Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1859-08-10
Massachusetts, and South Carolina
Naturalization Laws.

imposed upon them because of their foreign
birth. Such is not the truth. The stat
Gtcs 81 South Carolina make no distinction
between the spucign horn and the native
born. On the contrary. ihs Massachusetts
law imposes its burdens and hindranees ex.
clusiveiy upen the foreigner. There is nj
palliation for the Misrepresentation Of any
public record 80 aotoyious, and easy Of &C.
cess, as the laws of a State. The only law
in South Carolina on the subject of suffrage,
adopted since The year 1910. is that passed
hy the General Assembly of that State. in
December, 1856. as N amendment to the
State Constitution, which was subsequently
ratified ard became a part thereof. and
Which We here insert in full:
No 429e Az ACT 70 ameni the Fourth Sec.
ito Of the First Article rf the Constitution Of
ihis State.
/. B. it enacted by the senate and H"us
Of Representatives. now met ana sitting in Uen
rrai Assembly. and blythe authority of the sarne,
That tie arnendm.nto of the fourth section 9th
Erst article of the Constitution Of this State. rat
fled on the nineteenth day os December. in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and ten, be altered and amended as follows:-
Every FREE white man OF the age of twenty one
years. { ~Dqlpers and non commissioned officers
and private soldiers of the army Of the United
States, exc. ptcd. } trlo hath Jsea n citizen and
resident 10 this State two wears previous To the
day OF election, and ra6 has q freet6id of .fjtv
ceres Of land or a torn lof, OF lrhich he hath been
kqaHy seized and possessed at Least sir months BE-
fore such ~eiecsiOa, or, not having such O freehold
- " - -. : =.
district in which he offers to give his vote. six
months l'efore the said election, shall have n
right To vote for n mem6er or members, IN srrre
in fitheT branch of The Legislature for the Election
Difrici in rAicL he holds srch property, or is so
resiGeRt. [IrWm6aA Democrat.
Tie above is extracted from an article
IN the last Democydi, in answer to one pub
liAed ia the Conneaut Reporter, which
showed ~ the beautiful consistency of the
Democratic party. which always processes
SO much love for the foreigners.
The law Of Massachusetts,, complained
OF. is as fellows:
No prrson II foreign birth shall bs entitled to
vote. or shall be ligihle 70 Office. unless he shall
have resided within the jurisdiction of the Uni
ted States, for two years subsequent To his nat
uralization, and shall lie otherwise qualified &C
curling to the constitution and laws of this Com
rnonuealth: Prouided. That this amendment
shall not affect the rights of any child of a citi-
zen OF the United States. born dun ing the tenn
porary absence Of the parent therefrom.
The Democracy of Ohio, at their last
State Convention, passed a resolution strong
~ .denouncing this law of Massachusetts,.
bpt had not a gord 10 say respecting that
Of South Carolina. The reason for this
was, we presume, that the n was a Re
publican. and the other a Democratic State.
Slavery being the motive power in South
Carolina, it was sure to be Democratic
slavery can carry that State without the
help of naturalized voters; the three-ffth
niger representation being fully competent
for the work.
The Democrat well says: There as no
paHiation for the misrepresentation Of any
public record 50 notorious and easy of &C
cess as the lars Of a State" In proof of
the truth of the above remark, We give the
following instance: When the Democratic
editors found that foreigners were excluded
from voting in South Carolina, ever for
members of the Legislature, for two years
after residence in the State, and that this
fact was opening the eyes of foreign born
citizens, they resortcd ito the desperate
means of getting an official denial of the
fact. They procured a letter from the De-
putty Secretary of State of South Carolina,
Wm. r. HUNT, to the editor of the Ger.
mania, Cleveland, O., denying that any
such constitutional provision existed in that
State. This letter is now going the rounds
of the democratic papers at the North; but
the papers in South Carolina have rejected
and exposed the dodge"
The Charleston Mercury says:
when we copied the opinion of Mr..
Wm- r. HUNT, Deputy Secretary of State,
We were aware that it was incorrect, but
courtesy suggested that we should not at
tack or deride it until Nh. HUNT was heard
from. w, therefore, gave It the benefit
Of circulation. which. by favor of the
Southern Gu0rdian, at Columbia, has
brought out the following card from Mr..
HUNT, and . very Interesting commupica-
tiOp on the subject from a Contributor tc
that journal"
Mr.. HUNT having his attention called
to the matter by the Southern Guardian,
explained his part in tie deception as fol.
lows:
OFFICE OF III SECRETARY OF STATE,
Columbia, S. G.. July II, 1859. !
/ notice in your issue of to-day a lette,
of mine to tie editor of the Germaniq
Cleveland, Ohio, in reply to an inquiry Of
his, whether there was a law in existence
in your State, DISTINGUISHING a foreigner fol-
a term of two years after he has received
his certificate Of naturalization" made By
nc. AS it is not incumbent upon this Of
fec to expcund the laws of this State. ]
merely examined. in the midst of office bu
siness. the subject so far as it is treated il
"Millcr's Compilation" not thinking o
the act u Legislature passed in Decem
Der, 1856. You will therefore oblige MI
by publishing the note and the act of 1856
which explains itself.
WM. r. HUNT,
Deputy Secretary of State.
We think that our readers will agrc,
with the Democrat when it says: Then
is no PaRiatiOR for Tie misrepresentation,
qf a public record so aotorious and cas-,
If access a the ta'cs Of q Statc"-not evel
when the Misrepresentation from tn,
Democratic, full-blooded, pro-slavery Dep
70