Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1857-03-31
Vioza tic. ;tw yosk !osrnal ct: cola,a, Iet.
a,s Negroes Ii.izenS!

The Rspabiian papers pUkss % Be-
profoundly Startled by the recent decision
Of tho supreme tribunal Of the natlan.
that neyOes are not eit.zcns Of Tie Uhi:ed
States a. il this doctrine Wero not ne
old as the CONSTITUTION itsel, and Rad no.
been maintained, both theoretically and
Practically. BY Legislatures. cour;s, and
Statesmen. FROM that day to tbs. We
do not say by. ostf Legislatures. Courts.
sand Statesmen,-for some Of them. in
these latter days. do not 80. 70 the ;estab.
lished principIeset 'intel probation, or 70
contemporaneous history, or to any, other
Legitimate source Of evidence, for tie ba-
sis Of theirtopinions, but TO Inc higher
Jaw of their own wishes and the neces'
sites 81 political psrtizanship. Now 1t
is clear that these things have nothing in
the world 70 do with the question and
that q cool judgment, wishing to be con-
, Quoted to . correct. decision. would scru-
$pulously guard against such influences,
instead OF yielding itself 70 their guidance.
The question is net, whether negroes
ought to be citiEens Of the United States,
or entitled to citizenship, in common
with white: persons! but whether they are
70 in fact. under the Constitution Of the
United States. It is not new question.
but an old one.: And the view taken Of
ii by the Supreme Court is not in sub
stance new, but old. In another column
will be found an extract from q decision
pronounced years ago by the late Chief
Justice Daggett, Of New Haven. one Of
the soundest, ablest. and most learned
and independent judges that; Connecticut
ever had. We, ourselves. in these col.
umns. havsf uniformly held the same
opinions, whenever we have alluded to
the subject. Butt is not to prove this,
SO much as to show how extensively tie
same opinion was held throughout the
country un;ifthe era Of negro. worship
commenced, thatwe copy the following
editorial article from the Journal Of Com
nerct; of January Is. 1852.
:. .rAt the time Of the adoption of the
Constitution. there were various classes
of persons -whites. Indians, slaves
each of which was recognized as distinct.
In the Constitution they are designated
respectively as "citiIens. "free- per.
sons. Indians" and "other persons
From this. speciality and difference
10 designation. il is perfectly evident that
the trainers Of the Constitution intended,
to coafne the term. citizen to portion
only, Of those Inhabitants Of the United
States. 1t viii Be further evident. from
centemporaneous actstof Congress, and
from the language OF various State Con.
stitutions. tina, colored persons and Indi. |
ans were intended TO be excluded from
the designation The first Legislation M.
der the clause Of the Constitution which |
directs Congress to establish . uniform |
rule ofnaturaliza;ion,"H took place in 1880
This4is the language used in the Act
ANY alien. being q, free uhas person
may become acitissn, BY complying with
the Observation-Disclosures named. -
In lilo law Of 1895, i; is declared: ".At
free ,rhite person may become citizen"
Tie Acts Of 1898, fa92,. 1918, and 1894
continue the same phraseolpgy. AL.
though any ,oh,ts person coming from
abroad can BE- ma5e5a ,ci,izen by the pro:
cess OF naturalization, black one cannot
"a distinction founded wholly on -eofor.
i he laws relating 70 the transporta-
tionso the mail. and the management of :
post Offices exclude blacks from the right
to participate in this privileges; a distiae-
tion Of the same character. =, -. is "a
Tho early Constitutions Of many of the
States Of this Union, maintsined the
same distinction Delaware, Maryland,
Connecticut. Virginia, South Carolina,
Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi. Illinois,
Alabama, Indiana, and Rhode Island.
each had clauses combining the privilege
of the franchise, or Of being representa-
tives, to whites. New York, in her Con.
stitution, makes a distinction between
whites and blacks, but in different form.
In the recent Constitution Of: Indiana,
blacks are excluded from, the right to set
tie within her Limits: A distinction
equal evident and severe. is maintained
ia Acts Of the Legislatures of various
States, forbidding intermarriagesbetween
the two classes, and preventing the en-
joyment Of various Tprivilegcs and im+
muniiies" on. the part Of the colored perl
sons, which are common to HE whites.
These proceedings on the part of Safes, d
these Acts Of Congress and of Legisla uresE
constitute. most imposing Interpretation
Of the meaning Of the clause referred to:
but yet it is contended that native born +
'eeleFed person is q cilizon although born
Of colored foreign parents, who could not
under our laws become naturalized. Ifl
this is SO, all, these clauses of State con-
stitutions, and these several Acts. are
void. In the previous article. the decis-
ion made by the highest legal tribunal in
this State that Indians wee not citizens,
was referred to. They stand on the same
ground as free colored persons, with this
ditfere nee, that they have always been |
upon the soil. and have always been free
,whereastthe blacks were imported, from
Africa as slaves. and at the time Of the
adoption ofthe Constitution they existed
IS such in wv ,lve Of the then thirteen
STATES Of this Union. Like decisions have
been made IN other States. and 4he Courts
OF Tennessee have decide ] that free blacks
are notcitisens. The Ssateof Conpecti-
cut, in the celebrated case brought by her
against Prudence Crandsll. made through
hsr Snn;arnas E,us. n lika dAn;ai,n II.