condemn these gentlemen in the lump. My | tinctly that they intended to exclude aliens. friend from Mississippi said they were pau- This is the act admitting Alabama, and it is pers and criminals; and I believe his col- the same in the other cases. They never league [Mr. Brown], the other day, said they were led up in a body to vote. I do not find it so in my neighborhood. I find they are about as much divided in their votes and opinions as native-born citizens. Mr. ADAMS. My remark was not a general one. I said paupers and criminals came here, and Congress refused to pass any law to prohibit them. I did not say the respectable portion of them were so, but I said paupers and criminals came here. Mr. PUGH. The criminals will never find their way to your territories. They will never go there to settle. It is peaceable men who go there. The criminal infests your cities. There is no danger of his voting under this bill. As to a pauper, if gentlemen mean by that term a man who has no great amount of property, instead of considering him an injury to the country, I consider him a great benefit, and hope they will all come. Mr. STUART. We are pretty near the end of this day, and pretty near the end of this session, and therefore, I simply ask the Senate to proceed to a vote. It seems to me we ought to proceed to take a vote on the question. Mr. BUTLER. I am not to be called to vote suddenly on a matter of this kind when other people in introduce it; and if gentlemen have a mind to introduce this measure again it is not my fault. The time of the Senate would have admonished me not to have it taken up; but as they have taken it up, the Senator from Michigan is mistaken if he supposes I will not probe it to the bottom. I say my friend from Ohio is in error; and when Senators undertake to force me on a matter so deeply affecting us, I shall vote against the admission of Minnesota if they refuse to put in this amendment. I intend to put myself right before the country in relation to what I said, for I do not like, lawyer, to say anything that is not maintainable by the statute. The act in regard to Alabama provides: as a "And be it further enacted, That all white male citizens of the United States" that excludes women "who shall have arrived at the age of twenty-one years"that excludes minors "and have resided in the said territory three months previous to the day of election-" that excludes all who did not go there and were not there within three months " and all persons having in other respects the legal qualifications to vote for members of the General Assembly of the said territory, be, and they are hereby authorized." thought in that day of allowing a commonwealth to come into the confederacy under the auspices of alienage. I am opposed to the whole of the doctrine which would proscribe the foreigner; I am his friend; and I say to the foreigner who comes here with a view to adopt this as his country, "Be jealous of the right which you have to come here; do not let every one come to compete with you." The foreigners that came here twenty and thirty and forty years ago, came from choice; they came here on principle, understanding that they were to abide by the institutions and comply with the laws of this country. They did not come here as upstarts to take their place upon the political chess-board before they were invited. When my friend from Ohio undertakes to say that these states were admitted by foreigners, I say it is not so I speak of the act admitting Alabama, now. Mr. PUGH. I use that very act to prove what I said. The gentleman has only to read it to the Senate to show that I am right. Mr. BUTLER. I have read it; and I venture to say there are no two men in the Senate, when you get them in a corner, who will deny my construction. I have no doubt that here, when you have a big crowd with you, you will be sustained; but take them by themselves, and ask them to tell the truth, and every one will agree with me. Feb. 25, 1857, Mr. Green moved to reconsider the above vote. Mr. Biggs called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 31, nays 21; as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Allen, Bell of N. H., Bigler, Bright, Cass, Collamer, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Green, Hale, Harlan, James, Johnson, Jones of la., Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Fulee-31. NAYS. Messrs. ADAMS, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, CRITTENDEN, Evans, Fish, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, HOUSTON, Hunter, Mason, Pratt, Reid, Rusk, Siidell, and THOMPSON, of Ky.-21. Democrats in italic, Republicans in roman, Americans in small caps. So the vote adopting the first amendment was reconsidered. The presiding officer, [Mr. Foot in the chair.] The question is upon the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. Biggs.) Mr. ADAMS called for the yeas and nays; and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted-yeas 24, nays 32; as follows: NAYS.-Messrs. Allen, Bell of N. H., Bigler, Bright, Cass, YEAS.-Messrs. ADAMS, Bayard, BELL of Tenn., Benjamin, Biggs, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, CRITTENDEN, Fish, What persons are excluded? Indians, ne- Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, HOUSTON, Hunter, Iverson, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Pratt, Reid, Rusk, Slidell, and THOMPSON of groes, and aliens. If it meant anything, it Ky.