Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-04-06

asking for equalization of bounties; asking Con
greSS 10 enact an elght-hOur labor law and for an
ferred. -l''''' 10
The bill to, provide arms for the defence of the
people OF Dakotah Terri, w taken up and
passed 1t directs the Secrt try of War to furnish
l0O stand of small arms and 100 600 rounds of am
muntl1n m to the people of Dakotah to enable them
M Wilson called up the joint resolution RESPECT
ipg m ooantleS to e9ored soldiers 1t provides that
the omission IN the muster rolls of the words free
on or before April 10, 1861" shall not deprive any
col9red soldier Of the bounty to which he is ent-
tied, and which is now, or may hereafter be with
held by reason of such omission: lrociIed That
nothing herein contained shall be construed as to
enile soldiers who we're not free ut the date herein
Mr W lson offered an amendment to the effect tha {
In determining who is the wife of a co0red soldier
evidence OF cohabltalon In living together shall be
The resolution, as amended. was passed.
The veto message was then taken up.
MIR johnson said, that in the discussion Of the bill
before the Senate theqUestOn not strictly legal
one There are questions of policy to be considered
questions of eXpediency. The objections which the
President makes to the bill in returning it without
his approval, re late as well to the expediency of the
measure as to its alleged unconstitutionaIity. The
purpose of clothing the President with the veto
power were to guard his department against en-
croachments by any other to guard the States against
like influence and to guard the individual citizens
also In addition to these objects, of the purposes
OF the Convention was to guard against iuexpedient
and lil-considere legislation Looking to what had
taken place in the Congress of the COnederacy and
to what had occurred in the several State govern
Rents, the members of the Convention of l7ST were
satisfied tbet il was Just as necessary for the hc
veal to protect he country against nexpedent egis-
against Unconstitutional legislation II has barato
fore been denied by some, and doubted by Others
whether the President is justified in using the power
except upon constitutional grounds. That principle
at the head ofwhich stood Mr.. Clay, when they be-
came very much dissatisfied with the exercise of that
power by the then President of the United States
General Jackson9 The fact then called the atten-
ton OF Mr.. Madison. He expressed his opinion on
1t IN letter. written with the ability which always
marked his writings. dated the 18th October 1884
MI Johnson mere quoted from the letter referred to-
and continued
The honorable member from Illinois rTrumhpII7
seems to suppose that he finds as valid objections to
the exercise Of this power by the President in this
instance In the fact that the bill passed received the
votes OF more than twO-hrds Of the members of each
speech delivered by the President when he was a
member member Of this body in 1857 and 60 The Senate,
perhaps, were induced By what he read from that
speech to believe that the Pres lent suited the prn-
cipte TO be- tina! bili passed by Two thirds vote
could not conS itutiOnally be subjected to the veto
power If he had read the latter part of the same
sentence he would have found that the President in
tended no such thing Ibesoundncss of the doctrine
johnson when he was n member Of this body merely
said that the fact that bill was passed by the majority
rendered necessary for the purpose of oyerrulirg
Yeto,was reason why he should very cautiously apply
thepoWer for its exercise But fer from its being in
the Judgment OF the Senate as it certainly was not
III the mind of Mr. j OhnSoE at the time that hill
being passed by that majority placed il bcvond tha
veto power, the honorable mem bers Mr.. TrumbnIsj
answer to question which put TO him shows that
properly exercised, and bill which in that instance
had been passed by more than two-thirds of both
Houses did not become law, as many who had voted
Tor the bill changed their votes under the influence of
the Presidents veto message.
Now, Mr. President. in order to see exactly wheth-
or it was proper for the President to disapprove of
this bill becomes necessary to ascertain with pre-
eision what the bill is The honorable member from
Illinois alT. IrumEuIU insisted ulon It tEat there is
section II which not clearly constitutional
lie maintains the constitutionaty of the first sec
cion upon the ground, FIRST that it is merely decara-
declaratory 1t was a law which Congress had right
to make because in his Judgment, it is in the power
OF Congress by law to DECLARE wu shall be citizen
Of the United States. The honorable member re-
erTed to case reported in the Sixth of Peters, the
decision of Chief Justice Marshall for the purpose
OF showing that a citizen OF the United States
who has been naturaliZed, and who resided in any
State OF the United States has right 10 go into the
courts of the United States The honorable members
clearly think lnisapprehenj the decision to which
he refers. The question before the court was whether
it appeared upon the face of the pleading that the
party going into the court below had right to 90
into that court. Under the Constitution of the United
States and the act Of 1882 which was passed to convey
out its provisions the jurisdiction Of court of the
United states where it was made to depend upOnthe
character Of parry, vas siye only in Uases where
the party plaintiff and the party defendant were
citizens of different States and the question before the
court was whether it appeared in the face of the
declaration in the particular case that the party
palhtlH was citizen OF State and such entitled
language Of the declaration was that he was
n&turaZed citizen of the United States residing in
conclusion that that avOwment was equivalent to an
avOwment that he a citizen of Louisiana in the
