Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1857-04-17

thought TT. IS clear The Constitution has
not excluded them. And since that has con-
ferred the power on Congress 60 naturalize
oolored aliens it certainly shows color is not
a necessary qualification for citizenship under
the Constitution Of the United States 1t
may be added that the power to make colored
persons citizens Of the United States, under
the Constitution. has been actually exercised
in repeated and important instances. See
the Treaties with the Choctaws Of September
81, 1880. Art. II with the Cherokeos OF
May %. 1885. Art. y Treat of Guadalupe
Hidalgo. February 2, 1913. Art. g..
do not deem il necessary 20 review at
length the legislation Of Congress having
more or less bearing on the citizenship Of col
ored persons. IL does not seem to me 20 have
any considerable tendency to prove that it has
been considered by the Legislative department
of the Government that no such persons are
citizens Of the United States. Undoubtedly,
they have been dobarred from the exercise of
particular rights or privileges extended to
white persons but. believe. always in terms
which, by implication, admit they may DO cit
liens. Thus. the act of May II, 1892, for
the organization of the militia. directs the on
rollment Of "every free ablc-bodied white
male citizen" An assumption that none but
white persons are citizens would be as incon-
sistent with the Just import of this language
as that all citizens are able-bodied OF males.
So the act Of February %. 1903 y Stat
at Large 205.) to prevent the importation Of
certain persons into States, when by the laws
thereof their admission is prohibited. in its
first section. furbids all masters of vessels to
import OF bring "any negro. mulatto, OF other
person of color, not being native. a citizen
or registered seaman of the United States"
&c.
The acts Of March 3, 1918, Sec q Stat
at Large, 500. and March /. 1917. Sec. 3 %
Stat. at Large, 35l =, concerning seamcn. ccr-
tainly imply there may be persons of color
natives Of the United States who are not cit
liens Of the United States This implication
is undoubtedly in accordance with the fact
For not only slaves. but free persons of coll
or. born in some of the States. are certainly
not citizens. But there is nothing in these
laws inconsistent with the citizenship Of per-
sons of color in others of the States nor
with their being citizens of the United States
Whether much or little weight should be
attached to the particular phraseology of these
and other laws, which were not passed with
any direct reference to this subject consider
their tendency to be. as already indicated. to
show that in the apprehension of their fra
ners color was not necessary qualification
If citizenship. 1t would be strange if laws
we're found on our statute book to that effect.
when, by solemn treaties. large bodies of
Mexican and North American Indians have
1een admitted 90 citizenship of the United
States.
IN the legislative debates which attended
he admission Of the State of Missouri into
the Union this question was agitated Its re-
llt is found in the resolution Of Congress of
Nlaroh 3, 1921, for the admission of that
state to the Union. The Constitution of Mis-
souri,. under which that State applied for adj
mission into the Union, provided that il should
be the duty of the Legislature ''to pass laws
70 prevent free negroes and mulattoes from
coming to and settling in the State. under
any pretcXt whatever One ground of OBJ
cton to the admission Of the State under
this Constitution was that it would require
ne Legislature to exclude free persons of coll
or, who would be entitled, under the second .
section of the fourth article of the Constitu- /
ton, not only to come within the State, but /
70 enjoy there the privileges and immunitios
Of citizens The resolution of Cnngress adj
hitting the state was upon the fundamental
condition ''that the Constitution Of Missouri
shall never be construed to authorize the pas
fage of any law, and that no law shall be
passed in conformity thereto, by which any
citizen of either of the States Of the Union
shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any
Of the privileges and mmunities to which .
such citizen is entitled under the Constitution
of the United States 1t is true that neither
the legislative declaration nor anything in the
Constitution and laws of Missouri. could CON
fer or take away any privilege or immunity
granted by the Constitution But it is also
true that it expresses the then conviction of
the legislative power of the United States.
that free negroes, citizens Of some of the
States, might be entitled to the privileges and
immunities Of citizens of all the States
The conclusions at which | have arrived on
this part of the case arc
First, That the free native born citizens of
each State are citizens of the United States
Second, That as free colored persons born
within some Of the States are citizens of those
States, such persons are also citizens of the
United States.
Third, That every such citizen residing in
any State has the right to sue and is liable to
be sued in the Federal Courts, as a citizen of
that State in which he resides.
Fourth, That as the plea TO the jurisdiction
~ NiiH eH'' NA'Wo NJ lati1s tAttDl llut inc
plaintiff was of African descent, and his an
cestors were sold as slaves aud as these facts
are not inconsistent with his citizenship of the
United States. and his residence in the State
of Missouri, the plea to the jurisdiction was
bad, and the judgment of the Circuit Court,
overriding II, was correct.
l dissent, therefore from that part of the
opinion Of the majority of the Court in which
it holds that person Of African descent can
not be citizen of the United States. and |
regret | must go further, rnd dissent both
from what deem their assumption of author
ity to examine the constitutionality Of the act
of Congress, commonly called the Missouri
Compromise act. and the grounds and con-
clusion announced in their opinion
90 be oontinued)
TANEY vs.. TANEY.
The Albany EreHing journal, as the best