Weekly American. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1858-1858, 1858-04-24
[Coptipued from the First Page.

1850 - Wv s~s''S~'y
where Kansas now 10.
/ have read the reasoning upon which the
court base their decision that negro is not CT
tizen /; and have heard the eloquent common
dation of the court, for making the decision, pro-
nounced here by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr..
BENJAMIN. / understand Il was decided that the
plaintiff had no right in court because no man,
bond or free, whose ancestors brought to this
country from Africa and sold as slaves, could be
q citizen Of the United States The court give
reasons for this the most prominent is that the
African race is degraded race. To prove tsi,
statutes of different States, prohibiting and pun
ishing intermarriages between them and whites,
cited, and various penal statutes against PEG.
pie Of color are also cited together with the laws
OF Congress for enrolling the militia and those OF
New Hampshire for the same purpose.
Mr. President, have an interest in this ques-
tion Of citizenship, and 80 have you. Mr.. Sew
ARD was In the chair. We have not title as citi-
zens which can be produced at any time and
anywhere, a. the Senator from Louisiana Mr..
BENyAxIs1 has. His title to ctizenahip Is upon
parchment, duly sealed; but how We to estab
fish ours, aud cur right to sue in court Of the
United States9 We have no parchment under
seal to show it. If were obliged to look for
yours, sir, l should not look where the court
seems to have looked for bred SCOTS, about jais
and whippipg-posts, pententiaries and penal stat
utes. These are places where freemen lose
their rights, and not the places to find how or
where they became entranchised. If l wanted to
discover our right to the blessings of freemen,
should not look down into dungeons, but up to
the source from which they come-just where the
fathers of this Republic looked when they began
to struggle to obtain them.
Sir, on the morning Of the 4th of July, l776,
the people of this country were British subjects
on the evening of that day, by virtue of the acts
of those they had authorized, they ceased to be
subjects, and became simply inhabitants Of the
country. This definition included all within our
limits, bond or free but they were not left SO
long. The same authorized agents who had
changed them from subjects to inhabitants, pro-
ceeded to form articles for union of the several
States, aud in these the status of the inhabitants
was determined, as follows:
"The free inhabitants Of each of the States,
= paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice
excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges
and immunites of free citizens in the several
States" PSI
There is nothing here about color; all the dis.
tinction they made was between free and slave,
and between the worthy and unworthy. None
were excluded on accout of color, Of race, or
country of birth but all were made citizens who
were then on the soil, except the slaves and the
unworthy. This would seem to settle the ques-
AZ IL. 80 II
nized as such, until the adoption Of the Constitu-
ton; and included therein as such, when that
instrument was adopted. The court, however,
appear TO think the militia laws negatived this
conclusion, and refer with great confidence to an
early act of Congress, in 1892, organizing the mill
tia, passed by those familiar with the meaning
of the language Of the Constitution, which says
that every free, able-bodied white male citizen"
shall be enrolled in the militia They also refer
to similar provision in late law of New Hamp-
shire, which / suppose should be more convincing,
as that Is a free-soil State.
These extracts from the laws, and like expires.
sions the court seems to regard as conclusive that
none but whites can be citizens, or were regarded
as such by the trainers of the Constitution, who
were members Of Congress in these early times.
It is little singular II did not occur to the court
that the use Of the term "white citizens" to de-
signate those who should be enrolled, instead of
proving that there were no other "ctizens,"
shows clearly that those who used that word
must have used 1t on purpose to discriminate be-
tween "white citizens" and citizens" of some
color not understood 10 be ",ohite :" for it is GER
tain that, II there were no other than whit, citi-
zens, as the court insist the use of the word
,ohits," as a term of discrimination, was an alb
surdity.
This term, Is one of discrimination among citi-
Gems, was so common that 1t had become habitual;
and, until after this decision, arrested ne atten-
tio il was used when this Lecompton consttu.
ton was drafted, and was stricken out at the sug-
gestion Of some member, that since this decision
of the court there were other citizens than white
ones, and therefore no longer any necessity for
the use Of the term.
suppose this form Of expression has been used
In constitutions or statutes from the time of the
Revolution 70 the last year to determine whether
the elective franchise in the different States should
be enjoyed by white citizens only, or by all citi-
xens; and has 80 determined the matter II the
word was in the law or Constitution, none but
white citizens voted; II not in, all voted, white
and colored. That has been the case in Rhode
Island, and suppose In other States; and until
this late discovery Of the court, nobody ever
thought Of disputing its fitness and propriety.
/ do not think there needs 10 be any recenstruc-
ton Of the court for, believe, II similar ques-
ton we're brought before the court the late decis-
ion would be overruled. These decisions are not