Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

I am not willing to leave it to those who are not citizens of the United States, to men who are poured fresh from the workhouses, from the ignorance, from the filth, from the debasement, which mark the lowest orders in the different countries of Europe, just landed upon our soil, ignorant of our institutions; ignorant, many of them, of every thing except the performance of some mechanical operation in a particular trade, or except, perhaps, that one knows how to hoe, and one how to delve; men who can neither read nor write; men whose associations have brought them into no contact by which the understanding has been developed; men who have no sympathies with us, or our country; men who are just landed, finding here a refuge from oppression, if you please, or from punishment, if you please, or from starvation, if you please, to determine the political condition of a Territory, which is hereafter to become a State of this Union.

A. P. Butler, of South Carolina, spoke at length, concluding as follows:

My objection is broadly to the policy of devolving upon unnaturalized persons coming from abroad the right of shaping our territorial governments. I do not know what course I might have taken if this were a new question; but I have considered the subject, and I have brought my mind to this conclusion; I do not say that my objections are so insuperable that they may not be overcome; but at present I retain them, and they are very strong upon the subject.

Thomas G. Pratt, of Maryland, said :—

It is not for Congress, Mr. President, unless you can amend your Constitution, to initiate this proceeding. The remedy is with the people themselves. We find that these separate foreign political organizations throughout the country, superinduced or not by the course indicated by the senator from South Carolina, are raising an American spirit in the land, which is to answer the purpose of getting rid of this stain upon our escutcheon. It must be public opinion, sir, the public opinion of the native and naturalized citizens of this country, which is to cure this evil; and it cannot be cured by putting the amendment on the bill which is now upon your table. I believe it will be cured. The spirit is now abroad. The people of this country, native and naturalized, are not willing to see their birthright subject to the foreign importations of those to whom the senator has alluded, or of others who may come here voluntarily for their own interest.

Robert M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, also thus expressed himself:

Mr. President, as an abstract question, I certainly should prefer the bill as it went from the Senate; that is, with the so-called Clayton amendment, to that which has been returned to us from the House, the two bills differing only, as I understand, in that respect. If I had to frame a bill myself, and to consult only my own judgment in reference to it, I certainly should prefer the Senate bill to that which is now under con sideration.

I shall vote against the amendment; although I say, if I had nothing to consult but the simple suggestions of my own judgment, I should vote for it. But, under existing circumstances, I do not feel at liberty to peril the bill by affixing to it such an amendment. I shall therefore vote against it.

John M. Clayton said:

Sir, I am no enemy to foreigners; but I am a true American, and prefer that name and rights which belong to that character to the name of an Irishman, or a German, or any other foreigner under heaven. I scorn the low and contemptible appeals which are constantly made by demagogues to win the votes of foreigners, by flattering them with the belief that they are of more importance here than our native citizens. I place the naturalized foreigner on an equal footing in the exercise of the sacred right of voting with those who, like myself, were born Americans. When he has served his apprenticeship here, to learn the science of self-government, during the period prescribed by our naturalization laws, and become Americanized, I will respect him as an American citizen. But I will never consent to cheapen that right by conferring it on all the foreigners as soon as they land on our shores. It would be as unjust to the intelligent naturalized citizen as to the native. I would ever prefer the claims to public office of a son of the soil in his native country over those of any foreigner, unless that foreigner had superior merits or qualifications for the office. The children of the foreigners born in these States or Territories, are as justly entitled, in my opinion, to honors and offices here as any other native citizen, and no more.

I shall not argue such a point as that, but I shall now dismiss the subject with the remark, that the influence of aliens in this country has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished, and that nothing short of the combined influence of all true Americans, both native and naturalized, can arrest the mischiefs, which demagogues who pander to the feelings and passions of foreigners, not understanding our system of government, seek to entail upon us by cheapening the rights and degrading the name of an American citizen, and thus striking at the very foundation of the great principle of self-government in this country.