-24. intended to give the power to vote only to those who had the right to vote. I suppose it was intended to give it to all white persons who had been there longer than three months, and the fact that it enumerated white male citizens twenty-one years of age, showed dis- | Collamer, Dodge, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitch, Foot, Foster, Green, Hale, Harlan, James, Johnson, Jones of Io., Mallory, Nourse, Pugh, Sebastian, Seward, Stuart, Toombs, Toucey, Trumbull, Wade, Weller, Wilson, and Yulee.-32. Democrats in italic, Republicans in roman, Americans in small caps. The following speech of the Hon. John C. tionable right to prescribe the qualifications Calhoun, of South Carolina, was delivered in of voters, as proposed by the Senator from the Senate of the United States, April 2, 1836, on the motion of Senator Porter, of Louisiana, to recommit the bill to establish the Northern boundary of Ohio, and for the admission of Michigan into the Union. The speech will be found in vol. 2d of the Works of Mr. Calhoun, page 496 to 559. Mr. Calhoun said: I regret that my colleague has thought proper to raise the question, whether a state has a right to make an alien a citizen of the state. The question is one of great magnitude-presented for the first time, and claiming a more full and deliberate consideration than can be bestowed on it now. It is not necessarily involved in the present question. The point now at issue is, not whether a state or territory has a right to make an alien a citizen, but whether Congress has a right to prescribe the qualifications of the voters for members of the convention to form a constitution, preparatory to the admission of a territory into the Union. I presume that even my colleague will not deny that Congress has the right. The Constitution confers on Congress the power to govern the territories, and, of course, to prescribe the qualifications of voters within them-without any restriction-unless, indeed, such as the ordinance and Constitution may enforce-a power that expires only when a territory becomes a state. Kentucky, and that the exercise of such right does not involve, in any degree, the question whether a state has a right to confer on an alien the rights of citizenship, I must repeat the expression of my regret, that my colleague has felt it to be his duty to raise a question so novel and important, when we have so little leisure for bestowing on it the attention which it deserves. But, since he considers its decision as necessarily involved in the question before us, I feel it to be my duty to state the reasons why I cannot concur with him in opinion. I do not deem it necessary to follow my colleague and the Senator from Kentucky, in their attempt to define or describe a citizen. Nothing is more difficult than the definition, or even description, of so complex an idea; and hence all arguments resting on one definition, in such cases, almost necessarily lead to uncertainty and doubt. But though we may not be able to say, with precision, what a citizen is, we may say with the utmost certainty, what he is not. He is not an alien. Alien and citizen are correlative terms, and stand in contradistinction to each other. They, of course, cannot coexist. They are, in fact, so opposite in their nature, that we conceive of the one but in contradistinction to the other. Thus far all must be agreed. My next step is not less certain. The Constitution confers on Congress the authority to pass uniform laws of naturalization. This will not be questioned; nor will it be, that the effect of naturalization is to remove alienage. I am not certain that the word is a legitimate one. (Mr. Preston said, in a low tone, it was.) My colleague says it is. His authority is high on such questions, and with it, I feel myself at liberty to use the word. To remove alienage is simply to put the foreigner in the condition of a native-born. To this extent the act of naturalization goes, and no further. The practice of the government has been in conformity with these views; and there is not an instance of the admission of a territory into the Union, in which Congress has not prescribed the qualifications of the voters for members of the state, on its admission. The power which Congress has thus invariably exercised, we claim to exercise on the present occasion, by prescribing who shall be the voters to form the constitution for the government of Michigan, when admitted into the Union. Michigan is not yet a state. Her The next position I assume is no less cerconstitution is not yet formed. It is, at best, tain: that when Congress has exercised. its but in an incip incipient state, which can only be authority, by passing a uniform law of natuconsummated by complying with the consti- ralization (as it has), it excludes the right of tution which we may prescribe for her admis- exercising a similar authority on the part of sion. A convention is to be called, under the state. To suppose that the states could this bill, to agree to these conditions. On pass naturalization acts of their own, after motion. of the Senator from New York (Mr. Congress had passed an uniform law of natuWright), a provision was introduced into the ralization, would be to make the provision of bill, giving the right to the people of the ter- the Constitution nugatory. I do not deem it ritory at large-without limitation or restric- necessary to dwell on this point, as I undertion, as to age, sex, color, or citizenship to stood my colleague as acquiescing in its corvote for the members of the convention. The rectness. Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay), while the I am now prepared to decide the question amendment of the Senator from New York which my colleague has raised. I have shown was pending, moved to amend the amend- that a citizen is not an alien, and that alienment by striking out people, and inserting age is an inseparable barrier, till removed, to free white citizens of twenty-one years of age, citizenship; and that it can only be removed thus restricting the voters to the free white by complying with the act of Congress. It citizens of the United States, in conformity follows, of course, that a state cannot, of its with what has been usual on such occasions. own authority, make an alien a citizen withBelieving that Congress had the unques-out such compliance. To suppose it can, in volves, in my opinion, a confusion of ideas, ❘ aliens, and it will follow, as a necessary consewhich must lead to innumerable absurdities quence, that we might have among our conand contradictions. I propose to notice but a stituents persons who have not the right to few. In fact, the discussion has come on so unexpectedly, and has been urged on so precipitately, through the force of party discipline, that little leisure has been afforded to trace to their consequence the many novel and dangerous principles involved in the bill. I, in particular, have not had due time for reflection, which I exceedingly regret. Attendance on the sick-bed of a friend drew off my attention till yesterday, when, for the first time, I turned my thoughts on its provisions. The numerous objections which it presented, and the many and important amendments which were moved to correct them, in rapid succession, until a late hour of the night, allowed but little time for reflection. Seeing that the majority had pre-determined to pass the bill, with all its faults, I retired, when I found my presence could no longer be of any service, and remained ignorant that the Senate had rescinded the order to adjourn over till Monday, until a short time before its meeting this morning; so that I came here wholly unprepared to discuss this and the other important questions involved in the bill. Under such circumstances, it must not be supposed that, in pointing out the few instances of what appear to me the absurdities and contradictions necessarily resulting from the principle against which I contend, there are not many others equally striking. I but suggest those which first occurred to me. Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to what other rights appertain to a citizen, all must at least agree that he has the right to petition, and also to claim the protection of his government. These belong to him as a member of the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a state can make an alien a citizen of the state or, to present the question more specially, can confer on him the right of voting-would involve the absurdity of giving him a direct and immediate controlover the action of the general government, from which he has no right to claim the protection, and to which he has no right to present a petition. That the full force of the absurdity may be felt, it must be borne in mind that every department of the general government is either directly or indirectly under the control of the voters in the several states. The Constitution wisely provides that the voters for the most numerous branch of the legislature in the several states, shall vote for the members of the House of Representatives and, as the members of this body are chosen by the legislatures of the states, and the Presidential electors either by the legislatures or voters in the several states, it follows, as I have stated, that the action of the general government is either directly or indirectly under the control of the voters in the several states. Now, admit that a state may confer the right of voting on all claim the protection of the government, or to present a petition to it. I would ask my colleague if he would willingly bear the relation of representative to those who could not claim his aid, as Senator, to protect them from oppression, or to present a petition through him to the Senate, praying for a redress of grievance? And yet such might be his condition on the principle for which he contends. But a still greater difficulty remains. Suppose a war should be declared between the United States and the country to which the alien belongs-suppose, for instance, that South Carolina should confer the right to vote on alien subjects of Great Britain residing within her limits, and that war should be declared between the two countries; what, in such event, would be the condition of that portion of our voters? They, as alien enemies, would be liable to be seized under the laws of Congress, and to have their goods confiscated, and themselves imprisoned, or sent out of the country. The principle that leads to such consequences cannot be true; and I venture nothing in asserting that Carolina, at least, will never give it her sanction. She never will assent to incorporate, as members of her body politic, those who might be placed in so degraded a condition, and so completely under the control of the general government. But let us pass from these (as it appears to me conclusive) views, and inquire what were the objects of the Constitution in conferring on Congress the authority of passing uniform laws of naturalization-from which, if I mistake not, arguments not less conclusive may be drawn in support of the position for which I contend. In conferring this power the framers of the Constitution must have had two objects in view: One to prevent competition between the states in holding out inducements for the emigration of foreigners, and the other to prevent their improper influence over the general government, through such states as might naturalize foreigners, and could confer on them the right of exercising an elective franchise, before