absence ct anything to the contrary, But that is not
the question which this bill presents. lie becomes
citizen under tie naturalization laws of the United
States, and the authority of Congress to pass such
laws could not be doubted. The eleet of ths ex
ercise Cf thai power was TO remove the debility
arising from foreign BIRTH and to give him the ca
pacity of becoming citizen of one of the States
When the declaration therefore hot tha
original disability of alenage was removed in that
instance by the party having become citizen under
the naturalization laws, the only other question upon
which the case before The court turned whether
he was citizen of different State from the State in
which the other party resided and the court decided
tnat an aYoWment or residence IN State of one
who avowed TO be citizen of the United States
was equivalent to avOwment that he was a citizen
ofa State ! suppose nobody could we'll nave doubt
ed Of W now doubt tne correctness OF that decision
This bill IN lts nr5t se6lonr makes all who born
IN the United States at any time. and who are now
citizens also of the States in which they may re-
spect'yely reside. and conterS upon them slI the
rishts Lavu9lAg 10 ln0Sa WHO nave heretofore been
eonslderel GluEenS OF the United States and of the
States IN which they may reside. Now MIR. Presi-
dent, you not to be told that the only express
authority conferred upon the Congress of the United
States in relation to citizenship, that is tc a7 Ia re-
l2t.2r T. ta power o. converting one who is not a
citizen into citizen is the authority to be found in the
delegation to Congress of the power to pass uniform
laws upon the subject of naturalization, There is
not a single word IN the CGnstitgtiJn which gives
to this lepa. .tmeht oi the Government, or to any
other department OF the Government. no power to
declare who shall be a citizen And what is the eff
feet of the exercise of that power? What was the
design of the power and what is the operation of the
power when it is exerted2 The design of the power
is to remove disabilities arising from the fact of
alienage, and nothing else The ore~at;a- OF the
poWef Is " place the parry whose disability arises
from aliepage; IS removed by virtue of the atura-
zaOn law in the condition with any body else;
but whether he he Is to be considered as a citizen
of State Of the United States. by virtue of the re-
moval Of the disabilities consequent upon ais taxing
advantage UI rns nalur4ii@ation laws, presents an
entirely different inquiry. And perhaps, L cannot
make the view which 1 shall otherwise present in
my own language more clearly to the country than
by reading an opinion in the Dred Scott case: not
that opinion pronounced by the majority which has
been so often and thipk so shameleSsly perverted
to the dlsparasements MT only Of the majority of the
court who sanctioned that opinion, but of the ad-
mirable lawyers by whom the opinion was pronounc-
ed, out of the opinion of MIR. Justice Curtis. in
which he differs from that Of the majority; an opin-
ION marked by bearing TO as great an extent any
ever pt0nosnced py ANY IuGge OF that o. any other
tribunal. The opinion III question was then read,
and Ar. j. continued his argument at length.
1t would abolish all State laws and what is the
in which this exclusive jurisdiction is vested in
the Courts of the United States Of all cases, civil
or general, affecting persons who are denied their
rights IN State court, anu aAy 5ucl pefson against
whom suit may be brought for any cause whatever,
may appeal to the United States Courts. Any OF
these agencies subagences for there hosts of
them provided for by the bill, who may kill free
who is endeavOrng to protect what he considers
his rights he is not h be tieI il State Court but
in United States Court. Here the bill goes upon
the theory that there is but one Government Muir
der. robbery and many other offences which no one
dreamed OF trying in any but State Court are
to 10 transferred 70 the United States Courts, The
honorable member refers to The act of 1890 which has
nothing at all to do with this. The punishment pro-
yded by that act related to suits offences against
the foreign Ministers who accredited to the
government and any oEence against them was an
offence against the Government. That law was based
upon the same principle, as provide for the pun
shment or those who utter false coins, &c. 1t is
incidental lntirey: 1t is part OF the law of ma
tions, and not derived from any municipal power
whatever.
Ny honorable friend asks whose fault is it that
eleven States not represented hereS He certainly
does not ask this in dG cdptdnlum style, as he
animadverted upon that in referring to the Presi-
dent. He says their hands are reeking with the
blood of our brethren. What have they done? They
have abolished slavery; some of them have even
farther than the honorable member himself and
though OF them have fought on the field OF
battle they can take that oath as conscientousy as
legislation necessary, it is said Well they applied
here in the month of December and It is now April
and it may be until July December as rumor has
It. They are disoyal. | can go into the State of
the honorable member himself and find hundreds ot
men Just as disloya as any in those States that is
short time ago. it dslOyal to oppose the Presi-
dent now it is dislOyal to support him; it is only
loyal to uphold COrgrsSs. Ihs Supreme Court has
recognized these States as being in the Unon-it has
for weeks been trying cases from them.
1t is apprehended that mischief will result if they
are admitted here. Mischief Of what kind9 of q
party lnaraeterf That is the only mischief that
am aware of that can result.
Where is the occasion OF this bill2 Does any one
suppose that the rights of the black men are not
safe in tkSss States gs in any Of the loyal States Go
into Missouri, tho S5ate Of my friend on my right