I am con.
WINGED for many reasons, and especially for the rea-
son that many imagine that the rights of the States
are involved in this question, that, to effect this OBJ
ject, the best method would he by the concurrent
action of the General and State Governments,
Another question has been frequently the subject
of discussion among our friends. 1t is this: whether
foreigners who shall hereafter come to the United
States shall be admitted to citizenship after a resi-.
dcnce Of twenty-onc years, or whether they shall be
altogether excluded. I have no hesitation in de.
claring it as my solemn conviction that nothing
short of total exclusion will either satisfy the Native
American people or effect the objects contemplated
by the American party.
One of the very causes which has produced such
an intense excitement among our people upon this
subject is the frauds ommitted in obtaining natural,
~ization papers. How will those frauds be suppressed
by simply extending their term of residence? Will
not false swearing still ba Orocttcsd anl ,,,;11 -.
one set OF naturalization papers still be used (as they
have often been) for the purpose of enabling MANY
to vote who are not naturalized? Let them be for
erer excluded from the right of voting and the right
of holding any office, high Or low, in the General or