they could be sufficiently informed of the nature of our institutions, or were interested in their preservation. Both of these objects would be defeated, if the states may confer on aliens the right of voting and the other privileges belonging to citizens. On that supposition, it would be almost impossible to conceive what good could be obtained or evil prevented by conferring the power on Congress. The power would be perfectly nugatory. A state might hold out every improper inducement to emigration as freely as if the power did not exist; and might confer on the alien all the political rights and privileges belonging to a native-born citizen; not only to the great injury of the state, but to an improper control of the government of the Union. To illustrate what I have said--suppose the dominant party in New York, finding politi- | Congress the right of prescribing who should cal power about to depart from them, should, or should not be entitled to vote in the state, to maintain their ascendancy, extend the right and exercise the other privileges belonging to of suffrage to the thousands of aliens of every citizens; and portrayed in strong language language and from every portion of the world, that annually pour into her great emporiumhow deeply might the destiny of the whole Union be affected by such a measure! It might in fact, place the control over the general government in the hands of those who know nothing of our institutions and are indifferent as to the interests of the country. New York gives about one-sixth of the electoral votes in the choice of President and Vice President; and it is well known that her political institutions keep the state nearly equally divided into two great political parties. The addition of a few thousand votes either way might turn the scale, and the electors might, in fact, owe their election, on the supposition, to the votes of unnaturalized foreigners. The Presidential election might depend on the electoral vote of the state, and a President be chosen in reality by them; that is, they might give us a king, for, under the usurpations of the present chief magistrate, the President is in fact a king. I ask my colleague if we ought willingly to yield our assent to a principle that would lead to such results, and if there be any danger on the side for which I contend, comparable to those which I have stated? I know how sincere he is in the truth of the position for which he contends, and that his opinion was founded anterior to this discussion. We have rarely differed in our views on the questions which have come before the Senate; and I deeply regret, as I am sure he does, that we should differ on this highly important subject. * * My colleague cites the example of Louisiana, which was admitted into the Union without requiring the inhabitants, at the time, to conform to the act of naturalization. I must think the instance is not in point. That was the case of the incorporation of a foreign community, which had been acquired by treaty, as a member of our confederacy. At the time of the acquisition they were subjects of France, and owed allegiance to that government. The treaty transferred their allegiance to the United States; and the difficulty of incorporating Louisiana into the Union arose, not under the act of naturalization, but the right of acquiring foreign possessions by purchase, and the right of incorporating such possessions into the Union. These were felt, at the time, to be questions of great difficulty. Mr. Jefferson himself, under whose administration the purchase was made, doubted the right, and suggested the necessity of an alteration of the Constitution to meet the case; and if the example of the admission is now to be used to establish the principle that a state may confer citizenship on an alien, we may all live to regret that the Constitution was not amended according to the suggestion. the danger to the rights of states from such authority. If his views are correct in this respect, the danger would indeed be imminent, but I cannot concur in their correctness. Under the view which I have taken, the authority of Congress is limited to the simple point of passing uniform laws of naturalization, or, as I have shown, simply to remove alienage. To this extent it may clearly go under the Constitution; and it is no less clear that it cannot go an inch beyond without palpably transcending its powers, and violating the Constitution. Every other privilege, except those which necessarily flow from the removal of alienage, must be conferred by the Constitution and the authority of the state. My remarks are, of course, confined to the states; for within the territories the authority of Congress is as complete in this respect as that of the states within their respective limits, with the exception of such limitations as the ordinance to which I have referred may impose. But to pass to the question immediately before us. This, as I have stated, does not involve the question whether a state can make an alien a citizen; but whether Congress has a right to prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by those who shall vote for members of a convention to form a constitution for Michigan. Reason and precedent concur that Congress has the right. It has, as I have stated, been exercised in every similar case. If the right does not exist in Congress, it exists nowhere. A territory, until it becomes a state, is a dependent community, and possesses no political rights but what are derived from the community on which it depends. Who shall or shall not exercise political power? and what shall be the qualifications possessed by them? and