parents, and who himself never rendered a particle of service to this country, can go, under this bill, and settle himself upon one hundred and sixty acres of land, while an American young man of intelligence, even if he be in his nineteenth year, is not entitled to it.

*

Now we have here a legislation special in its character, for the benefit of foreignersspecial legislation for them-contemplating the giving of land to them, because we were to propose to pay their value to our own citizens by special legislation! Here is an antagonistic proposition. Will you give the land, or an equivalent value, to the mechanics in the country, who cannot leave their present homes; or will your prefer the foreigner who has not yet been naturalized, to the mechanic? That is the question.

Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, said:

There is a sound and sufficient ground of distinction between citizens in fact or intention, and aliens who do not design to become citizens, but no reason at all for any such distinction between immigrants who do intend to become citizens. The section as it stands, draws a line between immigrants already arrived and immigrants to arrive hereafter. Those who arrive to-day are to have the benefit of the act; those who arrive to-morrow, if the bill in the mean time should become a law, will be excluded from its benefits. Can any body assign a reason for such a discrimination between (if I may be allowed to coin a phrase) the ante-venients and the post-venients?

Sir, the principle for which I contend now, of non-discrimination between different classes, was sanctioned in the recent Kansas and Nebraska act. I congratulated the country at the time upon the recognition of the right of such immigrants, without distinction, to the elective franchise. I was glad to witness the breaking down of old prejudices against immigrants coming into this country, which led to a nearly unanimous vote in this chamber in favor of retaining the clause which allowed them to vote in the territories. That vote recognized no such narrow and illiberal discrimination as this bill now makes. It went upon a sound reason. It allowed all to vote after declaration of intention, and taking the oath prescribed by the act. It excluded none, whether arrived before or after the passage of the act. It made no distinction between those who might, and those who might not, exercise the right of suffrage, except the distinction between those who should manifest a disposition to become citizens, and a readiness to qualify themselves for the exercise of the franchise, under the provisions of the act, and those who might not be ready to become citizens, or so to qualify themselves.

A. P. Butler, of South Carolina, said:

Now, no man from a foreign country can become a citizen of the United States bcfore he takes the oath of allegiance, and takes the oath to support the Constitution of the United States; and according to the usage which prevailed in South Carolina— but, perhaps, it is a usage not universal, or not observed any where else-no one could become a citizen until he not only swore to support the Constitution of the United States, and absolved himself from all allegiance to any foreign potentate or power, but until he brought into court a certificate of three citizens that he was a worthy man.

But, sir, under this section, who may not come in? A man may come reeking from the jails and poor-houses of Europe. I will go further, and say that the deserters upon your field of battle may come in-men who fought against those who won your territories can come and take land without having sworn the oath of allegiance. Yes, sir, the very deserters upon the plains of Churubusco, who shot down your regiments, might

come and take possession of your lands, to the exclusion of those who were more worthy.

I have no disposition, Mr. President, to disguise my opinion on this subject, though I know this foreign influence is strong, is increasing and will be stronger. When foreigners come from abroad, become naturalized, and give the guarantees required by the naturalization laws, I will make no distinction between them and other citizens.

I am perfectly willing to recognize the political power of naturalized citizens; but I will never consent to invite immigrants to come here who have not given any of the guarantees required by the Constitution and laws of the country. I am not one of those who fear to defy such a power, though I know it is an increasing one, and I apprehend it is one that is courted.

I was opposed, therefore, to the introduction of the clause referred to by my honorable friend from Mississippi into the Nebraska bill, which favored somewhat the doctrines of my honorable friend from Michigan, (Mr. Cass.) While we were delegating the power of moulding the institutions of these territories, I was willing to trust it to those who could think through the medium of the American mind. I went with him very far, when I was perfectly willing to delegate all the power to those who were capable of making laws; but when the proposition was introduced that we should delegate the power to any body who might settle upon the lands, I thought it was going too far.

