The University of Cbicago
MA
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
NATURALIZATION IN THE
UNITED STATES
From the Revolutionary War to 1861
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY)
By
FRANK GEORGE FRANKLIN, B.L.
CHICAGO
1906
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
SI QUARIS PONINSULAMAMANAM
CIRCUMSPICE
UUURRRHUURHULE
1817 WILL
WOHVI
US101
SCIENTIA
ARTES
VERITAS
LIBRAIRY
OF THE
MIDRAINIRITO Tau
HOW Timing
TIENOR
ULIMWLWDWW.VA
SUUDUVAT,
all
TK
114
F83
The Legislative History of Naturalization
in the United States
Tbe University of Chicago
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
NATURALIZATION IN THE
UNITED STATES
From the Revolutionary War to 1861
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY)
BY
FRANK GEORGE FRANKLIN, B.L.
CHICAGO
1906
Ś320
w น
oof?
TO VIOLA PRICE FRANKLIN
IN APPRECIATION OF HER HELP AND INSPIRATION
PREFACE
The subject of naturalization has assumed a
larger importance in the history of the United
States than in that of any other nation. In this
study I have sought to exhibit the course of
opinion thereon chiefly as it manifested itself in
discussion, reports, and legislation at the central
forum of American political life.
The sources of information are sufficiently in-
dicated. In large measure I have let men speak
for themselves. Some latitude, of expression has
been allowed in indirect quotation, in the effort
to preserve the flavor of the original utterance.
I am indebted to Professor Frederick J. Turn-
er, of the University of Wisconsin, for much
helpful suggestion and criticism upon the earlier
part of the work. I desire to mention Professors
Hermann Edouard von Holst and Benjamin S.
Terry, of the University of Chicago, because of
inspiration that came from them. The work was
begun with the encouraging approval of Dr. von
Holst, and in anticipation of his invaluable criti-
cism of which his sickness and death deprived me.
The exceptional facilities of the library of the
Wisconsin State Historical Society have lightened
my task. The abundant courtesy of its officials
calls for appreciative acknowledgment.
F. G. F.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
I. THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD .
I
II. THE CONVENTION OF 1787 .
19
III. THE ACT OF 1790 .
33
IV. THE ACT OF 1795 ·
49
V. THE ACT OF 1798.
72
VI. THE ACT OF 1802 .
97
VII. THE ACT OF 1813.
117
VIII. AN ACT CONCERNING EVIDENCE .
129
IX. EXPATRIATION
134
0
X. THE ACT OF 1824.
167
XI. THE BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM
184
XII. THE PERIOD OF AGGRESSIVE NATIVE
AMERICANISM.
215
247
XIII. THE PERIOD OF AGGRESSIVE NATIVE
AMERICANISM (continued).
XIV. THE KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
278
.
301
INDEX.
307
ix
CHAPTER I
THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
The Declaration of Independence declared
the right of the people to establish a new gov-
ernment. Yet earlier the Continental Con-
gress had exercised authority to declare cer-
tain Tories to be out of the protection of the
United States, and had ordered that any per-
son refusing its bills should be deemed an
enemy of his country and be refused all inter-
course with the inhabitants of the colonies.
The early continental congresses required
no oath from even their members. Soldiers at
enlistment merely declared that they had
voluntarily enlisted and did bind themselves
to conform to the rules for the government of
the army. Late in 1776 they were sworn “to
be true to the United States of America and
to serve them honestly and faithfully." ? Con-
gress early resolved "that no oath by way
of test be
required of any of the
inhabitants of these colonies, by any military
officers.” 3 A law of January 3, 1776, required
certain officers of the government, chiefly
1 Journals of Congress, II, 8, 21; January 11, 1776.
' Ibid., I, 118; II, 367.
• Ibid., II, 88.
0
1
2
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
those in charge of funds and supplies, to take
an oath truly and faithfully to discharge their
duties. Congress later established an oath
for all officers in the continental service and
for all holding civil office from Congress, as
follows:
I- do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of
America, namely, . to be free, independent and
sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe
no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of
Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse, and abjure any
allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear that I will
to the utmost of my power support, maintain and defend
the said United States against the said King George, etc.
Even before the adoption of the Declara-
tion of Independence the Continental Con-
gress defined the citizenship of the colonies.
It resolved, June 6, 1776, while considering a
report of its Committee on Spies, “that all per-
sons abiding within any of the United Col-
onies and deriving protection from the laws
of the same owe allegiance to the said laws,
and are members of such colony.” Persons
only temporarily in a colony were declared to
owe allegiance to it during their temporary
stay, and it was made treason for such to levy
war.7
4 Op.cit., I, 187.
8 October 21, 1776; February 3, 1778.
• Journals of Congress, II, 426. January 16, 1777, Congress
ordered that the oath of fidelity be published (ibid., III, 20).
T Ibid., II, 229.
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
3
to
Hamilton accepted this position, and de-
veloped its application to those who had been
within the British lines during the war, and
to Tories generally, in his Letters from Pho-
cion, written in 1784. In opposition to pro-
posed New York legislation hostile
Tories, he pleaded both their legal status and
their treaty rights. The treaty, he held, for-
bade attainting individuals for war crimes, and
for the state to disfranchise or půnish whole
classes of its citizens by general descriptions
and without a trial was tyranny. To say, on
the other hand, that by espousing the cause of
Great Britain the Tories became aliens, and
that it would satisfy the treaty to confine
them to the privileges of aliens, was to admit
that subjects might at pleasure renounce
their allegiance to the state of which they
were members and devote themselves to a
foreign jurisdiction. That was a principle con-
trary to law, and subversive of government;
also it would lead to forfeiture of property by
a fraudulent subterfuge that was more odious
than an open violation of the treaty. The
state could not deprive a citizen of his right
without an offense ascertained by a trial, and
the treaty forbade prosecution and trial.
The idea of suffering the Tories to live among us under
disqualifications is equally mischievous and absurd. It is
4
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
necessitating a large body of citizens in the State to con-
tinue enemies to the government.
By the Declaration of Independence, acceded
to by the New York convention, July 9, 1776,
the late colony of New York became an independent state.
All the inhabitants who were subjects under the former
government, and who did not withdraw themselves upon
the change which took place, were to be considered as
citizens owing allegiance to the new government. This, at
least, is the legal presumption; and this was the principle
in fact, upon which all the measures of our public councils
have been grounded.”
Thus, according to Hamilton, residents of
New York, formerly British citizens, had the
opportunity of making choice of American or
British citizenship immediately after July 9,
1776. By choosing the latter they chose to
become alien enemies in the place of their
residence, and were under the necessity of
withdrawing from the state. Persons who re-
mained were, and continued to be, American
citizens, although the fortunes of war later
left them within the enemy's lines, where they
owed a temporary and qualified obedience,
and although they took voluntary part with
the enemy and became traitors thereby. He
held that the idea of citizens transforming
themselves into aliens by taking part against
their state was altogether unknown and in-
admissible.
• Lodge, Works of Alexander Hamilton, III, 449-70,
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
5
9
Bancroft states the theory of citizenship
resulting from the Declaration of Indepen-
dence thus: He that had owed primary al-
legiance to Great Britain now owed primary
allegiance to the United States, but it was no
treason to adhere to the king's government,
Yet those who chose to remain on the soil, by
residence accepted the protection of the new
government, and have owed it allegiance. He
adds that this was why for twelve years in
American state papers "free inhabitants” and
"citizens" were convertible terms, either or both
being used.
During the Revolutionary War repeated
efforts were made to detach the foreign ele-
ment from the British army by offers of land
and citizenship. First, in August, 1776, Con-
gress adopted the report of a committee to
devise plans for encouraging the Hessians
and other foreigners to quit the British ser-
vice. They declared it to have been
the wise policy of these states to extend the protection of
their laws to all those who should settle among them of
whatever nation or religion they might be and to admit
them to a participation of the benefits of civil and religious
freedom.
They asserted that the "benevolence" and
"salutary effects” of this practice advo-
cated its continuance. They resolved that
• Bancroft, History of the United States, V, 200.
6
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
> 10
these states will receive all such foreigners who shall leave
the armies (of England] . . . . and shall chuse to become
members of any of these states; and they shall be ...
invested with the rights, privileges and immunities of
natives as established by the laws of these states.
Each of them should be given fifty acres of
land. A little later (August 27, 1776) they
resolved to give lands, proportioned in
amount to their rank, to foreign officers that
should leave the British ariny “and chuse to
become citizens of these states.” Again, two
years later (April 15, 1778), they said to such
foreign officers and soldiers: “We are willing
to receive you with open arms into the bosom
of our country.
Jefferson, as governor of Virginia, issued
a proclamation, February 2, 1781, in which he
recited the offer of Congress of fifty acres of
land to foreigners who should leave the
British army "and should chuse to become
members of any of these states." He had
thought fit, by and with the advice of his
council, to make more generally known that
engagement of Congress, and to promise fur-
ther "to all such Foreigners who shall leave
the armies of his Britannic Majesty while in
this state, and repair forthwith to me at this
place,” that he should recommend the further
10 Journals of Congress, II, 310, 330; Secret Journals of Con.
gress, I, 70.
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
7
donation to each of two cows, and their ex-
emption, during the existing war and their
continuance in the state, from all taxes for the
support of the war, and from military ser-
vice. 11
Opinions vary as to the result of these
overtures. Of 29,867 Germans sent to Amer-
ica, 12,554 were not returned at the end of the
war. It is estimated that five thousand of
these had deserted, largely while prisoners of
war. . Some of them were enlisted in the
American army against the wishes of Wash-
ington. German writers claim that the Ger-
mans deserted less freely than did the Eng-
lish soldiers. 12 The Gloucester (Eng.) Journal
of November 10, 1783, in a dispatch of Sep-
tember 10, from Kingston, Jamaica, relates
that four thousand British prisoners of war
were received in New York from Philadelphia,
among whom were about seven hundred Germans, all that
could be found out of nine thousand of those people, who
have been made prisoners by the Americans in the course
of the war; the remainder have dispersed themselves in
the different provinces, and have been naturalized by Con-
gress, in order to forward the manufactures, agriculture,
and population of their extensive territories.
After making allowance for escaping prisoners,
and for deaths from wounds and disease, per-
11 Ford, Writings of Jefferson, II, 445.
12 Lowell, The Hessians in the Revolution, 285, 290, 291, 300.
18 This, of course, is a mistake.
8
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
haps this estimate of the number of deserters
does not vary greatly from the former one.
Other acts of Congress include a provision
for passports to certain inhabitants of New
Providence certifying their fidelity “and de-
sign to remove
to
states
with intent to become sub-
ject to the same;" 14 a recommendation to
Maryland to assemble the inhabitants in cer-
tain counties on an appointed day and take the
oath of allegiance required by the state, dis-
arming all that refused it ;16 a recommenda-
tion to New York to receive as citizens certain
Canadian and other refugees (eighty men and
women besides children) who had petitioned
Congress from Fishkill, N. Y.;16 a resolution to
confirm their possessions to French settlers at
Post St. Vincents (Vincennes, Ind.) who be-
fore 1783 “had professed themselves citizens
of the United States or any of them.” 17
A remarkable proposition is contained in
a letter from John Adams at Paris to the pres-
ident of Congress, as follows:
There is another point of very great importance, which
I am persuaded will be aimed at by the English ministers;
I am sure it will be by the people of England, whenever
14 Secret Journals of Congress, I, 87; August 17, 1778.
16 Journals of Congress, III, 36; February 1, 1777.
10 Ibid., VIII, 236; August 9, 1783.
17 Ibid., XIII, 91.
!
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
9
terms of peace shall be talked. For facilitating the return
of commerce they will wish to have it stipulated by the
treaty, that the subjects of Great Britain shall have the
rights of citizens in America, and the citizens of the United
States the rights of subjects in the British dominions.
Some of the consequences of such an agreement to them
and to us are obvious and very important; but they are so
numerous, and it is so difficult to determine whether the
benefits or inconveniences prevail, that I should be sorry to
have so great a question left to my determination.18
The same result was sought in 1794 by
Lord Loughborough (the former Wedder-
burn, now lord chancellor) in a proposal “that
in either country, the subjects or citizens of
the other shall be exempted from all the disabili-
ties of alienage." John Quincy Adams wrote
of this in his diary:
The article proposed by Lord Loughborough, the chan-
cellor, is certainly extremely liberal; although Mr. Jay
thinks it best to leave it as a subject for future considera-
tion.. Such an Article would certainly tend to pro-
mote the friendly intercourse between the Nations; and I
do not know that it could produce any material incon-
venience to either. But it would be necessary to have an
Act of Parliament to confirm the stipulation here, which,
his Lordship says, may be obtained without difficulty. A
more material obstacle arises from the constitution of the
United States, with one clause of which such an article
would certainly militate.
The provision referred to is doubtless that
giving to Congress the power of establishing
10 John Adams, Works, VII, 136; March 24, 1780.
το
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
» 19
a uniform rule of naturalization. That this
is the case is shown by the comment of Adams
upon the Louisiana Purchase. He regarded
it as abolishing the Constitution by treaty,
and one of his counts against it was: “It nat-
uralizes foreign nations in a mass. Adams
saw in this proposition support for Loughbor-
ough's professions of very friendly disposi-
tion toward the United States, although he
had been known as a conspicuous opponent
of America during the Revolution.20
There is a reference to a part of the same
question in an interview in 1817 between
Adams as minister to England and Hamilton,
a British under-secretary of state, in regard
to a claim for inheritance of land. Hamilton
had said that he found great difficulty in ad-
mitting a whole nation, eight millions of for-
eigners, to all the privileges of British sub-
jects without having any claim upon their
allegiance. Adams replied that the
mere privilege of holding lands would never, in the present
condition of the world, have consequences important to
either government, and there was something very harsh in
stripping individuals of their estates on the mere ground of
alienage.
