Daily American organ., 1856-03-29
AMERICAN NOMINATIONS.
The Washington City Election Bill-Mar-
shallss Amendment.

-
The Washington City Election BILL Mar
shall's Amendment.
The protracted struggle on the amendment
offered in the House to the Washington city
election BILL by the Hon. Humphrey Marshall,
of Kentucky, was adjourned yesterday, by q
recommittal Of the bill TO the Committee on
the District Of Columbia. No vote on the
amendment was taken. The Democratic party
betrayed nervous irritability in relation to
this bill, which indicates the Importance at
tached to it by the administration The close
voting at every stage of action on the bill.
proves that the immortal seventy -four have
an accession to their strength from another
quarter Of the House, An examination of the
record shows that the Republicans furnish the
aid This was not unexpected--it 5slongs to
tho programme Of tho campaign This debate
has been very important, as an index of the
future divisions on the propositions to amend
the naturalization laws. There are several
members in the House who have less affection
now for the principles Of the American party
than they prqtsssed to have year since The
record will expose them to their constituencies.
The debate on Mr.. Marshall's amendment
promised to be very interesting, and to draw
out the whole strength Of the House, when
member from the Democratic side Of the
chamber moved the previous question, and the
whole Democratic representation seconded it.
Aided by the Republicans, they secured ter
mination of the debate
AS the proposition of Mr. Marshall is indubi-
tably the faithful echo Of the public voice OF
the city of Washington, we offer briefly reply
to some of the objections which were urged
against il, and we hope they will be candidly
considered by all concerned in the future pros
perity of Washington, as well as duly weighed
by all who mean !" that Americans shall gov
ern America
The first objection to the amendment is, that
it is substantial prolongation of the term of
naturalization, operative only in this city, and
therefore is Y violation of the constitution,
which requires that Congress shall establish
uniform rule Of naturalization. The answer
is, that the amendment has no relation to, or
connexion whatever with, the law of natural
ization. The postponement of the privilege of
suffrage which is proposed by the amendment
neither prolongs or curtails the duration of the
time required by the existing law for the nat
'uralization of an alien, nor does it impose any
new condition upon him precedent to the com
pletion of his naturalization as citizen of the
United States. He may be naturalised as
speedily and with as much facility after the
adoption the amendment as before, and the loss
Of the proposition would not relieve him from
single requisition now made upon him by
the law as conditions precedent to bis becom-
ing a citizen of the United States
The second objection taken is, that it makes
unjust, if not unconstitutional, determinations
between the native and naturalized citizens
resident in this metropolis, by distinction in
tie political privileges it seeks to confer, and
the mode In which 1t proposes to confer them.
The answer to this is, that the rule proposes
no distinction between the individuals upon
whom it will operate 1t adds time Twelve
months) to the fact Of citizenship, as one Of
the qualifications for the voter in this city, and
it requires this time to accompany or to follow
the fact of citizenship in all cases. Were
native to expatriate himself and afterwards to
return to Washington to reside, the rule would
operate on him as much as upon man of
foreign birth.
The bill reported by the committee reposes
the privilege Of suffrage upon the bases of
citizenship, residence, and the payment of
certain taxes If citizenship maybe burdened
by residence, and by . tax-paying qualiHca-
ton, why may not additional time after the
obtention of citizenship be superaddeda If
the citizen is required to reside here q year
before he can exercise the privilege of voting,
why may we not add that he shall have been
citizen for year before he shall have the
privileges The rule is equal and per Sc,
makes no distinction between citizens. Sup
pose the poor man, burdened by the pressing
demands of large family for subsistence,
finds the prepayment of his tax more than he
can spare from his earnings, would this fact,
when compared with the fact that his more
fortunate neighbor could easily furnish his
taxes, make that rule unequal and unjust
which requires the payment of taxes as con-
dition precedent to the privilege Of suffrage2
II would not be so contended. No more,
then, can the fact that one class of citizens can
comply at once with the law, by reason of their
nativity in the United States and that another
set cannot so comply for twelUe months, make
the rule proposed an improper mode of dispo.
sing of the right of suffrage. 1t is not the rule,
but it is the ability Of parties or their inability
to comply with its acquisitions at gipen mo
ment Of time. 1t was well stated during the
debate, that citizenship did not necessarily