how shall they be appointed? are all questions to be determined by the paramount community; and in the case under consideration, to be determined by Congress, which has the right under the Constitution, to prescribe all necessary rules for the government of the territories not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. This very bill, in fact, admits the right. It prescribes that the people of Michigan shall vote for the convention to form her constitution on becoming a state. If it belongs to the territory of Michigan (she is not yet a state) to determine who shall vote for the members of the convention, this attempt on our part to designate who shall be the voters would be an unconstitutional interference with her right, and ought to be objected to, as such, by those opposed to our views. But if, on the other hand, the view I take be correct, that the right belongs to Congress, and not to the territory, the loose, vague, and indefinite manner in which the voters are deMy colleague insists that to deny the right scribed in the bill affords a decisive reason for for which he contends, would be to confer on its recommitment. I ask, who are the people of Michigan ? Taken in the ordinary sense, it means everybody, of every age, of every sex, of every complexion, white, black, or red, aliens as well as citizens. Regarded in this light, to pass this bill would sanction the principle that Congress may authorize an alien to vote, or confer that high privilege on the runaway slaves from Kentucky, Virginia, or elsewhere; and thus elevate them to the condition of citizens, enjoying under the constitution all the rights and privileges in the states of the Union which appertain to citizenship. But my colleague says that this must be acquiesced in, if such should be the case, as it results from the principles of the constitution. I know we are bound to submit to whatever thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien, so ordered to deport, shall be found at large within the United States, after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein, or, having obtained such license, shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States: Provided always, and be it further enacted, that if any alien, so ordered to depart, shall prove, are the provisions of that instrument; but to the satisfaction of the President, by evi surely my colleague will agree with me, that the danger of such a precedent would be great; that the principles on which it is justified ought to be clear and free from all doubt; and I trust I have, at least, shown that such is not the fact in this case. But, we are told that the people of Michigan means, in this case, the qualified voters. Why, then, was it not so expressed? Why was vague and general language used, when more certain and precise terms might have been employed? But, I would ask, who are the qualified voters? Are they those authorized to vote under the existing laws established for the government of the territory, or are they those who, under the instrument called the constitution, are authorized to vote? dence to be taken before such person or persons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States shall arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States, for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he shall designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties, to the satisfaction of the person authorized by the President to take the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, Why leave so essential a point in so uncertain which license the President may revoke whena condition, when we have the power to re-ever he shall think proper. move the uncertainty? If it be meant by the Sec. 2. That it shall be lawful for the Presipeople of Michigan, the qualified voters under dent of the United States, whenever he may her incipient constitution (as stated by the deem it necessary for the public safety, to Senator from New York), then are we sanc-order to be removed out of the territory thereof tioning the rights of aliens to vote. Michi- any alien who may or shall be in prison in gan has attempted to confer this right on that pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arportion of her inhabitants. She has no au- rested, and sent out of the United States, such thority to confer such right under the consti- of those aliens as shall have been ordered to tution. I have conclusively shown that a state does not possess it much less a territory, which possesses no power except such as is conferred by Congress. Congress has conferred no such power on Michigan-nor, indeed, could confer it-as it has no authority, under the Constitution, over the subject, except to pass uniform laws of naturalization. Alien and Sedition Laws. AN ACT CONCERNING ALIENS. Sec. 1. Be it enacted, &c., That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time as shall be expressed in such order; which order shall be served on such alien by delivering him a copy depart therefrom, and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien, so removed or sent out of the United States by the President, shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require. Sec. 3. That every master or commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port of the United States after the first day of July next, shall, immediately on his arrival, make report, in writing, to the collector or other chief officer of the customs of such port, of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation, and a description of their persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof; and, on failure, every |