This remarkable proposal has been revived
in England in recent years. Professor Dicey,
19 J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, V, 400.
30 Ibid., I, 49; October 22, 1794.
11 Ibid., iii, 513.
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
II
of the chair of English law at Oxford Univer-
sity, in a notable lecture at All Souls College,
while the arbitration treaty between the
United States and England was before the
United States Senate, earnestly advocated a
common citizenship for British and Amer-
icans. He designed nothing in the least re-
sembling political unity; but would merely
have every American citizen, on landing at
Liverpool, occupy the same position as to
civil and political rights as the inhabitant of
Victoria who might land from the same boat;
and an Englishman, on landing in America,
should enjoy the same civil and political rights
as an American born and reared abroad who
might first land there at the same time. The
plan was wholly feasible. The practical ef-
fects would be comparatively small, but
wholly good. The indirect and moral effects
would be greatly beneficial. The alien al-
ready possessed in both countries nearly all
the civil rights of citizens. The political
status of the American when in England
would become precisely that of his grand-
father, who was a citizen of New York, or
Massachusetts, and a subject of the crown.
He might vote, sit in Parliament or in the
cabinet, and even aspire to the House of
Lords. The dubious advantages of American
I2
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
22
restrictions on naturalization were not worth
weighing against the serious advantages of a
common citizenship.2
Franklin's sketch of Articles of Confedera-
tion of May 10, 1775, contains no reference to
citizenship.23 This is because independence
was not yet planned for. The draft of August
12, 1776, shortly after the declaration, is in
Dickinson's handwriting. Arts. VI and VII
provide that the inhabitants of each colony
shall always enjoy the same rights, liberties,
privileges, immunities, and advantages in the
other colonies that they now have, except as
those rights are [may be] limited by the fur-
ther provision that the inhabitants of each
colony shall enjoy [only] all rights of local
and foreign trade in any other colony that the
natives of such other colony enjoy. This re-
served to each colony the privilege of enfor-
cing upon the inhabitants of the other colonies
such restrictions upon trade rights as it might
propose for its own members.24 With the
matter thus before them, it is strange that
the draft of the committee of the whole (Au-
gust 20, 1776) contains no reference to the
subject.25 Ten weeks later Congress added
the provision that
29 New York Nation, LXIV, 198, Correspondence from Oxford.
28 Secret Journals of Congress, I, 283.
34 Ibid., I, 292.
$Ibid., I, 304.
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
13
the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vaga-
bonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled
to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the
respective states; and the people of each state shall have
free ingress and regress to and from any other state;
and enjoy the same trade privileges as the in-
habitants. The final text contained this
amendment with the word "respective”
changed to "several;" and reads as follows:
Art. IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual
friendship and intercourse among the people of the United
States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these
States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice
excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities
of free citizens in the several States, and the people of each
State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any
other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of
trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions
and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively,
provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as
to prevent the removal of property imported into any State,
to any other State of which the owner is an inhabitant;
provided also, that no imposition, duties, or restriction
shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United
States, or either of them.
Among a number of points in a representa-
tion of the Legislature of New Jersey to Con-
gress on the Articles of Confederation is the
objection that there is no oath or test to the
general government required of the members
of the Congress. Such an oath they thought
to be necessary. The Confederation Congress,
14
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
“all privi-
however, defeated a motion to amend the arti-
cles in accordance with this representation.
Only three states were for it, six were against
it, and one was divided. 20
Madison said in The Federalist:
The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long
been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a
foundation for intricate and delicate questions.
After quoting from the fourth article of the
Confederation, he continues :
There is a confusion of language here, which is
remarkable. Why the terms free inhabitants are used in
one part of the article, free citizen in another, and people in
another; or what was meant by superadding to
leges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of
trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It
seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that
those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants
of a state, although not citizens of such a state, are entitled,
in every other state, to all the privileges of free citizens
of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may
be entitled to in their own state: so that it may be in the
power of a particular State, or rather every state is laid
under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizen-
ship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such
rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to
become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an
exposition of the term "inhabitants” to be admitted which
would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the
difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very im-
proper power would still be retained by each State, of
16 Elliott's Debates, I, 87.
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
15
naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State,
residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizen-
ship; in another, qualifications of greater importance are
required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for cer-
tain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in
the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of
another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it
to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this
subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several
States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered
themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts incon-
sistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the
privilege of residence. What would have been the conse-
quence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had
acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another
State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to resi-
dence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them?
Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other
consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious
a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitu-
tion has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision
against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of
the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general
government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
throughout the United States.??
Bancroft found in "intercitizenship and
mutual equality of rights” of all members in
the Confederation "a new character and an
enduring unity," not found before in federa-
tions. Congress had at first defined only the
membership of each colony. The Articles of
27 The Federalist, No. XLII. Compare with the view of Ban-
croft, p. 5.
16
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Confederation brought in the rule that mem-
bership might be transferred from one state
to another.28 While there is here doubtless
the original expression of this character by
the lawmaking body common to the new
union, and is perhaps a new quality in federa-
tions, yet there must be taken into account
the earlier common English citizenship of the
great majority of the members of the Confed-
eration, and the common rights that it in-
volved. Those, whether continued or not
throughout the preliminary states of their
combination, must have done much to render
intercitizenship in the federation inevitable.
In other words, if here is a new character
in federations, it is because this is a fed-
eration born out of conditions to which the
new character was fundamental. The inter-
citizenship of naturalized citizens was, on the
other hand, not a matter of course. There is
little to show that their status in this respect
had been worked out generally in either the
colonial or the revolutionary period. Colo-
nial naturalization was usually limited in its
benefits, by explicit provision, to the colony
naturalizing. This restriction was not made
with reference to rights in other colonies. It
merely marked the limit of power under the
28 Bancroft, History of the Constitution of the United States,
I, 118.
REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
17
colony's charter, the act of 13 Geo. 2, or the
veto power of governor and crown. England
did not permit colonies to create English citi.
zens, and often restrained them in the making
of colonial citizens. A Virginian who was an
Englishman, upon settling in Maryland, be.
came a Marylander. There was no necessity
for this result if he was a foreigner.
There is a case of naturalization, in the
colonial period, first by Virginia and later by
Maryland; and it seems probable from the
record that the results of the Virginia nat-
uralization were lost by the subsequent pro-
ceedings in Maryland. At any rate, the Vir-
ginia lands of one Dr. George Hacke, who was
naturalized in Virginia in 1653, and again in
Maryland in 1663, are said to have escheated
at his death, and were regranted to his heirs,
because he was a foreigner.29 But, with the
common tie one of their own formation, the
rather anomalous condition that some of the
citizens of one state should, and others should
not, require naturalization upon removing
to another state would naturally be done away
with.
The transfer of citizenship from state to
state provided for by the Articles of Confed-
eration very soon led to complaints due to the
30 Virginia Historical Magazine, V, 256.
18
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
easy naturalization laws of some of the states.
Edmund Randolph, writing to Madison, made
suggestions with reference to the intrusion
of obnoxious aliens through other states.
Madison replied (August 27, 1782) that his
hints merited attention, and that the subject
had been several times mentioned in Con-
gress. He believed that no committee had
ever reported a remedy for the abuse, but
thought that a uniform rule of naturalization
ought certainly to be recommended to the
states. Their individual authority seemed, if
properly executed, to be competent to the
case of their own citizens. 30 Many years
later in his introduction to the debates in the
convention, he wrote:
Among the defects which had been severely felt was
want of an uniformity in cases requiring it, as laws of
naturalization and bankruptcy.81
30 Madison Papers, I, 161. This seems to mean that states
may be left to control state, as distinguished from federal, citi-
zenship.
81 Ibid., II, 712.
CHAPTER II
THE CONVENTION OF 1787
In the proceedings of the Constitutional
Convention of 1787 we look for any traces of
a new citizenship. The first of these is in the
resolutions offered by Randolph on May 29.
His sixth resolution,
that the national legislature ought to be empowered ...
to legislate in all cases to which the separate states are
incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States
may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation,
read in the light of the foregoing correspon-
dence between Madison and Randolph, and
the later proceedings of the convention, must
be thought to comprehend consciously the
subject in hand. His fourteenth resolution,
that the legislative, executive and judiciary powers, within
the several states, ought to be bound, by oath, to support
the articles of union,
is a step toward recognition of a new citizen-
ship that met with considerable opposition."
That they contain nothing more strengthens
the probability that resolution 6 was seen to
be sufficiently inclusive to provide for federal
naturalization. These provisions were un-
1 Elliott's Debates, I, 408; Madison Papers, V, 182f.
· Elliott's Debates, I, 143.
19
20
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
changed in the resolutions as amended and
agreed to in committee of the whole house
on June 19.
Meanwhile (June 15) Patterson's proposi-
tions were introduced and referred to a com-
mittee of the whole house, and they were de-
bated the following day. The sixth of these
was identical with Randolph's fourteenth res-
olution. The tenth was:
Resolved, That the rule for naturalization ought to be
the same in every state.
Pinckney's plan, long discredited, but re-
cently in large measure rehabilitated, contains
nearly everything bearing on citizenship and
naturalization that found place in the final draft.
A later compromise plan communicated by Ran-
dolph to Madison July 10, but not introduced be-
cause the smaller states had succeeded in getting
an equal vote in all cases in the Senate, proposed
that each state should have one vote in that
branch in thirteen specified cases, one of which
was:
In regulating the rights to be enjoyed by citizens of
one state in the other states."
Randolph's sixth and fourteenth resolu-
tions were respectively the sixth and the
twentieth of the twenty-three resolutions ap-
8 Op. cit., I, 177.
* Madison Papers, II, 1110; III, Appendix, p. vii.
CONVENTION OF 1787
21
proved by the convention and referred to the
Committee of Detail. Patterson's and Pinck-
ney's resolutions were also laid before this
committee.
The growth of the ideas that were em-
bodied in the Constitution is to be studied
further in the draft reported by this commit-
tee, in the revised draft made by the conven-
tion, in the final form as reported by the Com-
mittee on Style, and in the available "reports
of the proceedings and debates of the conven-
tion. I shall trace to its outcome each pro-
vision of the committee's draft that seems to
require notice. The first of these leaves the
qualifications for the federal suffrage to be de-
termined by the several states, requiring only
that they be the same as shall be established
for electors to the lower branch of each state
legislature. An effort to strike out the phrase
by which "electors" was limited received the
vote of Delaware only, probably because the
change would tend to restrict a state to only
one class of electors. The section passed
unanimously as reported, and not
changed later.
Art. IV, sec. 2, read:
Every member of the House of Representatives .
shall have been a citizen in the United States for at least
three years before his election.
was
22
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
“Citizen in" was changed to "citizen of.” Vari-
ous motions were made as to the number
of years of citizenship to be required to qual-
ify a representative. “Seven years" was in-
serted in place of “three years,” with only
Connecticut opposing. “Three years” was
lost by a vote of 2 to 9. A motion for one
year was lost, and the clause passed unani-
mously. Some days later (August 13), ex-
tended discussion upon the term of citizen-
ship to be required for senator having inter-
vened, reconsideration was had. Wilson and
Randolph moved to strike out "seven years"
and insert "four years” as the requisite term
of citizenship to qualify for the House of Rep-
resentatives. Wilson thought it very proper
for the electors to require seven years, but
unnecessary and improper that the Constitu-
tion should chain them down to it. Gerry
wished that in future eligibility might be con-
fined to natives. Foreign powers would in-
termeddle and spend vast sums in secret ser-
vice and in influencing the government. Wil-
liamson moved to require nine years of citi-
zenship
Hamilton was in general against embar-
rassing the government by minute restric-
tions. He proposed an amendment requiring
8 Elliott's Debates, I, 224, 232.
CONVENTION OF 1787
23
only citizenship and inhabitancy. This would
leave discretion to Congress, and answer
every purpose. Madison, seconding the
amendment, said that he wished to maintain
a professed character of liberality, and to in-
vite foreigners of merit and republican prin-
ciples. America was indebted to immigra-
tion, and had advanced most rapidly where it
was most encouraged. There was a possible
danger in office, but it was by no means prob-
able in any dangerous degree. The people
would prefer natives. Wilson cited the rapi
growth of Pennsylvania to a place among the
foremost in population and prosperity as
proof of the advantage of encouraging immi-
gration. Almost all of her general officers in
the Revolution were foreigners, and no com-
plaint arose. Three of her deputies in this
convention were not natives. He had no ob-
jection to Hamilton's motion, and withdrew
his own.
Butler was strenuous against for-
eigners in our councils. The vote on Hamil-
ton's amendment was: ayes, 4 (Conn., Penn.,
Md., Va.); noes, 7 (N. H., Mass., N. J., Del.,
N. C., S. C., Ga.). On nine years the vote
stood: ayes, 3 (N. H., S. C., Ga.), and noes,
8. Wilson renewed his motion for four years.
It secured the votes of Conn., Md., and Va.
An amendment by Gouverneur Morris
24
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
opened up a new field for debate. He pro-
posed the following:
Provided always, that the above limitation of seven
years shall not be construed to affect the rights of those
who are now citizens of the United States.
Mercer, in seconding this, said that it was
necessary to prevent putting any who had be-
come citizens below the level of natives. Rut-
ledge thought that it might as well be said
that all qualifications are disfranchisements,
including the age qualification of twenty-five
years. The policy of the precaution was as
great for those now citizens as for those to be-
come so.
Sherman held that the United States had
not pledged equal privileges by invitations.
Only individual states had done this. The
United States were free to discriminate as
they should judge it to be requisite. Gorham
doubted the propriety of a retrospective re-
striction. When foreigners were naturalized,
it would seem as if they stood on an equal
footing with natives.