Mr. Clay, of Alabama, said:

A great deal has been said here in condemnation of what are called Native Americans, or Know Nothings. I am neither one nor the other, in the political sense of those terms; but let me ask the Senator from Iowa, who is the zealous friend and champion of the foreign population, whether there is any measure which could be conceived of, or projected, or passed by Congress, which is better calculated to excite, to foster, and encourage a Native American feeling, than this very bill? I tell him that, if this bill passes, he will see realized what I had hoped never to witness in this country-he will see a Native American, or Know Nothing party growing up in the Southern States of this Union. And, sir,-and I say it with no less pride than pleasure, as much traduced, libelled, and slandered, as those States have been by the fanatics at the North, they have been freer from all species of radicalism than any other section of this confederacy; and, but for the pure, conservative principles, and true American feeling of the South, in my opinion, the radical, meddlesome spirit of the North would, ere this, have involved this government in a foreign war. You saw no man-worship of Kossuth exhibited at the South, during his pilgrimage among us. And you have seen no indications of jealousy, envy, or hatred of foreigners among Southrons. We neither feel nor exhibit towards them such evil passions. You have no disposition there to embark in the policy of intervention with the affairs of foreign countries, or to exclude foreigners from participating as citizens in the privileges of this country. But pass this bill, and impress upon the public mind throughout the South, the idea that, not content with sheer justice of foreigners, you will be generous to them, and unjust to your own citizens, and the spirit of Native Americanism will soon develop itself where, hitherto, it has been unfelt and almost unheard of. Let the friends of foreign immigrants on this floor beware lest they injure rather than benefit that class of our population.

Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, said :—

I shall not vote to strike out this section. I do not think it is worth while to confine entries under this act to native born citizens. I think that a man who is here to-day, "a resident," in the language of the bill," of one of the States or Territories," may properly enter upon this land and cultivate it.

I discover no magical effect in this question of citizenship. I do not believe that a man is any better to-morrow, after having perfected his naturalization and become a citizen, than he is to-day, when it is unperfected. He is the same man. He stands before the country and his God in the same attitude. He has the same morality, the same propensities, the same inclinations, and the same judgment.

William H. Seward said:

I address myself for a moment to the proposition which is immediately under consideration: the amendment proposed by the honorable and distinguished senator from Delaware, [Mr. Clayton.] That amendment proposes substantially to strike out that provision of the bill which provides that foreigners not naturalized, but candidates for naturalization, shall participate in this distribution of the public lands; and in lieu of that provision, substitute one giving a sum of money equivalent to the value of the lands to native born mechanics throughout the United States, who may not be able to avail themselves, by reason of their habits and circumstances of life, of the benefits which the bill gives generally in the shape of lands. Sir, I think the honorable senator will excuse me for saying that the last proposition seems to be merely designed to serve as a cover for the first, as a pretext by which we may compensate ourselves for something that we do, in striking out the proposition in favor of foreigners.

*

I look at this in two lights-one as a measure belonging to a general principle, senti. ment, or policy; that is, the principle of discouraging immigration into this country. That will be its effect. In that respect it is a part, a single measure, of a whole system, which is commonly called Native Americanism; that is to say, of establishing a preference for native American citizens over foreigners. I do not know that my honorable and distinguished friend meant, by this single proposition, to extend his support to the general principle; but there are others here who have advocated it upon that ground. Now, then, it is well enough, if we are going into this principle at all, to see where it leads. I have in my hand the policy of exclusion of foreigners, or aliens, as it is elaborated and drawn out into distinct propositions by a journal which represents that class of society who support that principle. I find that there are sixteen articles in this creed. Here they are:

1. Repeal of all naturalization laws.

2. None but Americans for office.

3. A pure American common school system.

4. War to the hilt on Romanism.

5. Opposition, first and last, to the formation of military companies composed of foreigners.

6. The advocacy of a sound, healthy, and safe nationality.

7. Hostility to all papal influences, in whatever form, and whatever name.

8. American institutions and American sentiment.

9. More stringent and effective immigration laws.

10. The amplest protection to Protestant interests.

11. The doctrines of the revered Washington and his compatriots.

12. The sending back of all foreign paupers landed on our shores.

13. The formation of societies to protect all American interests.

14. Eternal enmity to all who attempt to carry out the principles of a foreign church or state.

15. Our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country.

16. And finally, American laws and American legislation; and death to all foreign influences, whether in high places or low!

Sir, this creed contains just half a dozen true, sound American principles.

Mr. Chase. Will the senator allow me to ask him where he finds this creed?

Mr. Seward. In the American Crusader.

Mr. Chase. Where is it printed?

Mr. Seward. I believe in Boston. I find in it a comprehensive view of the principles, some of them right and some of them wrong.

