American union. [volume] (Morgantown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1855-1859, 1856-05-24


ta,st 40 .AsEt1.I 5 VII
or shall be declared null md void by
competent judicial authority.
These propositions may be classed
for for greater perspicuity, under three
heads. 49, se..
i. Thoser.t that relate to reforms
in the naturalization laws which require
legislation. gg hs4bgpf at iisss
H. Those that relate to the appoint
ment and election of officers, which are
purely ministerial. t,, g, !.
4 III. Those thatrefer to the general
policy of the party, in the management
ofthe Government, which appeal both
to the Legislature and Executive de-
partments. Ew say a
intend to discuss these subjects in
the order in which they are stated. 'es
1t is proposed to modify the natural
ization laws to. make, four particulars:
4. TO make them prescribe uniform
rules of naturalization throughout all
the States and Territories.
. I. AZ ~ ~. "a
2. Toexclude conyicts and paupcrs
from the country. (. Es.I ~
3.To extend the period of residence of
the applicant for naturalization, SO that
he may have time to understand our
language Il become acquainted with our
laws and and institutions, before he is
entrusted with the right to participate
in their aaminitration. = saa
a. To guard against fraudulent abu-
ses of the right Of naturalization. sy
am aware that there'is a very pre-
vailing idea that Congress has no CON
Istitutional power to provide by law
that the rules of naturalization shall be
the same in all the States and ! have
heard this difficlty suggested as being
fatal to the objects of the American
party. But the objection is wholly
without foundation. The constitution
of the United States provides in terms
"that Congress shall have power to O.
stablish an uniform rule Of nauraliza-
ton" Article /. Section VII. clause 4 /.
This provision has repeasedly been
the subject of judicial consideration and
Interpretation, & although the opinion
was at one time Expressed by Tho Cir
cult Court of the United States, for
the District of Pennsylvania, that the
power was concurrent in the State and
Federal governments that opinion has
long been overruled, and it is now held
Iby Judge Iredell, in U. S. VS.. Vellato
p Dallas, $40; Judge Washington in
| Gordon ys. Prince, 3 WASH, G. G. r..
313; by Judge Marshall, in Chirac VS..
Chirac, 2 Wheaton 269; by Judge Sto-
lry, in Houston VS.. Moore, Wheaton,
40; by Chancellor Kcnt,1 Comm. 423;
and by Judge Taney, in Norris vs.. Bos-
ton and Smith VS.. Turner Howard, that
the e1clusice power is in Congress.
The remarks of G. j. Taney are SO
clear, not only in regard to che power
but also as to the policy of exercising
/ it, that | readily adopt his argument,
as far more satisfactory than any |
could offer. He says:
| sit cannot be necessary to say any
thing upon the article of the Constitu-
ton which gives to Congress the pow
er to establish an uniform ruleo natu-
lralization. The motive and object of
this provision are too plain to bo mis-
understood Under the Constitution
of the United States, citizens of each
State are entitled to the privileges and
iimmunities of citizens of the several
States, and no State would be willing
that another should determine for it,
distinctly, what foreigner should be-
come one of its citizens, aud be entitled
to hold lands and vote at its elections.
For without this provision, any one
State could have given the right of
citizenship in every other State; and
as every citizen of State is also a cit
izen of the Unised States, single
State, without this provision, might
have given to any number of foreign
ers it pleased, the right to all privilc-
ges of citizenship in commerce, trade,
and navigation, although they did not
even reside among us.
"The nature of our in institutions
under the Federal government, made
it a matter of absolute necessity that
this power should be conGded to the
government of the Union, where all
the States are represented, and where
all had a voice a necessity so obvious
that no statesman could have overlook
ed it. The article has nothing to do
with the admission or rejection or ali
ems, nor with Immigration, but with
the rights of citizenship. Its sole OBJ
lject was to prevent one State from for
I ,;,,o. ,,..o.. ~ S4Ia.. ...I .....Sx. Al -