Albert G. Brown, of Mississippi, said:

I ask Senators to pause before they legislate to give foreigners rights which are denied to our own citizens upon American soil. How will this act operate practically, if you pass it in the words in which it now stands? The officers commanding your army, the soldiers who are serving under your banner, and now are placed upon your frontiers to defend your women and children from the tomahawk of the savage, will be denied the elective franchise, while the thousands and tens of thousands who are pouring upon our shores from every part of God's habitable globe, will be entitled to that sacred privilege. Why, sir, if Santa Anna should be expelled from Mexico to-morrow, as he may be, and should take up his residence in one of these territories, he may vote the day after he gets there, if this bill passes; and Winfield Scott, whose name is emblazoned on every page of his country's history, and whose impress is on every battlefield from the St. Lawrence to the city of Mexico, if he were there stationed at the order of the President, would not be allowed the same privilege. I ask honorable Senators if it is not so, that by the proposed legislation we are about to say to the Generalin-Chief of the American army, you shall not vote in a territory conquered by your arms; and to the deserter from the enemy's camp, you may vote. Shall we do this! Shall we say to the venerable soldier who has served his country for forty years, who has fought more battles, and fought them better than any living man, shall we say to Winfield Scott, who, whatever may be his faults as a politician, deserves his country's gratitude, you shall not vote in Kansas or Nebraska; and then shall we say to the

outcasts of the Old World, to the wanderers and vagabonds, to the prison birds and spawn of infamy, you may vote? I hope not. Let no man charge that I am hostile to foreigners. We invite them to our shores, and I would receive them kindly and treat them generously; but when I am asked to stand up in the American Senate and give to foreigners the right of suffrage, and in the same breath deny it to American citizens, I say plainly I cannot do it. I have heard before of putting foreigners on equal footing with Americans, but this is the first time when I have been called upon to give them an advantage. And what is the reason assigned? Look at the bill. No officer or soldier of the army shall be allowed to vote in the territory by reason of his being on service there. It is sufficient for his exclusion from the polls that he bears his country's arms, that he encounters the dangers of the camp, and the perils of the battle-field. But a foreigner-what of him? He may spurn your arms, insult your flag, spit upon your laws; and then says he means to become a citizen and swears to support your Constitution, and you let him vote. A thousand soldiers, with Scott or Wool at their head, may be ordered to Nebraska the day after this bill passes, and not one of them can vote. By reason of being on service in the territory they are excluded; while a thousand foreigners, just landed, may vote, and the next day abandon the territory forever.

J. P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, said:

The amendment now before the Senate, offered by the Senator from Maryland, commends itself to my deliberate judgment.

William H. Seward was opposed to the amendment. He said: Certainly, I find nothing to win my favor toward the bill in the proposition of the Senator from Maryland, (Mr. Pearce,) to restore the Clayton amendment, which was struck out in the House of Representatives. So far from voting for that proposition, I shall vote against it now, as I did when it was under consideration before, in accordance with the opinion adopted as early as any political opinions I ever had, and cherished as long, that the right of suffrage is not a mere conventional right, but an inherent natural right, of which no government can rightly deprive any adult man who is subject to its authority, and obligated to its support.

James M. Mason, of Virginia, said:

I am one of those who regret very much that a majority of the American people-so far as opinion is to be gathered from the vote of their representatives-considers it wise or expedient to grant to any others than citizens a participation in political power.

Sir, I repeat it again, although I know but little, because it has not come within my way to know much, of this foreign population which is streaming on our shores. I do know something of human nature, and of the sentiments of enlightened and intelligent men; and I say that the sober sense of that population, when it is brought to reflect upon, ought to satisfy them that before they become American citizens they should understand something of American institutions.

Mr. Mallory, of Florida, said:

Mr President, I regard the pending amendment of the honorable Senator from Delaware, (Mr. Clayton,) now offered by the Senator from Maryland, (Mr. Pearce.) as im portant, and eminently proper. From the infant days of our country to the present

moment, our legislation for naturalizing and preparing the immigrant, by a residence sufficient to acquaint him with our language, laws, and institutions, for the duties of a citizen, have gone hand in hand with our legislation for his welfare, equality, and independence.

The period of probation has varied with succeeding administrations; but the necessity and propriety of requiring the foreigner, who seeks a home among us, and upon equal terms with ourselves, to reside with us some time before attaining this equality, has ever been maintained.

