The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1859-08-05

| r.- ~ Laws ,..-.ri ~
The Democracy are in tribulation
again about the position Of Demo.
cratic South Carolina, in regard V
naturaIized citizens. The Deputy
Secretary Of that state, in his fret
avowal that a two yssrs' residence
was not required after naturalization,
before the right OF suffrage wal
conferred, relieved the Dcmocrac,)
amazingly: but his subscquen, re
traction Of all he had asserted. tliel
exposure Of the fraul by the Sont,
Carolina press, and the publication
Of the law in question. showing tito
be everything that had been ,harged
against It, lias given them a deadIu'
backsct.
A few OF the Democratic papers
are trying this dodge now: thy say
that there is no distinction made be.
tween the native and the mtnral.
lied citiz,n-.lat OF both is required |
residence OF two years. Blu such
is not the fact. OF the p rDn of
foreign birth, there is required a cit
isenship Of two years; while Of the
native there is required but a resi.
dence OF two years. The residence
OF q foreigner IN oonsn .,.-.i:.... mr..
vious to his naturalization, does not
inure to his benefit; he might inst
as well have resided in any other
state, 30 far ~ the elective franchise
in South Carolina is concerned.
Those v no hold that there ia no dis
tinction made in the South Carolina
provision. between the native and
naturalizcd citizen that the resu
lation is equitable "a It relates to the
two classes OF citizens, concede, at
once, all that has been claimed by
the most violent Know Nothings.-
The principle on which the Know
Nothing doctrine is founded, is, that q
naturalizcd citizen should he required
to reside in a state as long after being
admitted to citizenship, before voting.
as q native citizen, coming from an.
other state, is required to reside be.
foro voting. Such was the ground
taken by the advocates Of the Mas
sachusctts Amendment; for let It be
borne in mind that a native citizen
cannot vote, as soon as lie enters the
state OF Massachusetts; he has Ia
serve q probation as in South Caro-
lima. Again, the provision in South
Carolina is just and ,qnitable, or il
is not. If it is, as certain Of the De.
hocracy hold, then would an amend.
ment OF the Constitution of Ohio, re
quiring a residence and citizenship
OF one year, before voting, be just
and equitablei On the other hand
il such regulation in Ohio would
do injustice to the naturalized citi-
zen, such a regulation in South Car.
IolIna would do him equal injustice.
Those who are opposed to requiring
OF q natura.iztd citizen a residence OF
one year in Ohio, before giving him
the right of suffrage, or a period as
long as is required Of a native citi.
zen, coming in from another state,
must, to be consistent, oppose with
equal force, the requiring OF foreign,
ers a residence OF two years in South
Carolina, or a period oqual to that
required of q native citiz n from an.
other state. The premises being
granted, the conclusion is unavoida
BILE.
But one fact cannot be denied
and that is, that in South Carolina
Just as in Massachusetts, a foreigner
must be in the country seven years
before he can have the right OF suf-
frage. Two years are added in both
cases, to the period fixed by the Con
stitution OF the United States. Ye,
with all this the Democracy Of South
Carolina is so fully endorsed, tina,
she is to be honored with the next
National Convention, The fact thai
she set Massachusetts the example
three years ago, does not affect hcl
orthodoxy, with tie party, in the
least.
A Vindication.
We publish, in another column
two communications in reference t