Madison found in the peculiar doctrine of
Sherman a subtlety by which every national
engagement might be evaded. Who but the
states were to form the new Constitution?
If it violated pledged faith, the states would
be violators. Every state would be exposed
CONVENTION OF 1787
25
to reproach, and reduced to the dilemma of
rejecting the Constitution, or of violating the
faith pledged to a part of its citizens. Gouv-
erneur Morris denied that any pledge had been
made to persons under twenty-five years, but
faith had been pledged that foreigners should
enjoy the privileges of citizens. Pinckney as-
serted that the laws of the states varied much
as to naturalization, and that the United
States could not be bound to respect them on
such an occasion as this, when there was a
sort of recurrence to first principles. Mason,
too, was struck by the propriety, not the pe-
culiarity, of Sherman's doctrine. There was
need of greater caution at the beginning of
the government, or there might be pernicious
consequences in the commercial regulations.
Wilson found in the provision of the Penn-
sylvania constitution, giving “all the rights
whatsoever of citizens" to foreigners after
two years' residence, together with the pro-
vision of the Articles of Confederation that
citizens of one state should be citizens of all,
an obligation resting upon Pennsylvania to
maintain the faith thus pledged to her for-
eign-born citizens, and held that her failure
would authorize just complaint. Foreign
powers would use such breach of faith to deter
their subjects from emigrating to the United
26
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
to 7
States. Mercer had the same idea. Baldwin
still thought that discrimination as to birth
was no more objectionable than that of age,
in the propriety of which all had concurred.
The vote resulted: ayes, 5 (Conn., N. J.,
Penn., Md., and Va.); noes, 6 (N. H., Mass.,
Del., N. C., S. C., Ga.). A motion to insert
five years for seven was lost by a vote of 3
The principle involved was that of
greater privileges to foreigners, and the vote
was as the preceding one, except that New
Jersey now went with the majority and Penn-
sylvania divided. The section was then
agreed to unanimously as amended, and had
attained its final form.6
I return now to consider the term of citi-
zenship to be required of a senator. This
was four years in the report of the Committee
of Detail. Gouverneur Morris moved to
change to fourteen years, and urged the dan-
ger of admitting strangers to the public coun-
cils. Pinckney seconded the amendment and
urged the treaty power of the Senate against
a short term qualification. There was pe-
culiar danger and impropriety in opening the
Senate's door to those who had foreign at-
tachments. Mason highly approved the pol-
icy of the motion. Except for the revolution-
& Elliott's Debates, I, 240; Madison Papers, III, 1299-1302.
CONVENTION OF 1787
27
ary deeds of many, he would favor limiting
eligibility to the Senate to natives.
Ellsworth opposed thus discouraging meri-
torious aliens from emigrating to this country.
Madison could never agree to the proposed
amendment. He was not averse to some re-
strictions on this subject, but any restriction
in the Constitution was unnecessary and im-
proper. It was unnecessary because Con-
gress was to regulate naturalization and
could require different periods of residence
for the different privileges of citizenship. It
was improper because it would give a tincture
of illiberality to the Constitution; because it
would prevent Congress, even by special acts,
from conferring the full rank of citizens on
meritorious strangers; and would discourage
the most desirable class of people from emi-
grating to the United States. With a stable
and reputable government established, great
numbers of respectable, liberty-loving Euro-
peans would be ready to transfer their for-
tunes hither. Such persons, though not
coveting public honors, would be mortified
by incapacity. He did not apprehend that
the state legislatures, even if left at liberty to
do so, would choose any dangerous number
of strangers; nor that foreign powers would
use strangers as instruments of their pur-
28
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
poses. Their bribes would be expended on
men whose circumstances would rather stifle
than excite jealousy and watchfulness.
Butler was decidedly opposed to admitting
foreigners till after long residence. They
brought foreign attachments and different
ideas of government, and were in every
point of view dangerous. He himself would
have been improper in public life till long
after coming here. Franklin was not opposed
to a reasonable residence requirement, but
would be very sorry to see anything like il-
liberality inserted in the Constitution. The
people of Europe and many in England were
our friends. Many strangers served us faith-
fully in war, while many natives fought
against us. Foreigners in choosing this coun-
try and coming here gave a proof of attach-
ment which ought to excite confidence and
affection.
Randolph thought that it might be prob-
lematical whether emigrants were, on the
whole, useful or not, but he could never agree
to disable them from public honors for four-
teen years. Many were here on the faith of
invitations, and would be made hostile. He
would go as far as seven years, but no farther.
Wilson mentioned that some of the ideas ad-
vanced might exclude himself, although he
CONVENTION OF 1787
29
shared in making the Constitution. Legal
incapacity produced chagrin and mortifica-
tion, even when one did not desire office.
Gouverneur Morris closed the debate by
urging that they should govern themselves
by reason and not by feelings, and not be po-
lite at the expense of prudence. Foreigners
would enjoy great privileges without office.
He would not trust philosophical citizens of
the world. The men who could shake off at-
tachments to their own country could never
love another. They had no means of know-
ing what legislatures would do. The vote on
his motion to insert "fourteen years" for "four
years” was: ayes, 4 (N. H., N. J., S. C., Ga.)';
noes, 7 (Mass., Conn., Penn., Del., Md., Va., N.
C.). Votes on thirteen and ten years each re-
sulted the same.
Franklin reminded the convention again
that omitting a restriction from the Constitu-
tion did not remove restrictions. Rutledge
said that surely a longer term of citizenship
was required for a seat in the Senate, with its
greater power, than for a seat in the House of
Representatives, where seven years had been
required. Williamson thought it more neces-
sary to guard the Senate, as bribery and
cabal would be easier in the electing legisla-
tures. Randolph would agree to nine years,
30
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
.
expecting a reduction to seven years, if a mo-
tion to reconsider the term for the House of
Representatives should reduce it. Delaware
and Virginia changed to the restrictive side,
North Carolina divided, and the proposition
for nine years carried 6 to 4. The section as
amended was agreed to neni. con., and passed
through the later stages without change.?
Art. VII, sec. I of the report of the
Committee of Detail contained the following:
The legislature of the United States shall have the
power, 3. To establish a uniform rule of naturaliza-
tion throughout the United States.
Clauses 1-8 of this section passed in the af-
firmative. Madison reports that there was
only one vote cast against clause 1, that clause
2 passed nem. con., and that clauses 4, 5, and
6 were agreed to nem. con. Apparently clause
3 (as above) passed without important com-
ment, and with slight, if any, opposition.8
The Committee on Style changed "a uniform
rule" to "an uniform rule," a change not ap-
proved today."
The report under consideration contained
no age or birth qualification for President.
On September 4 a special Compromise Com-
mittee of one member from each state, to
7 Elliott's Debates, I, 235; Madison Papers, III, 1273-76.
8 Elliott's Debates, I, 245; Madison Papers, V, 434.
* Elliott's Debates, I, 298; Madison Papers, III, 1549.
CONVENTION OF 1787
31
which had been referred parts postponed or
passed by, reported:
Sec. 2. No person except a natural-born citizen, or a
citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.
This was agreed to nem. con., and embodied
in the final draft.10
The Committee of Detail, in defining the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, extended
it
to controversies .... between a state and citizens of
another state; between citizens of different states; and
between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states,
citizens, or subjects.11
Later it was made the judicial power that was
to extend to these controversies. For the
present purpose there is need only to notice
the mention of state citizenship.
The Articles of Confederation had pro-
vided that
the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vaga-
bonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled
to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the
several States, and the people of each State shall have free
ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall
enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, sub-
ject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the
inhabitants thereof respectively.
The corresponding provision in the Constitu-
tion appears first in the draft of the Commit-
10 Elliott's Debates, I, 283, 291; V, 522.
11 Ibid., I, 229.
32
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
tee of Detail, as follows: “The citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all privileges
and immunities of citizens in the several
States.” This was agreed to as reported, 9 to
1, South Carolina opposing and Georgia di-
vided. There is no record of discussion upon
it, and it remained unchanged in the final
draft.12
About the close of the convention Hamil-
ton gave to Madison a paper outlining the
Constitution as he would have wished it to
have been proposed. Representatives, except
in the first instance, were to be chosen "by the
free male citizens and inhabitants of the sev-
eral States.” “The citizens and inhabitants
of the several States" having land were to
choose electors, who should choose the sena-
tors. No person was to be eligible to the of-
fice of president unless already a citizen of one
of the states or thereafter born a citizen of the
United States. A senator or representative at
the time of his election should be a citizen
and an inhabitant of the state in which he
was chosen. Finally, "the citizens of each
State shall be entitled to the rights, privileges,
and immunities of citizens in every other
State." 13
12 Op.cit., I, 229, 272; IV, 2.
18 Madison Papers, III, Appendix, xvi.
CHAPTER III
THE ACT OF 1790
The Act of 1790 was the first response of
Congress to the grant of power to pass a uni-
form rule of naturalization. More immediate-
ly it was a response to the following clause
from Washington's annual message (January
8, 1790):
Various considerations also render it expedient that
the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the
rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uni-
form rule of naturalization.
The bill was reported by a special committee
of three appointed on the recommendation
of the House Committee of the Whole on the
State of the Union, to prepare and bring in a
bill or bills for establishing a uniform rule
of naturalization.
While it was in preparation the House dis-
cussed at some length questions raised by a
petition of one H. W. Dobbyn, of Ireland,
praying Congress to grant him lands on terms
to encourage him to bring settlers to this
country. A committee had reported upon this
petition in favor of empowering the secretary
of the treasury to sell not less than fifty
33
34
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
thousand acres in one tract. On the one hand,
it was objected that Dobbyn was an alien and
might not be able to conform to the new plan
for naturalization soon to be reported; that
both naturalization and land sales ought to
be by general laws; and that, in view of the
notoriously rapid growth of population from
the present inhabitants, sufficient in itself to
people the territory, it was a mistake to throw
away lands on foreign speculators, who were
less likely to harmonize with, than, if numer-
ous, to embarrass, a republican government.
It was replied that it was important to attend
to the proposals of foreigners-especially of
intending citizens—for the purchase of lands;
and that the condition of complying with the
laws might be inserted in the contract. The
report was laid on the table.
When the naturalization bill was reported,
the House debated it at considerable length,
recommitted it to a committee of ten, which
reported an amendatory bill, and discussed
the latter for several days. Various amend-
ments were agreed to, and the bill passed.
In the Senate there was preliminary consid-
eration in committee of the whole, a fav-
orable report from a special committee, and
further consideration in committee of the
1 Annals of Congress, First Congress, Second Session, 1097,
1104, 1108, 1110; January 20, 1790.
1
ACT OF 1790
35
whole on five successive days. The bill then
passed with an amendment, in which the
House concurred at once.2
The debate in the lower house, before the
bill was recommitted, is reported quite fully.
Of the later debates in either house there is no
record ;3 nor can the course of amendments be
traced. The original bill provided that all
free white persons who had already migrated
into the United States, who should prove by
oath that they intended to reside in the United
States, take an oath of allegiance, and "shall
have resided in the United States for one
whole year,"should be entitled to all the rights
of citizenship, except that of holding office
under either a state or the general govern-
ment. For office-holding a residence of two
years longer was required.4
Nineteen members are known to have par-
ticipated in the first debate, upon a motion
of Tucker (S. C.) to strike out the require-
ment of one year's residence for landholding.
Six of them spoke three times, and seven
others twice. The radical nature of the propo-
sition to require no previous residence for ad-
. House Journal, First Congress, Second Session, 146, 147,
159, etc.; Senate Journal, 1, 34-48; Annals of Congress, First Con-
gress, Second Session, 288, 989, 992, etc.; 1094, 1095, 1147, 1460,
1463, 1516.
8 Except for Maclay's account of what occurred in the Senate.
* Annals of Congress, First Congress, Second Session, 1147.
36
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
mission to citizenship, except for office-hold-
ing, doubtless gave a special color to the vari-
ous expressions of opinion, and makes some
of them seem more conservative than they
otherwise would have been.
The main lines of argument may be ex-
hibited under a few general heads, such as
constitutional and legal questions, protection
from dangers, and the promotion of immigra-
tion. The constitutional questions were two.
One man (Jackson, Ga.) would found our law
on principles of progressive and probational
naturalization, and cited English law in sup-
port of his position. Another (Smith, S. C.)
also insisted that a uniform rule might be
progressive. Madison thought it a nice ques-
tion how far they should admit to citizenship
step by step, and Boudinot (N. J.) asserted
that citizenship ought to carry with it full and
complete, not partial, rights.
The serious obstacle in the way of progres-
sive naturalization was the view of the sphere
of national control that seemed to be involved
in it. According to Lawrence (N. Y.), while
Congress would establish the rule of natural-
ization, the effects of it were to be determined
by the states. Congress had only to point out
the mode for becoming citizens. The Consti-
tution had fixed a term of residence for a seat
ACT OF 1790
37
in Congress. It was doubly doubtful as to
the power of Congress to fix any such term
as a qualification for membership in the state
legislatures. Nor could Congress lengthen
the six-months' period required by New York
law for voting for members of the state legis-
lature, to one year after citizenship had been
gained.
Huntington (Conn.) wished to leave the
naturalization of foreigners to the state legis-
latures. Stone (Md.) remembered that the
states withheld privileges even from natives.
White (Va.) ventured to doubt the power
of Congress to decide when aliens could hold
lands within the states. Seney (Va.) declared
that Congress could fix a long term of resi-
dence as preliminary to office-holding under
the United States, but could neither lengthen
nor shorten the term required by the states.
