Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1856-03-21
mr. Izume,s speech.
The Ohio State Journal says:


The bill to prohibit the State Courts from
exercising any jurisdiction under Naturali-
zation laws of the United States, came up
for discussion in the committee of the
Wholly, Tuesday afternoon. Mr.. Hume OF
Marion, a member of the select committee
that recommended the passage of the bill,
opened with a speech in its favor, which Sc
cured the undivided attention of the House,
and which we have heard universally COM
mended for its legal ability, clearness of ar
gument, and moderation.
Mr.. H. commenced by saying that there
were two questions now occupying the pub
| lie mind which must be met and settled,
viz: the PARAMOUNT issue of tho extension
of Slavery, and the frauds and abuses prac-
tical in the administration of our naturali-
zation laws. He had no hostility to foreign
ers, or objection to their becoming citizens,
provided it was done legally and honestly;
and he had no particular fear of even the
Pope, who as he for as was concerned, might
move to this country and become a citizen.
But he wished to argue the bill before the
House on its legal points, free from any
appeal to the passions or prejudices of any
set of men-that part of the argument he
would leave to that class of politicians whose
whole stock in trade consisted in schemes to
mislead and use the foreign vote, for their
own selfish purpose, by appealing to them
as distinct class; when, in truth, those Of
them that had become naturalized were as
much interested as any other portion of
our citizens, in preserving the purity of our
elections, by preventing frauds and perjuries
in procuring naturalization papers.
The legal points which Mr.. Hume made,
and fully established and sustained by au-
thors which he read, we're
l. That the act of naturalization was a
judicial act.
2. That being judicial act, it could be
constitutionally exercised only in the Fed
eral Courts, as Congress has no power to
delegate judicial powers to the State Courts,
and the State Courts can exercise no con-
current jurisdiction with the Federal Courts
that they did not possess previous to the
adoption of the Constitution of the United
States: and this was manifestly not the case,
in reference to making citizens of the Uni
ted States, before there was a Federal
Union.
8. That if it is not a judicial act, and our
State Judges act only as commissioners, or
ministerial officers, in executing the act of
Congress, then the exercise of such power
by our courts is in clear violation of sec. IA,
art of the Constitution of Ohio, which
provides that no Judge of the State Courts
shall hold any other office or TRUST, under
the authority of this State or the United
States,-and that 10 naturalize was clearly
an office of TRUST: For if the Judge act
for the time he was as an agent or Office
under the authority of the United States.
4. That at any rate, it was discretionary
with the Court to act, or not to act, in nat
uralization, and the State Legislature had
clear right to prohibit them, acting under
the decision of the Supreme Court in the
Prigg case, I6 Peters, in reference to the
right to prohibit State officers from acting
under the Fugitive Slave Law: and, accor-
dinghy, several of the New England States
had passed bills similar to this in their pro-
visions.
5. That the law now stands-only pun
ishing for false swearing under the State
laws-there was no power in our State
Courts topunish perjury in procuring natu-
ralization papers in the State Courts. 1t
was an offence against the criminal laws of
the United States, and no principle was
clearer, than that crime against our SOW
ereignty cannot be punished in the Courts
of another.
6. That for the State to attempt to patch
the legislation of Congress by passing
law so as to make such false swearing indie
table as perjury in our State Courts, would
violate our bill of rights, which provides
that no man should be put twice in jeopar-
dy for the same offence" For, if man
under such law should be indicted and
convicted in the State Courts, he could not
plead such conviction in bar to an indict-
ment in the U. S. Courts for the same per-
jury, because the Constitution of the q. S.
simply saws man shall not be put in jeop-
ardy twice, of life or limb, for the same of
fence; and this does not cover penitentiary
offences under the decisions of the Courts;
and he made an extract from Justice Wash
ington's opinion in Houston Us Moore, 5
Wheaton %, to show that the Legislature
could not remedy this evil.
7. That our State courts being thus with
out protection, it was the duty of the Legis-
lature to pass this bill, not as measure of
proscriptiOn-but of sELF-DEFENcE to the
Courts against frauds and peruries TO
which they would be especially exposed du-
ring the coming Presidential election, and
which would be prevented, if the foreigner
had time for reflection after obtaining his
naturalization papers, before voting; which
the delay in going to the United States
Court would give him. If it should be
found that the federal tribunals did not
afford sufficient facilities for naturalization, if
Congress had as much regard for foreigners
as for the Slaveholding interest of the
South, it could as easily authorize United
State Commissioners 10 naturalize as to
catch fugitive slaves.
Some of the legal points made by Mr..
Hume were new, and the fact that our
Courts cannot punish for perjury is matter
that demands imlnedite action. We hope
that Mr.. H. will write out bis speech in full,
with the authorities quoted-as the legal
points made will attract general attention.
He is the youngest member in the House
and we predict for him brilliant future