I am stating what purports to be the creed which comprehends all the articles of this principle of opposing foreign immigration. I need not discriminate here in favor of those principles which are national, those which are just, and those which are American. I need not point them out and show which they are. It is sufficient for me to say that, in my judgment, every thing is un-American which makes a distinction of whatever kind, in this country, between the native born American and him whose lot is directed to be cast here by an overruling Providence, and who renounces his allegiance to a foreign land and swears fealty to the country which adopts him.

Thomas G. Pratt, of Maryland, said:

I cannot accord either, Mr. President, with the doctrine of my friend from Michigan [Mr. Cass], when he says he can see no difference between foreigners and Americans, and that being an American citizen does not make a man purer, does not change his heart, his mind, or his morality. He can see no difference between American citizens and foreign citizens. Now, sir, we are living, I admit, in a new era. We are living in

days of progress; but I regret that the day has ever come when, in the Senate of the United States, and by a senator as respectable as my honorable friend who has made the asseveration, it should be declared, scemingly with the approbation of many of those who heard him, that he could see no distinction between an American citizen and a foreigner, upon a question of disposing of property exclusively belonging to American citizens. Sir, this is an electioneering topic. The speeches here are made not for our consideration, not to have weight with us, but for home consumption. I can readily see that in those States where foreigners are allowed to vote and exercise the privilege of American citizens, their representatives here may feel bound to protect them; and their own political existence may require that protection; but I never can assent to the doctrine that there is no distinction between an American citizen and a foreigner, in giving one or the other a right to own the soil of this Union. I am not talking about naturalized or native citizens; but I am talking about citizens of the United States, recognized by the Constitution of the country as citizens.

I am thoroughly convinced, whatever may be considered the policy of the government in reference to the disposition of the public lands, it is undoubtedly impolitic (and I say further, for my friends from those States where foreigners are now allowed to vote before they are naturalized, the time is coming fast when the impression will pervade

every section of this Union that it is impolitic, and that it will become unpopular) to give the right, the sacred right, of making the laws of this country to those who do not owe allegiance to it.

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, said :—

My first impression was in favor of striking out the sixth section, as proposed by the senator from Delaware, (Mr. Clayton.) I do not exactly reconcile it to my feeling, or to my Americanism, if you please to allow that expression, that a foreigner shall come here a week before the passage of this law, if it shall pass, and occupy the same position in regard to the public property as an American citizen. I have that difficulty on my mind; and upon that impression I was inclined to act at first, and to vote with the senator from Delaware, in favor of striking out; my mind has, however, after thorough investigation, undergone some change on that subject, and I will ask the indulgence of the Senate while I give my reasons for that change.

I find on examination, that this has been the policy of the government from the first introduction of the system of granting homesteads; in 1850, the bill granting homesteads in Oregon was in the very identical words of this bill. Other laws for the same purpose have been passed since, containing the same provisions.

Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, said:

I object to this section, for another reason: Any alien, white or black, be his character good or bad, may make a declaration of intention to become a citizen. The naturalization laws contemplate the grant of citizenship only to men of good moral character, attached to the institutions of this country. And, therefore, the alien must prove by two witnesses that he is a man of good moral character, attached to the institutions of this country, before he can obtain a certificate of naturalization.

We require that an American citizen, in order to obtain the benefits of the act, shall be the head of a family, or twenty-one years of age: and if he is a naturalized citizen, he must have been in the country long enough to give evidence of his attachment to the institutions of our country; he must prove such attachment in a court of justice; he must on oath renounce his allegiance to all foreign powers, and swear to support the Constitution of the United States. It is proposed, however, by the sixth section, to give land to those who have not shown any evidence of a good moral character; who present no proof of attachment to the Constitution or institutions of the country; who renounce no allegiance to any foreign government; and who may postpone until the end of time swearing allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.

Sir, I have said I was in favor of this bill; and if the sixth section shall be stricken out I will vote for it with much pleasure; but while I will make no discrimination whatever between the citizens of the United States, natural or naturalized, native or foreign born, I will discriminate between the citizen, naturalized as well as native, against the alien. I will not put the alien upon the same footing with the citizen, native or foreign born. That is the principle on which I act.

Pending the consideration of Mr. Clayton's amendment, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, moved the following amendment: "Provided, That the benefits of this act shall not extend to the children, heirs, or devisees of aliens born out of the United States who are twenty-one years of age, until they shall file their declaration of intention to become citizens of the