Again, he asserted that Congress had nothing
to do with prescribing the qualifications for
state offices. Smith (S. C.) stood alone in as-
serting that a uniform rule of naturalization
would make a uniform rule of citizenship for
the whole continent, and decide the rights of
foreigners generally. Tucker (S. C.) cited
the constitutional provision as to voters as
proof that the states and not Congress were
to define the privileges under naturalization.
38
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Throughout the debate the principal rights
involved in citizenship were regarded as land-
holding and office-holding. Only occasion-
ally did suffrage as an independent right re-
ceive notice.
Apart from the constitutional questions
cousidered above, every point had to be con-
sidered with reference to its effect on immigra-
tion. The problem was to adjust the natural-
ization law so as to gain the maximum advan-
tage from immigration with the least harm
or danger to republican government and in-
stitutions, and to the other interests of the
country Page (Va.) held that European
policy did not apply here, and that a more
liberal system was permissible. It was incon-
sistent with the claim of an asylum to make
hard terms. These would exclude the good
and not the bad. He would welcome all kinds
of emigrants; all would be good citizens.
Lawrence (N. Y.) declared that they were
seeking to encourage emigration, but that the
term of residence in the bill would tend to
restrain it. The newcomer ought to vote as
soon as he was taxed. He was not likely to
leave the country after taking oath that he
intended to reside in the United States. All
comers, rich and poor, would add to the
wealth or strength of the country. The evil
•
ACT OF 1790
39
to result from restraining immigration was
greater than the benefits from a term of resi-
dence. Conduct could be restrained by laws.
Smith (S. C.) urged that the intention of the
motion they were considering was to permit
land purchase and holding. Clymer (Pa.)
would admit to citizenship gradually, and
suggested that it might be well to admit per-
sons to hold land without ever coming to the
United States, as Pennsylvania had done. It
would result in easy borrowing.
On the other hand, the dangers to be appre-
hended from foreign-born citizens who might
be lacking in character, in knowledge of, and
attachment to, free institutions, or in a stead-
fast purpose to reside in the United States, or
who might be paupers or even criminals, were
strongly urged by a majority of the speakers.
Roger Sherman (Conn.) presumed that the in-
tention of the constitutional provision was to
prevent states from forcing undesirable per-
sons upon other states. It was to guard
against an improper mode of naturalization,
rather than to provide easier terms. Congress
would not compel a state to receive emigrants
likely to become chargeable. It would be
necessary to add a clause to provide for such.
Hartley (Pa.) opposed admission to all of the
privileges of a citizen without a residence re-
40
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
quirement. To have such a requirement was
the practice of almost every state. A11
modern experience had shown the propriety
of a line between the citizen and the alien. It
would not be so bad if only landholding were
involved, but voting was involved. Even if
the foreigner was qualified to vote, there could
be no hold on his attachment to the govern-
ment, and hence no assurance of a good citi-
zen, without requiring a term of residence in
which he might come to esteem the govern-
ment. Madison believed it necessary to
guard against abuses. They should induce
the worthy of niankind to come, the object
being to increase the wealth and strength of
the country. Those who would weaken it
were not wanted. If only an oath was re-
quired, aliens might evade the laws intended
to encourage the trade of citizens, and thus
have in trade all the advantages both of citi-
zens and of aliens. It was a simple question
that was before them--whether residence was
a proper quality. He had no doubt that it
was.
Jackson (Ga.) wanted the term "citizen"
to be venerated. He favored a term of pro-
bation, and testimonials at the end of it.
and would have the grand jury or the dis-
trict courts decide as to the character. Sylvester
1
ACT OF 1790
41
(N. Y.) also favored a term of probation and
vouchers for good behavior. He suggested
lodging the whole power of admitting for-
eigners in district judges. Page objected that
Jackson's plan involved inquisition and expel-
ling the unworthy. It led to a test of the faith
and politics of all who came for admission.
Every man taking the oath of allegiance and
purposing residence ought to be admitted to
buy land. He did not object to a residence
qualification for voting. Stone (Md.) would
give property rights after six months' resi-
dence, requiring an oath of allegiance and of
intended residence. For voting and office-hold-
ing he would require seven years' residence,
following the example of the Constitution in
this respect." An emigrant desired property
and not political rights. Before he was grant-
ed the latter, he must have time in which to
come to know the government, to admit the
truth of its principles, and to have acquired
a taste for this kind of government. Burke
(S. C.) said that one year was too short a
residence requirement, and seven years were
too long. The time ought to be two, three, or
four years. Sedgwick (Mass.) opposed ad-
mitting the outcasts of Europe. There was
no necessity of peopling the United States
o Pennsylvania Packet, February 11,
1790.
42
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
thus. He favored guarded admission and a
term of probation.
Boudinot (N. J.) opposed the amendment.
He would rather increase the term of resi-
dence to two years, and omit the office-hold-
ing restriction. One speaker proposed that, if
the residence requirement was omitted, a
clause be added to deprive of their citizenship
those who left the country and remained
abroad a given time. Otherwise merchants
and sea captains would evade the payment of
duties by merely taking an oath of intent to
reside in the United States. Another thought
the mode of the bill was much too easy. Va-
rious states, and Great Britain in particular,
required a special act of the legislature to
naturalize. He wished to amend to leave
naturalization to the state legislatures. One
member proposed to receive farmers, manu-
facturers, and mechanics on liberal terms, but
to exclude merchants and factors, and also
criminals. Other propositions were to in-
invalidate land titles, if residence was inter-
rupted within three years; to grant inherit-
ance rights in the United States only when
the favor was reciprocated by European na-
tions; to make easy the return of Tories to
citizenship; and to recommit the bill to pro-
vide for the case of children born abroad.
1
ACT OF 1790
43
Sedgwick saw no extrication from a wilder-
ness of ideas more various than on any other
question. The committee rose, and the
House recommitted the bill to a special com-
mittee of ten members. Its later course has
been given in outline.
Maclay in his Journal commented upon the
proceedings in the Senate each day that the
bill was before it, and must be quoted in de-
tail. On March 8 he said: The naturaliza-
tion bill was taken up. The debates were ex-
ceedingly lengthy, and a great number of
amendments were moved. Morris his col-
league] stood by me in one to enable aliens
to hold lands. I engaged warmly on every
question. It is a vile bill, illiberal and void of
philanthropy, and needed mending much. We
complained ? that such an ungenerous bill
should be sent us—or at least I did. They
answered, “You have little to do," and that
they had sent us employment.
The following day he had to wrangle with
the New England men alone on the naturali-
zation bill till nearly one o'clock. Johnston
(N. C.) took part in some degree with him.
His success had been tolerable—but such
—
shuffling and want of candor! He had cer-
• Annals of Congress, First Congress, Second Session, 1147-61;
Pennsylvania Packet, February 11, 1790.
? To the Pennsylvania members of the House,
44
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
tainly gained greatly, though.
greatly, though. They had
failed twice the day before in the attempt to
throw out the two-years’-residence require-
ment; and his amendments went to cure this
defect with respect to holding lands. Many
members then declared their dislike of the
two years, and wished the bill committed for
the purpose of having that part rejected. He
had agreed, but they were very unlucky in
the committee they got.
We Pennsylvanians act as if we believed that God
made of one blood all the families of the earth; but the
eastern people seem to think that he made none but New
England folks.
It was strange that they were born under re-
publican forms and were so contracted on the
subject of general philanthropy. Pennsyl-
vania was used to the reception and adoption
of strangers, but there was no class of people
that she received with such diffidence as the
eastern people. They really had the worst
characters of any people that offered them-
selves for citizens. Yet they were the ones
who affected the greatest fear of being con-
taminated with foreign manners, customs, and
vices. Perhaps they were justly fearful as to
adopting any of the latter, for they certainly
had enough already.
Three days later the committee had re-
ACT OF 1790
45
ported, but far short of the points which he
wished established. There really seemed a
spirit of malevolence against Pennsylvania
in the business. She had been very liberal on
the subject of admitting strangers to citizen-
ship; she had benefited and did still benefit by
it. Some characters seemed disposed to de-
prive them of those benefits. He had moved
a postponement of a day, which was easily
carried, that they might consider the amend-
ment. Izard (S. C.) had snapped, ill-natured
as a cur, and said "No" alone.
Four more days of debate and part of another
followed. The same illiberality still possessed
the New England men. "Immigration is a
source of population to us and they wish to
deprive us of it." Maclay was dissatisfied
with the work of his colleague, Morris.
King (N. Y.) was as much against them as
any, but he did it in an indirect way. Again:
All our old arguments went over and over again.
The fact is, the adoption of strangers has set Pennsyl-
vania far ahead of her sister states. They are spiteful and
envious, and wish to deprive her of this source of popula-
tion; but it will scarcely do to avow openly such ungener-
ous conduct. It therefore must be done under various
pretenses and legal distinctions. Two years' residence was
insisted on in the bill. We cared not for this, but let the
stranger hold land the moment he comes, etc., etc. Two
law opinions were supported in the debates of the day:
8
March 17
46
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
one that the power of holding lands was a feature of
naturalization; that lands, etc., could not be held without
it. This doctrine was pushed so far by Ellsworth [Conn.]
as to declare that the rights of electors, being elected, etc.,
should attend and be described in the act of naturalization.
All that could be said would not support this doctrine.
Ellsworth was even so absurd as to suppose, if a man
acquired the right of suffrage in one state, he had it in all,
etc. This doctrine it was seen would not carry, and now
one more conformable to the common law was set up.
It was alleged that the disability of an alien to hold
lands arose from the common law, and was separable from
the rights of naturalization, as in the case of denization in
England, where the crown could confer the right of giving,
receiving, and holding real property. When an alien, there-
fore, was enabled to hold real estate, it was in reality by
repealing part of the common law with respect to him; not
by giving a power, but taking away a disability. It, there-
fore, strictly speaking rested with the respective states
whether they would repeal the common law with respect to
aliens touching the point of holding property, and, being a
pure state concern, had no occasion to be made any men-
tion of in the naturalization act, but must remain to be
settled by the different states by law, as well as the rights
of election, etc. We of Pennsylvania contended hard to
have a clause for empowering aliens to hold, etc. but the
above reasoning prevailed, and we lost it.
After another day's debate, he continued :
From the most accurate observation I have been able
to make the conduct of the members has been influenced by
the following motives : as Pennsylvania is supposed likely
to derive most benefit by migrations, the Eastern members
are disposed to check it as much as they can. Jersey
nearly indifferent; Delaware absolutely so; Maryland as
t
ACT OF 1790
47
Jersey; Virginia unrepresented; North Carolina favorable;
South Carolina and Georgia want people much but they
fear the migrations, and will check then rather than run
the chance of importing people who may be averse to slav-
ery. Hence the bill passed the House [Senate] nearly as
it came up from the representatives.
The governing ideas, however, seem to be the follow-
ing: That the holding of property was separable from and
not actually connected with naturalization; that laws and
regulations relating to property, not being among the
powers granted to Congress, remained with the different
States. Therefore, Congress would be guilty of an assump-
tion of power if they touched it; that the holding of prop-
erty was a common law right, and the disability of aliens to
hold property from that quarter. King [N. Y.), Patterson
[N. J.), Bassett (Del.), Read [Del.], Henry [Md.], Johns-
ton [N. C.), all finally settled in this way, Ellsworth dead
against this; the holding property (real) a feature insepar-
able from naturalization, etc. Strong (Mass.) rather in-
clined to Ellsworth, Dr. Johnson (Conn.] said about as
much on one side as on the other. Few, too, is said to be
a lawyer; but, though he spoke a great deal, he did not
seem to enter into the distinctions. For our parts we
wished the naturalization bill to be in exact conformity as
possible to the existing laws relating to aliens in Pennsyl-
vania; and this, I am convinced, would have been the
case had it not been for that low spirit which contaminates
public characters as well as private life.
It appears that all over Europe where the civil law pre-
vails, aliens hold property. It is the common law of
England that deprives them of holding real estate. The
common law has been received by us, and with it this con-
sequence. However, since we cannot get the rights of
property fully acknowledged, it is best that the naturaliza-
tion bill say nothing about it."
• Maclay's Journal, 208-11, 213-17.
48
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
The new law provided for the naturaliza-
tion of free white aliens after two years' resi-
dence in the United States, upon application
to any common law court of record in the
state where they had resided for one year.
They were to satisfy the court of their good char-
acter, and take an oath administered by the
court to support the Constitution of the
United States. Minor children resident in
the United States at the time became citizens
of the United States also. Children born
abroad of citizens were to be natural-born
citizens of the United States, unless the father
had never resided in the United States. Any
citizen already proscribed by a state was not
to be readmitted to citizenship except by the
act of the legislature of the proscribing state.
CHAPTER IV
THE ACT OF 1795
At the beginning of the session of 1794-95,
a House committee 1 prepared a bill to amend
the act of 1790. The measure, reported by
Madison as chairman, was debated at length,2
variously amended, and, by recommittal, lost
its original character as an amendment to the
act of 1790, and became a substitute for it.
Further debate 3 and several amendments
prepared it for the Senate.
No adequate conception of the original
bill can be gained from the published records.
Dexter (Mass.) introduced the debate in com-
mittee of the whole. He earnestly called at-
tention to the importance and necessity of
amending the existing law. He described
the present easy access to citizenship as dan-
gerous and insufficient to prevent improper
persons from being incorporated with the
American people. Longer time was absolute-
ly necessary in which to detect persons lack-
ing natural attachment for, and prepossessed
1 Madison, Dexter, Cairnes; appointed December 8, reported
December 15.
On December 22, 26, 29, 30, 31; January 1 and 2.
* On January 6, 7, and 8.
49
50
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
against, the United States. The importance
of the general subject was emphasized by
declarations that America was the last and
only asylum for vagabonds and fugitives, and
that the establishment of uniform rules of
naturalization was one of the grand objects of
the Constitution. His motion to strike out
the two-years’-residence requirement, leaving
the blank to be filled later, was supported by
forty-five members.
