Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-04-28
COMMUNICATED.

The triangular. fight IN the SerenM Congress
s;ougi District, or reasons for rot'n9 for
Heary .Shackeitord.-No. 3.
TIN. stern and ~unbending opposition OF
., smith to the admission OF Minnesota,
with her Democratic Senator'S and Represen-
...;,.. a.u State into this Union, followed,
,ip ms, aud logical consequence, from the
principle involved in the Smih-f ~1""r"oy-
.,. \,,hinq herexy. That heresy asserted
tho expediency and power Of Congress to
o,,,st roreign im~miyrafio"; and this, as was
,ssIl said by the Examiner. was the asser-
.;,r of a power by Congress over Il matter
cha, belonged to State and police regulation
va doctrine IF .Abo'ition inrent'on, amt
.,,.yIy qbhorrsnt 10 all Southern ideas ~
r,. soreyeiynty. Hence followed the
.,.,.smanship of Gov. Smith, who confound-
~ citizenship with suffrage, and claimed tor
congress the power 10 control the action ana
I.gisIa,ion Of a State on the subject Of alien
Gsn Millson. of the Norfolk District, thus
.oswer.d Gov. Smith: THAT when he (Gov.
Sm;,bl undertakes to exclude a State from
,b;s Union. because Of the exercise OF a right
,,b;,h his own State constantly exercised
from the beginning of the Union to the pre-
sent dav. II strikes me that he is taking Il
,,o.;,ion not IN accOrddnce cih the doctrine
IF state rights. which has heretofore been
nne Of his characteristics.
The Hon. 4. III. Stephens, Of Georgia, thus
..,t,,, nF Gov smith
# now come to the main question III this
d.late-rhe alien suffrage clause, AZ it is call.
81 in this constitution. | have said that it
va,nu nrw question. 1t lisa grave and impor-
,ant one. but is coeval with the government:
Mr. Sneaker, if there was any subject which
,rss seriously watched and guarded, in the
c,r,ootion Of the constitution of the United
STATE, above all others. it was that the Fede-
raj Government should not touch the right
of suffrage in the States. The question of
vbo should vote in the several States, was
I.n for each State 70 settle for itself. And,
y, far As | AIN concerned. | say it for myself,
shat there is nothing in the dochfneof State
Rtyhb tina, | would defend and stand by
iongsr. aud hyht.t for harder, than that which
d,aiss the right Of the Federal Government.
by its entertainments, to interfere with the
right Of suffrage IN my Sae." -.
Thus we see Gov. Smith, so bound to his
new idol. forgptful Of his former doctrines, as
laid his Know Nothing allies in striking at
The rights of the States and Of a constitu-
,ional Union. Mr.. Stephens in his able
speech already referred to, further shows
that the principle against which Gov. Smith
10 earnestly contended, was sanctioned and
approved BY Presidents Washington, the
elder Adams, jefferson, Madison, Jackson,
Polk. Fillmore, and Pierce; and also BY
President Buchanan, who signed the bills
for the admission of Minnesota and Oregon.
Thus do We see Gov. Smith SO welded to
his new faith. closing his eyes to the history
of the past. and madly running a tilt at the
principle Of nearly every administration from
the DAYS Of Washington to the present date.
Here we see that Coy. Smith even shoots a
shaft far beyond the bent Of that strong ar
cher Of Federalism, the elder Adams.
But the adoption of the Smith F~iournoy-
Hnou- .Nothing herexy, led him into other
difficulties. Having once cut loose from the
conservatism Of State Rights politics, he
enters into a field of startling latitudinarism,
WHICH NOUIl uiINcI III i oul, S't
government 10 the demands of Abolitlonism.
Whom the Gods wish to destroy, they
frs, make mad. and Gov. Smith. maddened
by hs crusade against foreign immigration,
hlindlv and unconsciously placed himself in
conjunction with Seward, Hale, and others
Of that stamp, in the reputation Of the
Judgment of the Supreme Court Of the Cni-
Ted States in the bred Scott case.
Gov. Smith, in his views Oh the subject OF
alien suffrage, and the power OF the State
oyer that subject, comes i'll direct conflict
with the opinion Of Judge fancy. Gov
Smith afirms that Il State cannot confer on q
resident alien the right Of voting. This,
therefore. makes citizenship and suffrage
identical.
Now Chief Justice Tanev. in his opinion
IN the bred scott case. says:
In discussing this question, we must not
confDund the rights of citizenship which a
State may confer within it's own limits, and
the rights of citizenship rs u member OF the
Union" 1T does not, by any means. follow,
because he mas the rights and privileges OF
Il citizen of a State. that ne must be a citizen
Of the United States. He may have all the
rights and privileges Of n citizen Of a State.
and Vet not be entitled to the rights and
privileges of u citizen in any other State
Tor previous to the adoption of the Constitu.
ton Of the United States, every State had
the Gndoubted right to confer on whomso,
ever it pleased tie character of citizens, and
10 endow him with all its rights; but this
character. OF course, was confined to the
boundaries Of the State. and gave him no
rights or privileges i'll other States. beyond
those secured TO him by the laws of nations
aud the comfy of States. Nor have the sew
eral States surrendered the power of confer,
lns these rights and privileges by adopting
The Constitution Of the United States. Each
Nate may still c"nter them upon an alien, or
any one it thinks proper. or upon any class
or description of persons, and yet he would
not bfa citizen in the sense in which that
word Is uSed in the Constitution of the lni-
led States, nor entitled to sue as such in one
%! lts fourts. nor TO the privileges and im'
Munltle> Of a citizen in the other States.
In" rights which he would acquire, would
he restricted To the State which gave them.
Vow IT seems clear and evident, from the
",Pinlcn Of Judge fancy, that the States
nave never surrendered tO the Federal Gov
S,rnmeut the right to confer within their own
limits the immunities of citizenship on the
amen. Then Minnesota had the right to con-
Ter the privilege of suffrage on its alien resi-
tents. Yet, Gov. Smith, following out the
>mlth-Flournoy Know Nothing grouad, re-
PHdIates the opinion Of Judge fancy, and
uec!areS that Minnesota had no right to exer