The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-03-14

ihe IhEolDtNI pro teHlore The question before the
Senate is Shal the vote by which the bill passed be
reconsidered 7?
Mr. PRATT called for the yeas and nays and they were
ordered, and being teken resultedyeas 3d. nays 2las
YEAs-Messrs. Allen, Bell Of New Hampshire, Bigler,
Bright CAss Col1uer, Dodge, Douglas Durkee, Fessen-
SON. James, johnson, Jones of Iowa. Mallory, Nous SO,
Pugh, Rusk, Seward, Stuart Thomson Of New Jersey,
Ioo%6s Toucey Trumbul Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Yu-
EAYsMessrs. Adams Bayard, Bell of TENNESSEE, Biggs
pacf aeyer Gwn, Hoason Hunter, jones' Of Ten.
nesses Mason Pratt Reid, sdel and Thompson of Ken
SO the vote by which the bill was passed was recons
cred. 44t
Mr.. HALE. Having voted with the majority on the
question Of ordering the bill to third reading, move to
The motion was agreed to.
Mr.. HALE. Having voted with the majority on the
vote adopting the second amendment of the senator oN
North Carolina, move TO reconsider that
Mr.. BlGGS l inquire of the senator from New Hairp-
shire whether he voted with the majority that amend
Mr.. HALE / SO stated. voted with the majority for
the very purpose OF doing what am now doing.
Secretary read the amendment proposed be
soetd which in line ten after the word the to strike
out people 0" and insert citizens residing in.p
mr.. HALE That is the amendment bh which voted
with the majority.
Mr.. BIGGS The principle involved in this amendment
precisely Inc same as in the other and not willing
TO permit this amendment to BIS econsdered and be src
en- out OF the bill without being heard have refaned
entirely in the discussion that has taken place in the Sen
ae today from saying anything 1t will be recolleced by
ne Senate that when this bill Under consideration
Saturday, very strong appeal was made the Senate by
tno senator from Illinois to refrain from discussing the
quesnon Let us have vote upon it," said he vote
was had upon III the expression of the Senate given
oislocty ana now we are met with motion to recon-
the purpose OF striking it out RETAINED then upon that
appeal but will not refrain now after the example which
has been set by the Senator from Illinois, and those who
have been in favor Of striking out this amendment from
of
the session. will not refrain from expressing my oppo-
sion decided as 1t is to the being pursued
VIII not refrain from expressing my utter astonshment
the course pursued by gentlemen this floor this
question l
We told to-day by the senator from Missouri that
although he advocated the propriey of this amendment
ne would vote for and then vote to strike
out the amendment Why2 Have principles changed +?
Have circumstances changed? Or what has produced this
result What has teen tho change produced in the SEN
ate IN regard TO this measure ask what has produced
the changel Sir, the principle involved in this amend
ent Is an Important oneone that consder strikes at
he OF the very institutions under which live
Mr.. GREEN. Will The senator give me half minutes
Mr.. BlGGS. Certainly
Mr. GREEN. only desire 70 remark that thought
had Stated the reason why slthough thought
sTact question nobody but citizens ought vote yet under
he particular circumstances of the case would
permit those who had taken the decaratory oath to
c!se he right OF suffrage thought had stated that su-
clenty but the honorable from North Carolina
did not understand me, will tell him the do
not know whether will be satisfactory to him or not
was this; that the law Of Congress bad given them that
right; had fixed tho elective franchise in certain way
and now i would look like taking advantage of them
seng gul.trap TO catch them, If we 6xed different
Mr. BlGGS. understood the position that was as
sumed by The senator from Missouri distinctly. 1t the
very position that he takes now 1t is an insufficient
reason, in my humble judgment
was about to remark, when interrupted by the
SENATOR that wish-d to inquire of the Senate and the
country whether or not this country is be controlled
to be governedby the influence Of the foreign vote
oir protest against such an influence controlling this
country say, with the senator from South Carolina
am no enemy to the foreigner. have sympathy at
all with the know-nothDg organization which seeka to
deprive foreigner OF the privileges guaranteed to him by
our constitution and our laws have been his advocate
ON all occasions that when he becomes naturazed
is not only the right OF the naturazed czn is
the true policy OF the country to incorporate him with the
nauSe citizens and enable him to participate in the cleo
franchise and in the of the country but
until he becomes paturalized according policy
ask whether or not il is right admit him these pvi-
| leges?
Something has been said about the harshness of this
measure Harshness to whom? Is this the country of
the foreigner unnaturalzed2 understand it to be the
country or Americans; American citizens country.
That IS what understand to be the position occupy.
We open our doors wide Il in favor of that policy
have always been an advocate Of ) asylum for the
oppressed OF all nations But sir when he comes here let
him conform to laws let him become incorporated by
residence for sufficient length of time TO understand our
Institutions and that has been wisely fixed by
the period Naturalization think ii is about right
until the foreigner does attain that position in the
Uyuul ne does remain here for that period of timeI
say he ought not to exercise the privilege of American
citizen to control the institutions of the country and
termine upon the organic laws of the country He has
such right and it ought to be permitted for
ment by the native and naturezed citizens of the United
States that any man coming from foreign country with
out conforming to our laws shall participate in directing
the destines of this country
Reference has been made in this discussion by the
tor from Illinois, to the election law of Minnesota That
law provides that foreigner shall be here years
he that amply sufficient residence The principle
involved in this bill either the five years residence
none at all because If be that any other persons
than citizens should be entitled the elective franchise
moulding the institutions of the country under which
live and the organic law of State IL seems to that
when you adopt different rule you have distinction
between man who has just come into the country and
one who has remained for the FIVE years fixed by the na
ralization laws.
But sir desire to call the attention of the Senate to
what appears in this very Congress. What has
taken place. and what is about to take place. in this
very Congress, In regard this important question
IL Is admitted by the senator from Ohio that the
moro recent laws have passed this subject for
Wisconsin and Iowa have given the elective franchise only
TO citizens OF the United States Is that all No. sir AT
the first seeson of this very Congress the only proposition
we bad TO authorize the people of Territory TO form
State constitution that of Kansas and In that case
by deliberate vote the principle recognised that the
elective franchise should be confined citizens of the United
States. We have before bill from the other House
for the admission Of another State into this Unionhe
State OF Oregon and in that bill is the very provision Of
the present amendment which is sought to be stricken
out
nois in regard to this matter say that by territorial
bill you authorize these persons vote II Is sort of trap
to get them into Terrific and then, when you GO
ing to form State constitution If you exclude them ii is
harsh measure unfair, and unjust The very pro-
vision is In the Oregon bill The territorial bill for Ore
rriua r,rlt Arrftt