Dexter, continuing, referred to the facility
with which foreign agents could take the oath
in order to save tonnage charges. He pro-
posed an amendment to remedy this evil, and
a proviso that those who renounced all foreign
allegiance forever, and declared on oath their
intention of becoming citizens, should pay no
more tonnage dues than they would if fully
naturalized. Giles opposed favors to mercan-
tile people, since they were the least of any
attached to the country. Dexter thought
some of them brought large capital. Madison
said that the clause belonged to the commer-
cial regulations, not here; and the motion was
withdrawn.
Giles proposed that a special law of the
state abandoned be required to reinstate per-
sons expatriating themselves. Tracy (Conn.)
did not favor perpetual allegiance; neverthe-
!
ACT OF 1795
51
less, he thought it ill policy to admit a man
back after he had expatriated himself, when
he must have lost real attachment to any gov-
ernment. The amendment proposed, even if
proper, made return too easy. He suggested
that a law of the United States, evidently a
private bill for each case, be required also.
To this Giles agreed. However, further dis-
cussion showed legal and constitutional diffi-
culties in the way of such a course, and this
amendment was withdrawn. Certainly it con-
flicted with the constitutional requirement of
uniformity in the naturalization law. It is
important to note the very general assump-
tion that attachment to one or another kind of
government was what determined men's mi-
grations from country to country. This idea
was so prominent that the element of fact rep-
resented by it must have been considerable,
and the fact has an important bearing upon
the question of the character of the emigrants
generally.
The bill did not yet meet the approval of
Dexter He moved that no alien be admitted
except on the oath of two creditable witness-
es, certifying that in their opinion he was of
good moral character and attached to the wel-
fare of the country. His colleague, Sedgwick,
supported him. The present time of Euro-
52
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
5
pean war was inauspicious for the indiscrimi-
nate admission of aliens. He had always op-
posed the government policy. Republican
character was hard to form. Greece, Rome,
and the Swiss jealously guarded their citizen-
ship. They should take warning also from
Saxon, Danish, and Norman England, and not
invite or bribe the undesirable. America
should husband its wealth in land, for many
would be dependent when it was gone. The
two amendments proposed 4 would check the
number of emigrants and not exclude the
worthy.
Giles 6 wished to amend by substituting for
"attached to the welfare of this country," in
Dexter's amendment, "attached to a Repub-
lican form of government." Dexter preferred
"attached to the constitution of the United
States." Giles had little or no objection, but
soon after had the amendment changed to
"attached to the principles of the government
of the United States.” In the final form "gov-
ernment" is changed to "constitution,” and
the phrase reads, "attached to the principles
of the constitution of the United States."
W. J. Dayton would want a court to de-
termine the nature of evidence submitted.
4 Requiring longer residence and evidence of character.
3 The end of the first day's debate.
6 December 26.
ACT OF 1795
53
Poor men were more desirable than mer-
chants, and it would be hard for them to get
two witnesses. Madison agreed that it would
perhaps be difficult for many citizens, who
might have moved about, to find two reputa-
ble witnesses who could swear to the purity
of their principles for three years back. He
objected to requiring men to swear that they
preferred the Constitution. They might be
honest in determining to support the govern-
ment, and yet think some other form better.
Dexter, in reply, mentioned the abuses that
had happened in the present form of ad-
mitting citizens, and said that the poor, if
deserving, could get proofs as easy as the
rich. Murray (Md.) was indifferent if not
fifty emigrants came to the continent in a
year. It was unjust to hinder, but impolitic
to encourage, them. They might contami-
nate. The amendment requiring two witness-
es as to the moral character and political
opinions of candidates for naturalization then
passed.
On the 29th an effort to strike out "moral"
from the phrase "good moral character” in
the amendment was successfully opposed, on
the grounds that the word had nothing to do
? The reference to three years at this time is inexplicable. The
time between declaration of intention and admission must have been
fixed before the five years' residence period was determined.
54
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
8
with religion, and that to omit it would slan-
der the American character.
Mr. Sedgwick desired to give property
rights without suffrage, but did not know
whether the Constitution authorized it or not.
This raised again in the House the old ques-
tion which, according to Maclay's Journal,
was settled in the Senate during the debate of
1790, in strict accordance with modern ideas;
but there is no report of further discussion
upon it. The clause last considered passed,
and the discussion recurred to a question pre-
sented by Giles and Tracy in the debate of
the first day. A motion by Giles had been
withdrawn, but it now appeared as the third
resolution in the report under consideration,
as follows: That an American citizen who had
expatriated himself should not be restored to
citizenship, without a special act of Congress
and of the state that he had abandoned. Madi-
son did not think that Congress by the Con-
stitution had any authority to readmit Ameri-
can citizens. It was granted to them to ad-
mit only aliens. Sedgwick was very willing
that they should never be readmitted.
A motion by Hillhouse (Conn.),10 that if
8 Sec p. 47
• Probably this was the report in preparation by the committee
of the whole.
10 December 30.
$
ACT OF 1795
55
any American citizen should thereafter be-
come a citizen of a foreign state, he should
not be again admitted, gave rise to more than
three hours of debate. Dunlap's American
Daily Advertiser says that it was in various
shapes and difficult to summarize. 11 The An-
nals report the ideas of two speakers only.
Murray (Md.) hoped the motion would suc-
ceed. It was unnecesary to decide whether
men could expatriate themselves without the
express consent of their country. He thought
they could. The United States practice
favored this view, for a government's accept-
ance of allegiance presupposed the right to
tender it. But there was little danger of
worthy citizens throwing off their allegiance;
and, in any case, prohibiting a return would be
a sufficient penalty. On the other hand, Bald-
win (Ga.) expressed the strongest disap-
proval of the idea of expatriating all persons
who became citizens of another country.
Many were made such merely as a mark of
esteem, and had no design of renouncing their
allegiance to the United States.12 There is no
report of the action by which this motion
failed.
11 January 5, 1799.
1! In this connection an item from The Life and Letters of
Joel Barlow, by C. B. Todd, (p. 97), is of interest. It refers to
a list of seven “Anglais" in The Patriote of September 25, 1792,
56
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Debate recurred the following day upon
the proposition to require both state and fed-
eral consent for repatriation. A motion by
Smith (S. C.) to strike out this resolution,
leaving the law as it stood, was rejected. It
seemed thus in a fair way to become law, but
did not appear again. Madison certainly op-
posed what he held to be unconstitutional,
and probably his committee, when again in
charge of the bill, dropped this superlatively
patriotic proposition. In later years, how-
ever, the idea was revived several times, in-
dicating the persistence of the thought that a
man's change of country is due to choice of
government, and that, therefore, one who has
abandoned the United States has disapproved
of its government, and, as a rule, cannot or
will not adequately repent of this ill-doing.
After some discussion, Giles moved to re-
quire the renunciation in court of any titles of
nobility. He thought this would be useful, if
anything was to be done to prevent the in-
upon whom the French National Convention proposed to confer the
title of "Citizen of France." Among them was Joel Barlow. It
continues: “Save Washington and Hamilton, Barlow was the only
American on whom the privileges of French citizenship had been
conferred."
Moncure D. Conway, in the Writings of Paine (III, 97), states
that on August 26, 1792, the National Assembly conferred the title
of “French Citizens"
nineteen persons. Among them were
Paine (spelled Payne), Washington, Hamilton, and Madison. The
others include such names as Bentham, Wilberforce, Klopstock,
Kosciusko, and Pestalozzi. Both Virginia and Maryland had natur-
alized La Fayette.
on
t
ACT OF 1795
57
proper admixture of foreigners. Smith was
entirely opposed to this. A similar attempt
made in one of the state legislatures some
years before was dropped as improper. The
public mind was completely guarded against
the introduction of titles, and they would
never become current. Congress could not
declare it a crime to call a man viscount. He
doubted the constitutional right of the meas-
ure, for they had no authority to take away
titles. Dexter was averse to titles, but did
not like to make laws against them. Page
(Va.) highly recommended the motion. Giles
urged that there was no harm in expressing
what Dexter had said was implied in the Con-
stitution. The strange turn in affairs in
Europe had not been foreseen, nor the result-
ing danger of an inundation of titled fugitives.
Madison approved the motion. It was exactly
the thing to exclude from citizenship those
who would not renounce titles. The Revolu-
tion would infallibly have abolished any titles
existing here. With opposition from both
South Carolina and Massachusetts, and sup-
port reported only from his own state, Giles
thought it best to withdraw his motion tem-
porarily.13 Madison said that the thing most
18 The bill with amendments was at this point in the debate
reported from the committee of the whole to the House.
sion was renewed there the following day (January 1, 1795), and
the amendments reported were quickly agreed to.
Discus-
58
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
to be feared was that alien immigrants should
obtain property in American shipping. They
could thus clandestinely favor particular na-
tions in trade. He would require a longer
time for gaining certain trade rights, if he
made any distinctions in the law. Giles, by
renewing the motion for the renouncing of
titles,14 then prolonged the debate for two
days. His amendment was as follows:
And, in case any such alien applying for admission to
become a citizen of the United States shall have borne any
hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in
the Kingdom or State from which he came, in addition to
the requisites of this and the fore-recited act, he shall make
an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in
the court to which his application shall be made, before he
shall be entitled to such admission; which renunciation
shall be recorded in the said court.
He declared that stronger evidence was
necessary to make sure that all pretense of a
title had been renounced. He had voted for
clauses to guard against Jacobin extremes,16
and would now guard against the more dan-
gerous aristocrats, of whom it was highly
probable they would soon have great num-
bers here. A large part of Europe had de-
clared against titles, and there was no guess-
14 It was first offered in committee of the whole, and now re-
newed in the House.
18 This may refer to any of the more stringent provisions of
the bill, and especially to the renunciation of allegiance and the
evidence required of attachment to the United States.
ACT OF 1795
59
gress. 16
ing where the process would stop. The French
nobility numbered twenty thousand, a great
proportion of whom might finally be expect-
ed here. This fugitive nobility might acquire
influence here, and there was no law to pre-
vent them from voting or coming to Con-
Dexter said that he was not very
anxious about it, but opposed the amendment.
Priestcraft had done more mischief than aris-
tocracy
Madison took middle ground as to the im-
portance of the question; apparently he had
moderated his views somewhat since he had
last spoken upon it. Republicanism, he
thought, was likely to pervade Europe gen-
erally, and it was hard to guess how many
titled characters might be thrown out. It was
reasonable that crowds of them coming here
should be required to renounce everything
contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
Hereditary titles were proscribed by the Con-
stitution. He would not wish to have a citizen
who refused the proposed oath. Page (Va.)
believed the class principle would come in and
produce mischievous effects here as else-
where. He did not want to see a duke con-
test an election to Congress with a citizen.
18 Giles must here be taken to mean that a naturalized for-
eigner might vote, and that one who had been seven years a citi.
zen of the United States might be sent to Congress.
60
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Sedgwick declared that, in taking the oath of
allegiance, nobility was solemnly abjured, for
that oath destroyed all connection with the
old government. To his, “Why reprovide?”
Giles retorted, "Why not provide for it direct-
ly, if implied ?” and declared that he should
call for the yeas and nays on his motion.
Nicholas (Va.) was sure that they ought to
require an oath that the new citizen would
never accept any title.
Lee (Va.) was sorry they had so long agi-
tated an unimportant matter. In the minds
of some, the motion was characterized by
frivolity and inefficiency. He saw no shadow
of foundation to build alarm upon. One might
in this free country call himself by any name
or title.
Not titles but privileges were the
dangerous thing. By the equal division of es-
tates here, individuals were prevented from
being 17 so rich as to trample upon the necks
of their equals. Personally, he was very in-
different in the matter; but as tending to
spread a false alarm, it was his duty to oppose
the motion. Scott (Pa.) was for the motion
on the ground that, it being unlawful to manu-
facture titles here, it was 18 unlawful to import
them. If the importation was allowed, titles
17 I. e., “becoming."
18 Probably "should be."
ACT OF 1795
61
would soon be as prevalent here as in
England.
At this point Dexter announced that he
would vote for Giles's amendment with a fur-
ther amendment for renouncing slaves. He
offered the following:
And, also, in case such alien shall, at the time of his
application, hold any person in slavery, he shall in the same
manner renounce all right and claim to hold such person in
slavery.
Thatcher (Mass.) would add, "and that he
never will possess slaves." Giles replied that
he should think his amendment very import-
ant, if such extraordinary resources were
adopted against it. He was sorry to see
slavery made a jest, and it had no proper con-
nection with the subject. He owned slaves,
regretted it, and should rejoice to be shown
the way out. The thing was reducing itself
as fast as it was prudent. Why was such op-
position as this made to the call for the yeas
Madison declared that Virginia
was reducing the number of her slaves. The
motion would have a bad effect upon the
minds of the slaves, or he might vote for it.
Nicholas (Va.) said that Dexter had more
than once hinted a view that a slave-owner
was unfit for the legislature of a republican
form of government; and retorted that he
and nays.
62
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
should know something of slavery. Dexter
.
replied that the call for the yeas and nays was
made with the design to hold up certain
people to public odium. He would withdraw
his amendment, if the Giles motion was with-
drawn. Heath (Va.) said that the introduc-
tion of slavery was highly improper. The
Constitution forbade any proposal to abolish
it for years to come. The amendment was
offered in the face of an express article of
the Constitution. Sedgwick declared, with
some warmth, that the design in the yeas and
nays call was to fix upon members a stigma as
friends of nobility, when they were not so. In
this agitated state the House adjourned, but
renewed the discussion the next day, and in
committee of the whole.19
Bourne (R. I.) 20 was against both amend-
ments. There were numerous checks against
nobility in the Constitution. A man could
renounce an hereditary title only for himself;
his children would still inherit it. At this
point Dexter withdrew his motion, in the hope
that the yeas and nays would not be taken;
and Giles then agreed to give up his part of
the call. Hillhouse was convinced by reflec-
tion that the amendment would indirectly es-
19 Annals, January 2, 1795, p. 1041.
20 The debate does not show which Bourne this is, but the
vote of the Rhode Island member was against both amendments.
