Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-01-25
THRY ARE NOT AssMILATlvE.
speech of senator sears.


Mr. Sears-I had expected from the author OF
these resolutions, when he takes the position OF sis
tanning themwhen he takes the position that under
the treaty with foreign nation the subjects of
that nation thereby become naturalized, that he
would have produced some authorities on this SUD-
.iect. ! know Cf but one reason why he has not
produced authorities. Simply from the facs that
he cannot find single authority in all the reports
If the States Of this Union, together with the re-
ports Of the United States Courts-not a sirgle
authority be find to substantiate his argument
Now, MIR. President, ] congratulate the Senate,
that on the day before yesterday, these reso.r-
tiops were referred before we placed ourselves in
opposition the Constitution OF the United States,
aud the authorities Of highest Courts. The Sem
ator has simply given the Senate his opinion against
the admitted authorities )f all the Courts. Is that
the position proper for Senator to takef submit
it to himself Is that the way in which he has been
educated in his profession?
Now. Mr.. President, the question of naturallzl-
ton and the power frem which springs the right TO
naturaze foreigners, is derived from the Constitu
ton exclusively; and the great Judicial minds OF
this country have interpreted the Constitution,
and have never interpreted III any other way
Chief Justice Marshall, who stands as the highest
authority in this Union, has given this interpreta-
ton, well IS other Judges Senator Davis SAID
opeuly in to question from Senator Wendell,
that by treaty naturalization could be conferred.
Why, sir, the doctrine
MIR. Davis Gnterrupting)-I said it was conferred
indirectly did not say 1t could De conferred posi-
lively
Mr.. Sears-I accept this explanation. Indirectly
it amounts to the same thing. 1t cannot be C IL
ferred directly, indirectly, or in any other shape,
under any treaty which may be made. That is tie
broad doctrine. 1t is absolutely impossible under
our Constitution, and the only authority he has
read upon that subject is the San Fran
cisco Examiner. The E1dBtiTer may have
some motive in that Interpretation of this
question. The Examiner is q partisan paper, and
| am willing to grant it may make, by its
articles, political capital BY any ntergFeta nriysss
The article which read from the Post was not an
editorial by the proprietor Of the Post, but ii was
quotation from the Burlingane treaty-not an
editorial. The Senator reads from the treaty,
which declares that citizens may have the right TO
change their allegiance. Why, Mr. p esident, that
is one of the inalienab rights belonging to an ;
that is of the principles upon which This Gov
ernment was founded but as to who shall be-
come citizens only be regulated by Con-
eress through the naturalization laws passed
by Congress. Senator Davis says that the
treaty is higher law than any in the
land that it is higher law than the laws
of Congress. Why, sir, hat is new
doctrine. The Constitution itself gays that Con-
gress shall have the power TO establish a uniform
rule Of naturalization" 1t the language placed
in the fundamental law of our Government con
ferring that power on Congress alone and power
can take it from Congress. The President OF the
United States the members ef Co gress, and the
Senators of this chamber, all have taken an oath 10
support that Constitution and the President cam
not, by appointing pionpoteutiaries to foreign ma
tons take that right from Congress. 1t would be an
ubuTpablOn Ol powell. IL AS W 5iNtaH1 NNSa
construction, and there is not single authority in
| the land TO the contrary.
Mr.. Enos-If there provision in this treaty,
and il ratified by the Government, that China
men might be naturalized, would Congress, then,
have the power, under the Constitution, to pass u
| law saying they should not be ei izensi
Mr.. Sears-Mr. ? esident, viii answer the ques-
tion Still the gentleman ought not TO ash sucn a
| question as that II there was provision IN thiS
treaty. which deny emphatically, confsirins ma,
| turalization upon Chinese, it would be nuh aoa
VOID, and OF no effect. 1t would confer naturaz1,
tion more by being iu the treaty than it wonid
| if left out. But if the gentleman Will exaniihe
the naturalization laws, ne will there see VINO can
| become citizens OF the United States VII come
to that presently, end perhaps viii answer II SUI.
ticiently to satisfy the gentleman Senator avs avs
| ga d. Also that citizens OF England had 30 ~ i9Ye
right to become citizens than those Of Oi,.,a
Why, Mr.. President, the citizens q tnglanl
natralizcd citizens of the United States beeau ~;
naturalization law passed by Congress uneti @ .a'
provision of the Constitution, says that snae bd bd
sons may become citizens. That is the reasp.' ta r
it stipulated in the naturalization laws Js.
may become citizens and only those ca.t 20 ct
citizens Thus Mongolians can never oeo-'.e -.
1