New-York daily tribune., 1866-04-06


for the public veal to protect the country against
nexpedient legislation almost as necessary as II was
TO protect it against unconstitutional legislation IL
has heretofore been denied by some and doubted by
others whether the President is justified In using the
power except upon constitutional grounds. That prn'
cipe argued by the leading members OF the Whig
party at the head of which stood Mr.. Clay when they
became very much dissatisfied with the exercise OF that
power by the then President OF the United States,
Gen jackson. The fact then called the attention Of
Mr. Madison He expressed his SPDion ON on II IN
his writings. dated on the 18th Of October le34 LII
johnson here quoted from tho letter referred TO- AZ
eontnued The honorable member from Illinois VT
TrumbulD seems to suppose that he finds valid objse
ons the exercise Of this power BY the President In
this instance. in the fact that the bill passed received
the votes Of more than twothirds OF the members o
each House; and he cited. in support OF that doctrine
a speech delivered by the President when he was a
member of this body in 1889 and 1900 The Senate
perhaps were induced by what he read from tha'
speech believe that the President stated the primer
pie TO be that a bill passed by twothrds vote could
not constutonay be subjected 10 the veto power II
he had read the latter part OF the same sentence ne
would have found that the President intended no such
thing. The soundness Of the doctrine expressed
in that speecn cannot be questioned Mr.. John
son, when he was a member Of this body. merely
said that the fact that bill was passed
by the majority rendered necessary for the purpose OF
overruling veto, was reason why he shoud very
cautiously apply the power for its exercises but 80 i
from its being in the Judgment Of the Senate as II GER
tarly was not in the mind Of Mr.. johnson at the time
that bill passed by that majority placed 1t beyond the
veto power, the honorable members hG. Irumbnlfs)
answer TO n question which put 10 him showed that.
in the Judgment Of the Senate, the veto power was
properly exercised, and bill which in that instance
had been passed by moro than twothrds OF Doto
Houses did not become law, as many who had voted
for the bin changed their votes under the influence OF
the Presidents Veto Message. Now. Mr.. President IN
order 10 see exactly whether il proper Tor the Pres
dent TO dsapproye Of this BILL IL becomes necessary Ia
ascertain with precision what the bill Is. Mr. Trum
bull insisted upon il that theIe Is section In Ii which
is clearly constitutional He maintains the const
tutionay Of the first section, rpon the ground hrst:
that it is merely deolaratory Of what law is. and
secured by that II II was not decaratory II was law
which Congress had right TO make, because
in bis Judgment il Is in the power OF Congress by law to
declare who shall be citizens Of the United States The
honorable member referred TO case reported IN the
9th Of Peters he decision Of ChefJustce MARSHALL Tor
the purpose of showing that citizen Of the United
States who had been naturalized and who resided IN
any State Of the United States had right TO go into
Courts Of ihs United States. The honorable member
clearly as think misapprehends the decision TO which
be refers The question before the Court was whether
u appeared upon the face Of the pleading that the party
going into the Court below had right TO go into that
Court under the Constitution OF the United States and
the act of s9 which passed 10 carry out It's Prov
sions The Jurisdiction of Court OF the United States
where IT made depend upon the character OF a
party given only in cases where the party paibtii
and the party defendant were citizens Of different
States And the question before the Court was whether
II appeared the face OF the declaration on this par
ticular that the party plaintiff was citizen oi
State and as such entitled TO go into the Courts OF the
United States. The language Of the declaration was
that he natural zed citizen OF Ile Dniied StAte'
residing In the State OF louisiana; ana ana
the Court came 10 the conclusion that that
ayerment was equivalent 10 an ayermei,
that he citizen Of Louisiana in the absence of any
thing to the contrary. But that Is not the qucstio
which this bill presents. lie became citizen undei
the naturalization laws Of the United States and the
authority Of Congress 10 pass sach laws could not be
doubted The effect Of the exercise Of that power was
TO remove the disability arising from foreign birth and
TO give him the capacity Of becoming citizen Of one Of
the States when the declaration therefore averrsd
that the original disability Of aenage removed In
under S the ns,uraiiza,o1 laws the only other
question pnon which the case before the Court
from the State In which the other party resided; and
the Court decided that tho averment of residence IN
State OF one who averred 20 be citizen of the
limited States WAS equivalent TO Averment that be
was citizen Of State Isuppose nobody who could well
have doubted II will doubt ths correctness VI that
decision Tho bill in its FIRST section makes all who
were born in the United States at any time ana rho
are now living citizens Of the United States and as
SUCH citizens Of the States In which they NAV
respectively reside and copfers upon them oil the rights
belonging 10 those who have heretofore been con,
sidered citizens Of the United States and Of
the States In which they may reside. Now, MI Presi-
dent you are not 10 be told that the only express su.
thority conferred upon the Congress OF the United
States n relation to citizenship that TO say In Iea
ton the power Of converting one who Is not citizen
into citizen is the authority TO be found In the delega
ton Congress of the power to pass uniform laws upon
the subject Of naturalization. There Is not single
word in the Constitution which gives TO this depart.
men OF the Government or TO any other department OF
the Government power to declare who shall be citl.
zen and what Is the effect OF the exercise OF that
power, what was the design Of the power. and
what IL the operation OF tho power. when 1t
Is exerted TIE design Of the power Is to disa
biites arising from the fact Of alienage and nothing
else The operation Of the power is to place the party
whose disabilities arising from allenege. are promoted
by virtue Of the naturalization laws in the same condi'
cn with else Su ,h nsd ne 80 sas Ss by
virtue Of the removal OF the disabilities consequent
upon his taking advantage OF the natur laws
presents entirely different inquiry and. perhaps
In my 0w Language clearly TO the country than
BY reading opinion in the Drsd Scott ease not that
opinion pronounced BY the majority which has been 80
dispsragement not only of the majority Of the Court
who sanctioned that opinion but OF the very admirable
ca2. IN =. dS.
that Of the majortyan opinion marked by learning to
that Of great an extent ss any opinion ever pro-
aSsaSsd 15aSs II YAs 'SS Se. So1sS which % .S ss S
opinion be was discussing whether Dred Scott was
citizen entitled to sue in the courts Of the United
States. majority Of the court decided that In
sequence Of the blood that was supposed to In his
veins his descent from African ancestors. and his
having como to the United States slave. he could
not become o citizen Of the United States. Mr.
Justice Curtis held that the Constitution Of the
United States assumed that citizenship might bs &C.
qured by nativity that u was the common law. that
Il the law Of the civilized world TINT he who
born in q country and not made slave at the moment
be was born by any municipal regulations became, BY
virtue OF his birth citizen but he by means held
that the consequence Of bis being citizen Of the
United States BY virtue OF his birth made him citizen
Of any State OF the United States. Let read
tence or two from his opinion. 1t will be
found In the 10Th Of Howard That part Of the
opinion to which IL refer 10 page 597 and others.
Aftsr having stated and doubt having stated COR
rectly that at the time Of the adoption Of the Constu
ton Of the United States there five States which
persons Of color were entitled to the right Of suffrage
and xhinh thArafnra they narficnatad In the dAb