ACT OF 1795
63
tablish the principle that privileged orders
might exist among them, an idea that he re-
jected and reprobated. Privileged orders
were merely local in privileges, yet this
motion tended to decide otherwise. He would
exclude titled foreigners from naturalization
to the extent of voting and office-holding.
Later he declared that he would support an
amendment to exclude all foreigners from any
office. The present amendment, however,
was trifling and would make them ridiculous.
Wadsworth (Conn.) knew nothing so impos-
sible as the establishment of an American
nobility, and the amendment was entirely use-
less. Fisher Ames (Mass.) opposed giving
effect by law to chimerical whimsies, both
trifling and worthless. Nothing was more
opposite to just principles than the extremes
of those principles.
Smith (Md.) said that the debate at first
bore a trifling appearance, but had called up
all the warmth of the House. Gentlemen
from the eastern states slighted the amend-
ment as unnecessary, but southern members
said that they had some reason to be appre-
hensive. Why not yield to them in concilia-
tion? Murray (Md.) saw only ghosts of no-
bility involved, yet favored the motion for his
colleague's reason. Madison expected a
34
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
British revolution, and expected the British
peerage to be thronging this country. He
would sympathize with them, but not admit
them to citizenship until they were constitu-
tionally qualified. Giles, in replying to the
opposition, said that it was admitted that the
Constitution and the will of the people favored
the amendment. Other speakers again called
the proposition totally trifling legislation.
Congress could not hinder the use of titles.
The Constitution even permitted any non-
office-holding citizen of the United States to
receive a title from a foreign king. A natural-
ized alien could accept his title again an hour
after his naturalization, in spite of any law of
Congress.
The House at length became very im-
patient for the question, but discussion con-
tinued as to whether the call for the yeas and
nays was still in force. Two motions were
made for it. Sedgwick appealed to the mem-
bers, and one of them was withdrawn. This
dispute ended when Blount (N. C.) declared
that the yeas and nays must and should be
taken, and twenty-three members seconded
his call. Dexter immediately renewed his
anti-slave-holding amendment, and required
a roll-call upon it. His motion was lost by 28
to 63, while that of Giles carried by 59 to 32.
ACT OF 1795
65
Only five members voted for both amend-
ments, and only nine voted against both. The
five were: from Massachusetts, 2; from Rhode
Island, Delaware, and Maryland, each 1. The
nine were: from Connecticut, 3; from Penn-
sylvania, 2; and I each from Rhode Island,
New Jersey, Virginia, and North Carolina.
Members who voted for renouncing slaves
were: from Massachusetts, 12; from New
York, 5; from Connecticut, 4; from Pennsyl-
vania, 2; and I each from New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, and
Maryland. Against renouncing slaves the vote
was: from Virginia, 19, from North Carolina,
9; from Pennsylvania, 8; from Maryland and
South Carolina, each 5; from New York, Con-
necticut, and New Hampshire, each 3; and 2
each from New Jersey, Vermont, Georgia, and
Kentucky. After this vote the bill was re-
committed, and came back to the House as a
measure to supersede entirely the act of 1790.
The word “forever” was stricken from the
renouncing clause, and then the questions in-
volved in filling the blanks were discussed at
some length.21 The reports of this part of the
debate are very incomplete. Madison said
that there was danger of losing the bill alto-
gether by mere waste of time, if they descend-
21 January 6, 7, 8.
66
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
ed to discriminate all the qualities of a citizen.
Both the ten years and the seven years that
had been proposed for the first blank were
“by much too long," and would oblige the
friends of the bill to oppose it. Baldwin (Ga.)
suggested that the Constitution qualified for a
senator in nine years.22
Fitzsimmons said
that ten years were much too long, and would
make aliens enemies to the government. .
Boudinot referred to the recent executive
proclamation that the country was an asylum
to the oppressed of all nations,23 and thought
it bad policy to admit them and then refuse
them, for nine or ten years, the rights of citi-
zens.
So far as the very incompletely reported
debates show, defining naturalization by de-
grees met with no favor. There is also no
suggestion that states could grant the right
to hold real estate on their own terms, apart
from naturalization.
The bill passed rapidly through the Sen-
There was debate on a motion to in-
sert in the first section:
22 In fact it was a citizen and not an alien that was thus
qualified by the Constitution.
23 A Thanksgiving proclamation of President Washington, is-
sued during the debate on this bill (January 1, 1795), contained
the following: "to beseech the Kind Author of these blessings....;
to render this country more and more a safe and propitious asylum
for the unfortunate of other countries."
21 The three readings occurred on January 9, 14, and 15.
ate. 24
ACT OF 1795
67
That no alien shall hereafter become a citizen of the United
States, or any of them, except in the manner prescribed by
this act.25
It was agreed, however, to insert the words
"any of” after "citizen of” in the clause that
as amended reads: "That any alien, being a
free white person, may be admitted to become
a citizen of any of the United States, on the
following conditions;" and then, by a vote of
13 to II, “and not otherwise" was added. On
the last vote the yeas were: From New Eng-
land, 7, and I each from New York, Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland, North Carolina, South Caro-
lina, and Kentucky; the nays: 2 each from
Vermont and New Jersey, and I each from
New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Vir-
ginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Ken-
tucky. Apart from a rather strong favorable
bias in New England, sectionalism scarcely
appears in this vote. Thus the words "a
citizen of the United States” disappeared from
the bill. The idea that citizenship pertained
to the individual states dominated the Senate.
The new relation determined by naturaliza-
tion was state citizenship. The power vested
in Congress to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization was the power of making state
28 This motion was withdrawn for amendment the following
day, after the failure of an effort to commit the bill and the amend-
ment.
68
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
citizens from aliens. By the final phrase the
assertion is made that this power is an ex-
clusive one. It can hardly be that the nega-
tive vote upon it represents only opposition
to this view. It is more likely that it com-
prises also some who deemed that the Consti-
tution itself was sufficiently explicit in the
matter.
The question of extending the act to the
territories first appeared in connection with a
motion to provide for the naturalization of
aliens, dwelling in the territories southwest
and northwest of the Ohio, in the territorial
courts upon the same terms as elsewhere.
The bill and this motion were committed to
King (N. Y.), Tazewell (Va.), and Brown
(Ky.) for consideration and report. King
reported 26 two amendments, which were
adopted. One was a substitute for the first
paragraph of section 1, in which “may be ad-
mitted to become a citizen of the United
States, or any of them,” replaced "may be ad-
mitted to become a citizen of any of the
United States." The other struck out "there-
of" from section 2, where it read:
That any alien now residing within the limits and
under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted
to become a citizen thereof, on his declaring
.
26 January 22, 1795.
ACT OF 1795
69
The necessary changes were made to give
courts in the territories power to naturalize
therein.27 A final proposition, lost, was to
add a clause to the bill in effect that every
person naturalized should, at the time of his
naturalization, specify the names of his minor
children resident in the United States; and
that the clerk of the court should send a cer-
tificate of the naturalization, and a list of the
children, to the secretary of state for record
at the seat of the general government.
This proposition also included provision for
a fee to the clerk of the court for each per-
son naturalized. On this day, January 26,
1795, the bill passed the Senate with amend-
ments, which were at once agreed to by the
House of Representatives. It became a law
three days later, with the title: "An act to
establish an uniform rule of naturalization;
and to repeal the act heretofore passed upon
that subject."
The conditions of naturalization under the
new law were:
27 The provision for naturalization in the territories having
disappeared after its reference to King's committee, it was moved
to add at the end of the bill: “Be it further enacted, That the
provisions contained in this act shall extend to the Northwestern
and Southwestern Territories respectively." After debate on two
days (wholly unreported), it was agreed to amend this motion by
a provision to insert the necessary phrases in sec. 1. On a later
day (January 26) this amended amendment was adopted as follows:
"In line five, after the States' insert for of the Territories North-
west or South, of the river Ohio,'" and provision was made for
inserting "or Territory" after “State" in line 11.
70
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
1. Three years before naturalization a
declaration of intention must be sworn to in
a state or federal court. This must cover two
points-intention to become a citizen and in-
tention to renounce all foreign allegiance.
2. At the time of applying for citizenship,
the alien must declare on oath that he has re-
sided five years in the United States (and one
year in the state or territory), that he does
renounce all foreign allegiance, and that he
will support the Constitution of the United
States.
3. The court must be satisfied of his resi-
dence, good moral character during the re-
quired five years, and that he has been for that
time "attached to the principles of the Con-
stitution of the United States, and well dis-
posed to the good order and happiness of the
same.”
4. Any title or order of nobility must be
renounced.
The bill made an exception in favor of
aliens resident in the United States at the time
of its passage. They were to be naturalized
upon declaring two years' residence, and
meeting the other requirements above. The
provisions of the act of 1790 in regard to
children and proscribed persons were
enacted. New points in the law were: longer
re-
ACT OF 1795
71
residence and a preliminary declaration of in-
tention, renunciation of former allegiance and
of any title or order of nobility, more specific
mention of the courts empowered to natural-
ize,28 and proof of attachment to the Consti-
tution and the country. No requirement of
the former law was omitted.
28 The act of 1790 mentioned "any common law court of record
in the state." This act specified "the supreme, superior, district
or circuit court of some one of the states or of the territories.
or a circuit or district court of the United States."
CHAPTER V
THE ACT OF 1798
During the special session of 1797 1 Brooks
(N. Y.), in the House, expressed himself as
thinking that the naturalization law allowed
foreigners to become citizens too soon. His
motion for a committee to prepare a bill to
amend it was laid on the table.2
The inaugural address of President John
Adams approached this subject only in its
reference to dangers, if anything partial or
extraneous should infect the purity of elec-
tions.3 His speech at the opening of Congress
in November contained no specific reference
to the matter. His biographer and grandson,
C. F. Adams, declares 4 that he certainly de-
clined to insert recommendations, to restrict
the rights of aliens and to restrict naturaliza-
tion, that were submitted to him by his of-
ficers. A part of the address, however, re-
lated to the protection of commerce and the
defense of the country; and it was referred by
1 July 1.
2 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, First Session, 421.
: John Adams' Works, IX, 108.
4 Life of John Adams, II, 300.
• Presumably, members of his cabinet.
72
ACT OF 1798
73
the House to a committee 6 to inquire and re-
port concerning any expedient measures.?
Months passed without a report touching
aliens or naturalization. At length a member,
Coit (Conn.), said that from the present situ-
ation he apprehended that changes in the
naturalization law would be necessary. He
proposed a resolution that the above-men-
tioned committee be directed to inquire and
report whether it was not expedient to sus-
pend or amend the act of 1795. Objection
was made to the form of his resolution, and it
lay on the table two days.8 It passed then
with the wording changed to the “usual
form," so that it directed the committee "to in-
quire and report whether any, and what, al-
terations may be necessary" in the Naturali-
zation Act of 1795. The same resolution also
instructed the same committee to consider
and report upon the expediency of establish-
ing by law regulations respecting aliens ar-
riving, or residing, within the United States.
About two weeks later, Sewall, for the
committee, made a partial report, which was
referred to a Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union,10 The committee
8 Of seven members.
? House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 93.
8 April 17-19.
• House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 266.
10 Ibid., 281.
74
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
declared that by the act of 1795 aliens were
permitted to become citizens of the United
States when there was not sufficient evidence
of their attachment to the laws and welfare
of the country to entitle them to such a privi-
lege, and that a longer residence before their
admission was essential. It was also of the
opinion that some precautions against the
promiscuous reception and residence of aliens,
while always advisable, were then more ap-
parently necessary and important, especially
for securing and removing those who might
be suspected of hostile intentions. Three
resolutions were recommended, in substance
as follows: (1) that provision ought to be
made to prolong the residence to be proved by
an alien before he should be admitted to be-
come a citizen of the United States or of
any
state; (2) that provision ought to be made for
a detailed report and registry of aliens in the
United States; (3) that provision be made for
securing or removing alien enemies, males of
fourteen years, after proclamation by the
president and time allowed for removal, ex-
cepting such as had a passport or a license to
remain. 11
These resolutions were reported from the
committee of the whole with very slight
11 State Papers, XX, 180.
I
ACT OF 1798
75
13
amendment; the first and second were adopt-
ed, and the third was postponed in order that
amendments to it might be debated. The
committee that made the inquiry was then
ordered to bring in a bill, and on May 15,
Sewall presented a bill supplementary to and
to amend the act of 1795.12 Three days later
the Alien Enemies' Bill was reported, and the
House, by a vote of 51 to 40, authorized the
president to raise a provisional army in prepa-
ration for the expected war with France.
It is thus seen that the new Naturalization
Act was closely connected with the war meas-
ures of the Federalist party. The bill report-
ed received several amendments in committee
of the whole, was further amended in the
House,14 and passed on May 22. It returned
from the Senate, three
three weeks
weeks later, with
amendments which the House at once ac-
cepted;16 and was signed by the president on
June 18, 1798.
The debate on the resolutions began with
the statement that five years of residence was
a much shorter period than France required;
and that the committee thought that at least
ten years should be required, but might leave
18 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 284, 285,
295.
