The Washington union., 1857-05-27

omitted and the privilege Is confined 70 Citizens OF the
State And this alteration in words would hardly have
been made unless different meaning intended to be
conveyed, possible doubt removed. The just and
fair inference is that this privilege was about to be
placed under the protection Of the general government
and the words eIpounded by its tribunals and all power
in relation TO it taken from the State and its courts
deemed prudent to describe with precision and eau
ton the persons to whom this high privilege given
and the word ezs that account substituted for
the words free ihabua The word citizen excluded and
doubt intended to exclude foreigners who had not be-
citizens Of of the States when the cons
tuition adopted and also every description of persons
who not fully recognised citizens in the several
States. This, upon any fair construction of the nstru
ments 10 which have referred evidently the object
and purpose of this change of words
To all this mass Of proof we have still TO add that
Congress has repeatedly legislated upon the con-
uction of the constitution that have given Three
laws two of which passed almost Immediately after
the government went into operation, will be abundanty
sufficient to show this The two first particularly
worthy of notice because many of the who assisted
in framing the constitution, and took active part In
procuring its adoption then in the halls of legisla
ton and certainly understood what they meant when
they used the people of the United States and
citizen in that well-consdered instrument.
The first of these cs is the naturalization law, which
passed at the second session of the first Congress
March 26, 1870, and confines the right Of becoming cit
zens s'to aliens beng free rhiie persons.
Now the constitution does not limit the power of Con-
gress in this respect to white persons And they may
they think proper, authorize the naturalization of any
one of any color who born under allegiance TO
other government But the language of the law above
quoted shows that citizenship at that time perfectly
understood TO be confined to the white and that
they alone constituted the sovereignty in the govern
ment.
Congress might we before said have authorized the
naturalization of Indians because they aliens and
foreigners But, in their then untutored and savage
state, no would have thought of admitting them as
citizens in civilized community. And, moreover, the
atrocities they had but recently committed when they
the allies of Great Britain in the revolutionary
affh
ted States and they then guarding themselves
against the threatened renewal of Indian hostites No
supposed then that any Indian would ask for
capable of enjoying the privileges of an American ct
zen, and the word white used with any parcu
lar reference to them
Neither ii used with any reference to the African
imported into born in this country because Con-
ges had power nauraize Them and therefore there
necessity for using particular words to exclude
them
1t would seem to have been used merely because fol-
lowed out the line of division which the constitution has
drawn between the citizen race who formed and held the
government and the African race which they held in
subsection and slavery and governed at their own pleas
urc.
Another of the early laws Of which have spoken is
the first militia law which was passed in 1892 at the
first session of the second Congress The language of this
law is equally plain and significant with the one just men
toned 1t directs that every free ablebodied white
male citizen shall be enrolled in the militia The word
ae is evidently used to exclude the African race and
the word citizen to exclude unnatualized foreigners
the latter forming part of the sovereignty owing
allegiance and therefore under obligation to defend it,
The African race however born in the country, did owe
allegiance to the government whether they slave
free but it is repudated and rejected from the duties
and obligations of citizenship in marked language.
The third act to which have alluded is even still
more decisive; it passed late as 1913, u Stat
S09) and it provides Ihat from and after the termna
ton Of the in which the United States now
gagged with Great britain, it shall not be lawful to EN-
ploy, board of any public private vessels of the
United States any person persons except citizens of the
United States or persons OF color, natives OF the United
States. ~
Persons of color in the judgment of Congress, not
included in the word citizens, and they described
er and different class of persons and authorized to
unemployed, if born in the United States.
And even as late 1920, CHAP 104, sec 81 in the
charter to the city Of Washington the corporation
thozed ito restrain and prohibit the nightly and other
disorderly meetings of slaves free negroes and mula
toes thus assoclang them together in its Legislation
and after prescribing the punishment that may be inic
ed on the slaves proceeds in the following words nd
to punish such free negroes and mnattoes by penalties
exceeding twenty dollars for any offence and in
Of the inability of any such free negro mulato to
pay any such penalty and cost thereon to him
her to be confined to labor for any time not exceeding
six calendar months And in subsequent part of the
section the act authorizes the corporation to pre-
scribe the terms and conditions upon which free negroes
and mulattoes may reside in the city
This law, like the laws of the States shows that this
class of persons governed by special legislation d
provisions for the government of slaves and not with
those for the government of free white citizens. And
after such uniform of legislation we have
stated by the colonies by the States and by Congress-
running through period Of than century it
would that to call persons thus marked and stigma
tized czcns of the United States sfellow- w-citizens
constituent part of the sovereignty would be abuse
of TERMS and not calculated to exn the character of
American citizen in the eyes of other nations.
The conduct of the executive department Of the govern
ment has been in perfect harmony upon this subject with
this of legislation. The question brought Off
cialy before the late William Writ, when he the At
toney General of the United States in 1921 and he dec
ded that the words citizens of the United States
used in the acts of Congress in the in the
constitution and that free persons of color not c
within the meaning of the constitution and laws
and this opinion has been confirmed by that of the
late Attorney General Caleb Cushing in recent case
and acted upon by the Secretary of State who refused to
grant passports to them 'ctzens Of the United
States
But 1t is said that person may be citizen and ent
tied TO that character although he does not possess all
the rights which may belong to other citizens as for
ample, the right to vote, to hold particular offices
and that yet when he goes into another State he is
titled to be recognised there citizen, although the
State may measure his rights by the rights which it al
lows to persons Of like character class resident in the
State and refuse TO him the full rights of citizenship.
This argument oyerooks the language of the provision
in the constitution Of which speaking.
Undoubtedly, person may be ciiizen-that is a
member Of the community who form the sovereignty--a
though he exercises share of the political power and
is incapacated from holding particular offices. Women
and minors who form part of the political family,
moi n property qualification redured