The honorable Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) assumed, in reference to this question, that the right of suffrage is an inherent right in man, wherever he may reside. That was his language, as I took it down at the time, and I believe I state it correctly. Why, what a monstrous doctrine is that! Destitute alike of authority or principle on which it may rest, its pernicious effect is, that it tends to denationalize your country. The moment you admit the right of citizens of another country, or of those who are not citizens of ours, to assume equal political rights with our own citizens, you take a long step in the progress to denationalize. Sir, I am neither a cosmopolite nor a socialist. I believe the advancement of civilization requires that men should be arrayed in different nations, under different forms of government. I believe that as firmly as I believe that the advancement of civilization, and the welfare and happiness of humanity require the division of nations into families.

Well, sir, do you not strike at national existence; do you not denationalize your country, when you enact, that because the man who has come here to-day declares that he means to become a citizen, he shall exercise the same political privileges and rights as if he were a citizen? Why, sir, civil rights in the general are very much the same to the citizen and to the mere resident or foreigner. It is political rights mainly (which are the sole guardians of civil rights) that every well-organized State necessarily confines to its own citizens.

Sir, I consider this no question of policy; I consider it a question of principle, lying at the very foundation of our government. I consider that you denationalize your country when you authorize a man who is not a citizen to vote. If the period for which your laws require that a foreigner shall reside here for the purpose of becoming naturalized be too long, alter it; but do not attempt to evade that law, do not attempt to take this first step towards cosmopolitism, by authorizing men who have no knowledge of the working of your institutions, who are not conversant, from previous education and habits, with the practical application of the principles of liberty to the organization of government, to mould the institutions of your future States. Receive them cheerfully and cordially; instruct, Americanize them; and then, but not till then, confer upon them the highest right of citizenship-a participation in the government of the country.

I consider the principle of this amendment absolutely necessary for the permanence of the institutions of this country, and therefore I can record my vote for no bill which authorizes a right of voting to others than citizens of the United States.

Notwithstanding this expression of opinion in favor of the amendment, it now received but seven votes, viz.: Messrs. Bayard, Bell, Brodhead, Brown, Clayton, Pearce and Thompson; while among the forty-one vot

ing in the negative were Messrs. Atchison, Benjamin, Butler, Clay, Dawson, Fitzpatrick, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Mortou, Pratt, Sebastian and Slidell, all of whom had before voted for it, and now only changed, as many of them stated, because they were convinced it would not pass the House and might endanger the final success of the whole bill. See Appendix Congressional Globe, vol. xxix., p. 755. Subsequent to the rejection of the amendment, Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, congratulated the Senate on its rejection. He said :

"The rejection of the amendment upon which we have just voted, is a great triumph of principle, not the less valuable because coerced from its opponents by a neccesity to which they have yielded so reluctantly. The bill at last concedes a full, ample, and complete recognition in these new Territories of the right of immigrants from the old world to an equal participation with native born in the organization and control of the territorial governments."

CHAPTER XXIII.

PRE-EMPTION RIGHT TO PUBLIC LANDS.

THE system of pre-emption right granted to settlers on public lands commenced in 1830. The first act passed by Congress on the subject was approved May 29, 1830; but it seems to have been doubted by the Attorney General of the United States, whether its provisions extended to aliens. He however arrived finally at the conclusion that they were entitled to its benefits. When the subject came up again in Congress, at the second session of the twenty-fifth Congress, it accordingly gave rise to a long debate, and William M. Merrick, of Maryland, recently appointed a judge in the District of Columbia, by President Pierce, offered the following, with the express view of prohibiting aliens to enjoy the pre-emption right:

"That the right of pre-emption granted by this act, or the act hereby revived, shall not accrue to any other persons than those who were, on the first day of December, 1837, citizens of the United States; and such citizenship shall in all cases be established by legal and competent testimony, to the satisfaction of the Register and Receiver of the land district in which the lands may lie, prior to any entry thereof, by virtue of the provisions of this act."

This proposition was debated by Messrs. Henry Clay, C. C. Clay, Buchanan, Benton, Norvell, Walker, Webster, and others. See Con gressional Globe, Appendix, 1837-38, p. 128 to 139.

« AnteriorContinuar »