18 Ibid., 301, 303.
14 May 21; ibid., 305.
16 June 13, 1798; ibid., 335, 337.
76
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
the time a blank in the bill. Harper (S. C.)
referred to what he called the mistake that
the country fell into, in forming its constitu-
tions, 16 of admitting foreigners. It had been
productive of very great evils, which he feared
would greatly increase. It was proper, and
the proper time, to declare that only birth
should entitle a man to citizenship. The
United States had had experience enough to
cure it of its former folly of belief. He pro-
posed, as an amendment to the first resolu-
tion,
that provision ought to be made by law for preventing any
person becoming entitled to the rights of American citizen-
ship except by birth.
This was declared to be a substitute and was
ruled out of order.17
Otis (Mass.) moved that no person alien
born and not then a citizen of the United
States should thereafter be capable of holding
any office under the United States. Harper
moved to add, "or of voting at the election of
any members of the Legislature of the United
States, or of any State." This, he said, would
permit aliens to gain property rights and resi-
dence, but not citizenship. He continued in
a a radical and at times sarcastic strain. He
10 I. e., state and federal.
17 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 1567.
ACT OF 1798
77
would let the descendants of aliens, if born
here, have rights. If the native-born citizens
were not adequate to the duties of the gov-
ernment, they might invite foreigners to do
business for them. If they were adequate, he
could see no reason for admitting strangers
who could not have the same view of govern-
ment as the native-born. He was convinced
that
it was an essential policy, which lay at the bottom of civil
society, that none but persons born in the country should
take part in the government.
To this there might be individual exceptions,
but the Congress must maintain the general
rule. They would better have adopted this
principle sooner; he hoped they would do it
then. Champlin (R. I.) suggested the intro-
duction of the word “civil” before "officers'
in the amendment, so as not to exclude
foreigners from the military and naval service
as officers. Smith (S. C.) believed that the
first resolution was an ex post facto one, and
that it could not be intended to limit the rights
of persons who had been two or three years
in the United States under the five-year law.
Otis thought that the objections of Smith
were partly well founded, and he would avoid
them by providing for those that had declared
78
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
intentions of becoming citizens. He wished
time to consider the matter further.
The Annals then state that Harper with-
drew his amendment in order to examine the
Constitution, "it being suggested that the con-
stitution did not permit restraining states in
the admission of citizens."18 This, I think,
must be accepted as having clear and positive
reference to state, as distinct from United
States, citizenship. The constitutional point
raised was a difficult one, not easily met, at any
rate, by the anti-federalist or state-rights in-
terests. It cannot have been dependent upon
the 1808 clause, unless it is maintained that
"migration or importation” includes admis-
sion to citizenship. The objection that the
power vested in Congress to establish a uni-
form rule of naturalization was not exclusive,
seems, indeed, to have been made for a time;
but it is almost unintelligible, and must have
found its support chiefly in interest rather than
in reason. At any rate, it can scarcely have
counted for much with a man intent upon ex-
cluding foreigners from office. He would not
want Pennsylvania, for example, to retain the
power of making citizens of the United States.
One, and only one, insuperable constitutional
objection to “restraining states in the admis-
18 Op. cit., 1569; May 2, 1798.
ACT OF 1798
79
sion of citizens” is readily found, and it ade-
quately explains the allusion. It is "the
Electors in each State shall have the Quali-
fications requisite for Electors in the most
numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
The nearly inevitable conclusion from this
was that the qualifications of voters in the
various states were to differ, and were to be
determined by each state for itself. All the
existing facts in state governments favored
this conclusion. Nothing could be opposed
to it except the uniform rule of naturalization
clause, or some implication in it; and the con-
ception of two distinct citizenships, state and
federal—a conception in fullest harmony with,
and with the closest analogies to, many fea-
tures of the dual government system-met
any difficulty therein. Summing up, then, it
seems that the Constitution not only did not
prevent "restraining states in the admission"
of federal citizens, but did itself restrain them;
also, that it clearly implied that there was
to be no "restraining states in the admission"
of state citizens. The conclusion is that it
was this latter fact that was brought out in
the debate in the language reported.
Venable (Va.) called Otis's resolution a
proposition to amend the Constitution. The
latter had fixed the rights of citizens. For-
80
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
eigners must be refused citizenship or ad-
mitted to all of citizens' rights. Congress
had no power of saying that men entitled by
the Constitution to hold office should not hold
offices. Otis held that citizenship did not
always include office-holding; that no alien
was ever permitted to hold office in Great
Britain. 19 Macon (N. C.) declared that a
citizen must have the rights of citizenship,
and might be elected or appointed to any
office in spite of Congress. Congress could
only keep him from becoming a citizen. Otis
replied that Congress, having absolute power
(it could exclude entirely by fixing a long
term), had conditional power, which was a
mere modification of the former. He opposed
opening a door to the intrigues of other coun-
tries. Certain countries paid chief attention
to influencing the internal affairs of countries
they wished to dominate, and these might get
persons into the government. America was
now getting to be more important, and this
was a reason for the exclusion sought. Yet
10 12 and 13 Wm. 3, ch. 2, provided that no person bom out
of the kingdom, except of English parents, though naturalized,
should be capable of holding any office under the king or of receiv.
ing grants. By i Geo. 1 it was provided that there should be no
future naturalization without a clause declaring such disability, and
that no naturalization bill should be received without such a clause.
The clause is, accordingly, found in all later acts on the subject
before the Naturalization Act of 1870. See 13 Geo. 2, ch. 7, and 20
Geo. 2, ch. 44, which remained in force until 1870. (English
Statutes at Large).
+
ACT OF 1798
81
he would accept the plan for extending the
residence term. Sitgreaves (Pa.) desired to
attain the object sought, but would avoid con-
stitutional embarrassment. The way to do
this was to extend the term of residence
to prevent aliens ever becoming citizens.
There was no doubt as to "member of Con-
gress being an office.”
Otis then withdrew his amendment, and
the three resolutions were agreed to by the
committee of the whole without a dissenting
voice. The House at once concurred in the
first and second resolutions, but discussed the
one that became the basis of the Alien Ene-
mies' Act. The questions at issue were its
effect upon immigration and upon the coun-
try's institutions and independence.
McDowell (N. C.) said that some parts of
the country still wanted population, even if
others did not, and he did not wish to dis-
tress the minds of foreigners. Rutledge (S.
C.) asserted that the change proposed would
encourage immigration, by giving greater se-
curity of good government. Foreigners came
to America to live under good government.
The president should have the power to send
away any emissaries of a government even
if not at war with it.
Sitgreaves (Pa.) considered the proposed
82
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
law an essential feature of the system of de-
fense. There was a cankerworm in the heart
of the country, and no occasion for specific
proof of it. The fact was well understood by
every member of the House. France ad-
mitted no alien even to residence without a
card of hospitality. The measure involved
no danger to any persons that were well dis-
posed.
Allen (Conn.) moved to amend in favor of
giving the president power at any time to re-
move any alien, but soon after withdrew his
amendment. He held that the citizens of sev-
eral other countries were as dangerous as
those of France, were equally hostile, were
even more so. Recently there had been a vast
number of naturalizations in Philadelphia to
support a particular party in a particular elec-
tion. French agents and diplomacy had over-
come Venice, Switzerland, and Rome, when
they were in a much less alarming situation
than that of the United States.
Otis's amendment, withdrawn in committee,
came up again in some unknown way, and was
defeated by a vote of 55 to 27. Otis opposed,
ineffectually, an effort to restrict the new
power of the president to a state of declared
He held that the measure was of no
use, if not applicable to the existing state.
war.
ACT OF 1798
83
Considerable discussion followed, and the
question of a constitutional right to exclude
aliens not enemies before 1808 was raised. 20
In the outcome the resolutions were all re-
ferred back to Sewall's committee, with in-
structions to report bills.21
The debate in the House on the naturali-
zation bill was mostly on one day.22 Sewall's
motion to fill the blank time between the
declaration of intention and naturalization
with five years carried, apparently without
discussion. He followed it with a motion to
fill the blank time of residence with fourteen
years. McDowell did not wish to discourage
immigration, and held it to be to their interest
to attach foreigners to the country. He would
not object to seven or nine years. The record
states that fourteen years carried by a vote
of 40 to 41.23 Again, on Sewall's motion, an
amendment carried to the effect that no alien
be admitted to citizenship from a country at
war with the United States.
At this point Gallatin, the indomitable
leader of the opposition to the Federalists,
20 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 1570 f.;
May 3, 1798.
21 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 285, 290.
The membership of the committee remained unchanged, except that
Brooks (N. Y.) replaced Livingston (N. Y.).
22 May 21, 1798.
28 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 1776.
84
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
1.
who soon became so well hated by them that
they aimed a constitutional amendment at him
to exclude him from Congress, set himself
earnestly to the task of protecting the inter-
ests of aliens that were already in the United
States. He began by inquiring as to the retro-
spective effect of the proposed law. Three classes,
he said, were to be affected by it. They were:
Aliens who were in the United States
before the adoption of the Constitution, and
not naturalized by any state law before the
passage of the act of 1790.
2. All aliens who might have been natur-
alized under the act of 1790.
3. Those who had declared their inten-
tion to become citizens under the act of 1795.
He hoped that an exception would be made
for all these. The law of 1795 had favored
all aliens who were in the United States at
the time of its passage.
Gallatin dwelt at some length upon the
anomalous conditions and the misunderstand-
ings that had grown out of the change from
state to federal control of naturalization, and
spoke of the difficulties in the way of many
residents of frontier districts in complying
with the naturalization requirements. These
points were brought up in explanation of the
ACT OF 1798
85
neglect of many aliens for a considerable time
to become citizens, and to show that such neg-
lect could not properly be held to imply a dis-
regard for the privilege of citizenship. He
said that there were "a great number” of per-
sons in Pennsylvania who were not citizens of
the United States, but who, nevertheless, be-
lieved that they were citizens. He declared
that it was a common error in most of the
states that naturalization by a state since 1790
made the person a citizen of the United States.
The mayor of Philadelphia, he said, had ad-
mitted citizens under the state law until 1795,
and these had considered themselves to be citi-
zens of the United States. This opinion, that
a state had a right to naturalize, although
based upon a construction that he had always
thought to be wrong, had until lately gen-
erally prevailed. In Philadelphia, at the late
election, respectable merchants, who had pre-
viously obtained American register for their
vessels on the presumption that they were
citizens of the United States, were refused
the suffrage. The same mistaken view as to
the status of those admitted to citizenship by
the states had prevailed in other parts of the
Union. He presumed that since 1795 nearly
all of those whose citizenship of the United
States could be questioned, and who are near
86
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
a court, had been naturalized under the fed-
eral act. People who were from two hundred
to three hundred miles from a district court
of the United States had not always had an
opportunity to be naturalized,
especially on account of a construction of the Act of 1795,
which had prevailed in some counties of Pennsylvania,
and which made it doubtful whether any court in the State,
out of the city [i. e., Philadelphia), could administer the
oath of citizenship.
Now they had discovered that they were not
citizens of the United States, and they had
had no opportunity to become such since find-
ing it out. He would give a limited period dur-
ing which these might still have the benefit of
the existing law.
Sewall defended the measure of his com-
mittee, a majority of which, he declared,
thought that no exception should be made.
He himself was decidedly opposed to any al-
teration. Those who had neglected their op-
portunities could place no high value upon
citizenship. They could already hold lands,
and, judging from the then distracted state of
the country, it was not wise to make them eli-
gible in five years to seats in the government.
The United States had given unexampled lib-
erty of citizenship, and it was then high time
to remedy the resulting evils. The proposed
ACT OF 1798
87
regulations were shown to be necessary by
the existing conditions, and created no disad-
vantage, for the persons affected had had lit-
tle chance of becoming members of the gov-
ernment they had left. Their change in com-
ing here had vastly improved their opportuni-
ties. There was no good, but much danger,
in the proposed change.
Gallatin was unconvinced, and moved as an
amendment, in accordance with the views
that he had expressed, the following: that any
alien, resident in the United States before the
passage of the act of 1795, and any alien who
had made the preliminary declaration re-
quired by that act, might be naturalized under
its provisions.
Craik (Md.) would prevent any foreigner,
coming thereafter, from ever becoming a citi-
zen; yet he thought that retrospective action
was unjust. His statements corroborated
those of Gallatin as to the continued practice
of state naturalization, and the existing uncer-
tainties as to its effect. Many aliens, he said,
were not naturalized under any law, while
many others were naturalized under state
laws. There was much doubt of the legality
of the latter, though, he declared, in Mary-
land and Virginia “foreigners are still nat-
uralized by the states."
88
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Bayard (Del.) said that, as states allowed
aliens to vote for both state and United States
offices, the only privilege denied to them was
“the capacity of becoming members of the
Federal Government.” It was sound policy to
deny this for the future, even to aliens already
in the United States. The naturalization
laws were no compact, but mere favors. In
reference to favoring persons already in the
United States, he thought that as many Ja-
cobins and vagabonds had come within the
last two years as might come in ten years
more. Macon (N. C.) said that those with
particular ends to be served were in already,
and he would have regard to the lack of op-
portunity and the ignorance of the others.
Sewall asserted that the proposed amendment
offered to all aliens in the United States the
opportunity to make the required declaration
before the law passed.
There was, as a matter of fact, just four
weeks between the introduction of this
amendment and the enactment of the law;
and another month had then passed since the
agitation of the matter of more stringent nat-
uralization laws had begun in Congress.
Either one or two months was doubtless a
sufficient time for sending important public
information to distant parts of the country.
ACT OF 1798
89
Neither period, however, would have nearly
sufficed to apprise aliens generally, even in
the near-by states, that an important measure
seriously affecting their interests was pend-
ing in Congress. And much more than know-
ing that mere fact was essential for their tak-
ing even simple steps to ward off the dangers.
It is, I think, doubtful whether many aliens
outside of a few large cities would within the
given time, as matters then were, have felt
any particular stimulus from the proposed
legislation leading them to declare intention
of citizenship
Returning to the argument made at the
time, Sitgreaves (Pa.) thought that a mere
matter of expediency was involved in the ques-
tion at issue, and that the dangers existing
were too patent to admit of the amendment.
Claiborne said that his state (Tenn.) had been
represented in Congress only since the winter
before, and it was therefore not strange that
many did not know the law. They had no
post-road and no newspaper. It would be a
great injury to deprive them of their right.
They had fought and bled in the service of
the United States, and were as much wedded
to the government as were any people. J.
Williams (N. Y.) declared that, while aliens
might hold land "by the laws of several
90
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
represented.
states," they also were taxed and should be
The motion of Gallatin pre-
vailed in the committee of the whole with 52
votes in its favor
In the House Coit (Conn.) opposed favor-
ing those who were in the United States be-
fore 1795, and had taken no steps to become
citizens. His amendment was lost by 49 to 32
votes. Sitgreaves proposed to amend the
amendment of Gallatin so as to give one year's
time in which to act to those in the United
States before 1795, and to allow to those hav-
ing given notice by a declaration of intention
four years from the time of the notice. An
amendment to change one year to two years
was lost by a vote of 31 to 39. One year then
carried with 59 votes for it. Four years car-
ried by a vote of 47 to 31.
Bayard (Del.) 24 sought to suspend the
operation of the bill for a limited time, to
avoid the danger at that time of too great re-
strictions in a new law, but failed on a point
of order. The bill then went to the Senate,
and the House turned its attention to the
Alien Enemies' Bill.25
The Senate referred the naturalization
bill 26 to a special committee, 27 and continued
24 May 22, 1798.
26 House Journal, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 306, 309.
28 May 23, 1798.
27 Bingham (Pa.), Stockton (N. J.), and Tazewell (Va.).
ACT OF 1798
91
the consideration of its own "bill concerning
aliens," or the Alien Friends' Bill. Lawrence
moved to amend this by providing that it
should not be construed to affect any alien
who had come to the United States for the
purpose of becoming a citizen, had made the
required declaration, and had "renounced his
allegiance and fidelity” according to the act
1795; or may do so "within-days."
The clause allowing future declaration of in-
tention was stricken out by a vote of 14 to 10.
The amendment carried, 20 to 4. Those op-
posed to it were Goodhue (Mass.), Lloyd
(Md.), Paine (Vt.), and Read (S. C.).28
The naturalization bill was reported with
amendments,29 the nature of which is un-
known. Presumably they were of minor im-
portance. The Senate amended the bill in ac-
cordance with the report, and upon its third
reading Anderson (Tenn.), representing the
interests of the unsettled West, moved to
strike out fourteen and insert seven years as
the required residence term. The vote on
this proposition was: yeas, 10; nays, 11.30 The
28 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 567;
May 29, 1798.
29 June 8.
30 Yeas: Anderson (Tenn.), Bloodworth (N. C.), Brown (Ky.),
Foster (R. I.), Marshall (Ky.), Martin (N. C.), Mason (Va.),
Tattnall (Ga.), Tazewell (Va.); nays: Bingham (Pa.), Chipman
(Vt.), Goodhue (Mass.), Hillhouse (Conn.), Latimer (Del.), Law.
rence (N. Y.), Livermore (N. H.), Paine (Vt.), Read (S. C.),
Stockton (N. J.), Tracy (Conn.).
92
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
yeas were one each from Rhode Island, New
York, Tennessee, and Georgia; and two each
from Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky.
Vermont and Connecticut each furnished
two nays, and New Hampshire, Massachu-
setts, New York. New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, and South Carolina, each one. The
vote of New York was divided. Those ab-
sent or not voting were the two senators from
Maryland, and one each from New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jer-
sey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee.
The affirmative vote, with the exception of
the one vote from Rhode Island, was entirely
from states having extensive frontier areas.
The negative vote was chiefly from the older
settled states.
The bill from the House, and as it was
finally passed, contained in the first section
the provision:
That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the
United States, or of any state, unless in the manner pre-
scribed in the act.
After the failure of his amendment to re-
duce the residence requirement to
years, Anderson offered another, apparently
intended to remove from the bill recognition
of federal citizenship, and to establish the view,
seven
ACT OF 1798
93
on
so prevalent later in the State Rights' party,
that only state citizenship had any real ex-
istence under the Constitution. He moved to
insert "any of the United States" in place of
“the United States, or of any state," in sec. I
of the bill as above. The vote taken on strik-
ing out the phrase shows the same persons
voting as the seven-year proposition.
Eight supported the change, and thirteen op-
posed it. The only changes from the previous
vote were that Foster, of Rhode Island, and
Martin, of North Carolina, went over to the
side of the majority. The bill passed, after
further unrecorded amendment, 13 to 8. The
thirteen were the same persons as opposed
the above amendment, and the eight were the
supporters of it. Every opposition vote on
the final passage of the bill was from a state
naturally desirous of immigration. The oppo-
sition to France that culminated with the X.
Y. Z. exposures carried a number of votes for
the measure, in spite of strong local interest in
favor of attracting immigration.31
Near the end of the year of special privilege
that the new law offered certain aliens, the
South Carolina Gazette announced 2 that it
was “very probable” that there were "many
31 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, Second Session, 561-77;
May 22 to June 12.
32 June 13, 1799.
94
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
persons in this state" who intended to become
citizens of the United States, and informed
any such who were in the United States be-
fore January 29, 1795, that they must apply
before June 18, 1799-i. e., within the next
five days—or they would be on the footing of
new aliens, and would be required to give five
years' notice and make proof of fourteen
years' residence.
A few months later,33 a House committee
reported on the petition of certain aliens of
Mount Pleasant, N. Y. These represented
that they came into the United States before
the passage of the act of 1798, and had omitted
to make the declaration required to secure
them admission under the act of 1795. They
now requested the passage of an act securing
to them the rights they would have had, had
they made such declaration. The committee
saw nothing warranting a deviation from the
general rule. They believed the law of 1798
to be fair and just, and fourteen years not too
long to conciliate the feelings of aliens to the
manners, laws, and government of their new
country. They thought that the attachment
of a man to his native country would not be
obliterated in five years so as to make it
prudent to repose the confidence in him that
38 March 4, 1800.
ACT OF 1798
95
the government must place in its own citizens.
Hence, they held, the prayer of the petitioners
ought not to be granted. 34
In the closing months of Adams' adminis-
tration a resolution presented in the House
resulted in the appointment 35 of a committee
to inquire and report, by bill or otherwise, as
to the expediency of amending the naturaliza-
tion acts; to admit to the benefit of the act of
1795 all persons entitled to it before the pas-
sage of the later act and since resident in the
United States; or to consider and report on
the expediency of repealing the act of 1798.
Another resolution, referred the same day
to the same committee, directed inquiry as to
the expediency of admitting aliens in the
United States before January 29, 1795, and
since resident therein, to become citizens.
The first of these contemplated reviving
the residence requirement of the act of 1795
for the benefit of a limited number of aliens,
or of extending the provisions of that act to
all aliens. The other resolution proposed to
admit to citizenship upon special terms all
such aliens as had been in the United States
the specified time, about six years. A bill
was reported 36 to extend the privileges of
34 American State Papers, XX, 208, No. 125.
86 January 30, 1801.
36 February 6, 1801.
96
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
the former act to a limited class of aliens,
but the session expired with it unconsidered.
A petition for private naturalization, the first
observed since 1790, was referred and neg-
lected also. 37 The Federalist party record
upon this subject ends here.
87 House Journal, Sixth Congress, Second Session, 781, 788,
804.
CHAPTER VI
THE ACT OF 1802
Jefferson's message at the opening of Con-
gress in December, 1801, contained the follow-
ing passage:
I cannot omit recommending a revisal of the laws on
the subject of naturalization. Considering the ordinary
chances of human life, a denial of citizenship under a resi-
dence of fourteen years is a denial to a great proportion of
those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from their
first settlement by many of these states, and still believed of
consequence to their prosperity; and shall we refuse to the
unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the
savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving
in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on
this globe? The constitution, indeed, has wisely provided
that for admission to certain offices of important trust a
residence shall be required sufficient to develop character
and design. But might not the general character and
capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every
one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life
and fortunes permanently with us, with restrictions, per-
haps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation of our
flag, an abuse which brings so much embarrassment and
loss on the genuine citizen and so much danger to the
nation of being involved in war, that no endeavor should
be spared to detect and suppress it.
Vigorous and comprehensive attacks were
made by the Federalist press upon the mes-
1 House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 11.
97
98
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
sage; but generally they are noticeable for
the lack of any reference to the naturalization
question. Neither the editorial review of the
message in the Washington Federalist, nor
six articles upon it copied from the Anti-
Democrat, mention it. To infer from these
a lack of desire to defend the existing law
seems justifiable.
However, Hamilton, in a series of eighteen
articles upon the message, which he signed
"Lucius Crassus," devoted two to naturaliza-
tion and a consideration of Jefferson's con-
sistency in regard to it. He said:
The next most objectionable feature in the message, is
the proposal to abolish all restrictions on naturalization,
arising from a previous residence.
This, he continued, was at variance with the
maxims of all commentators on popular gov-
ernment, and with Jefferson himself.
The notes on Virginia are in direct contradiction to the
Message, and furnish us with strong reasons against the
policy now recommended.
The passage from Jefferson's Notes (writ-
ten in 1781) quoted by Hamilton is as fol-
lows:4
Here I will beg leave to propose a doubt. The present
desire of America is to produce rapid population by as
2 December 16, 1801. 8 Hamilton's Works, VII, 236.
* Jefferson's Writings, III, 190.
ACT OF 1802
99
.
great importation of foreigners as possible. But is this
founded in good policy? The advantage proposed is the
multiplication of numbers. Now let us suppose
suppose (for
example only) that, in this state, we could double our
numbers in one year by the importation of foreigners; and
this is a greater accession than the most sanguine advocate
for emigration has a right to expect. Then I say, beginning
with a double stock, we shall attain any given degree of
population only twenty-seven years and three months
sooner than if we proceeded on our single stock. ...
But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale
against the advantages expected from a multiplication of
numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the
happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much
as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact
together. Civil government being the sole object of form-
ing societies, its administration must be conducted by
common consent. Every species of government has its
specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than
those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of
the freest principles of the English constitution, with others
derived from natural right and from natural reason. To
these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of
absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the
greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them
the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in
their early youth; or, if able to throw them off it will be in
exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is
usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle
were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.
These principles, with their language, they will transmit to
their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will
share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their
6 Hamilton omits from this point to “But are there" below.
I0O
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a hetero-
geneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to
experience, during the present contest, for a verification of
these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are
they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer
to wait with patience twenty-seven years and three months
longer, for the attainment of any degree of population
desired or expected ? May not our government be more
homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable ? Suppose
twenty millions of Republican Americans thrown all of a
sudden into France, what would be the condition of that
kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less
strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million
of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a
similar effect here.
At this point Hamilton ended his quota-
tion, stopping just before the most important
sentence that Jefferson wrote. It reads:
If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the
rights of citizenship; but I doubt the expediency of inviting
them by extraordinary inducements.
Jefferson also added that he would not ex-
tend "these doubts” to the importation of
useful artificers.
Spare no expense in obtaining them. They will after
a while go to the plow and hoe; but in the meantime they
will teach us something we do not know.
Hamilton continued that the impolicy of
admitting foreigners to the suffrage imme-
diately was an axiom. The United States had
already felt the evils of incorporating large
• Hamilton omits the last six words.
ACT OF 1802
IOI
numbers of foreigners. Classes and antipa-
thies resulted. In the infancy of the country,
with a boundless waste to people, "it was
politic to give a facility to naturalization; but
our situation is now changed," and the nat-
ural growth was sufficiently rapid. He did
not mean
to contend for a total prohibition of the right of citizenship
to strangers, nor even for the very long residence which is
now a prerequisite to naturalization, and which of itself
goes far toward a denial of that privilege. The present
law was merely a temporary measure adopted under pecu-
liar circumstances, and perhaps demanded a revision. But
there is a wide difference between closing the door
altogether and throwing it entirely open, between a post-
ponement of fourteen years and an immediate admission to
all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought
to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and
acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and
imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a
probability, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our
affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be
required. If the rights of naturalization may be communi-
cated by parts, and it is not perceived why they may not be,
those peculiar to the conducting of business and the acquisi-
tion of property, might with propriety be at once conferred,
upon receiving proof by certain prescribed solemnities, of
the intention of the candidates to become citizens, post-
poning all political privileges to the ultimate term. To
admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens,
the moment they put foot in our country, as recommended
in the message, would be nothing less than to admit the
Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.
I02
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
In considering the justice of Hamilton's
criticism upon the position of Jefferson, we
must first remember that the Notes relate to
Virginia alone. Then the facts of a new gov-
ernment, greatly enlarged territory, and the
lapse of twenty years at the time of the mes-
sage are to be considered; also the different
conditions affecting the production of a lit-
erary work and an important state paper.
Consider also that in the Notes the subject in
hand was emigration and increased popula-
tion, and that Jefferson began with, "I will
beg leave to propose a doubt," and ended
with, “I doubt the expediency of inviting them
by extraordinary inducements." Note care-
fully the restrictive effect of "expediency,”
“inviting," and "extraordinary inducements.”
Consider that he asserted the desirability of
getting certain classes of foreign immigrants,
and that he urged sparing no expense to se-
cure them. Finally, connect the strong pre-
sentation of the dangers to be feared from for-
eigners with the sentence: “If they come
they are entitled to all the rights of citizen-
ship.” Surely there is here no semblance of
"closing the door altogether," nor shadow of
excuse for anyone to represent that he "would
have wholly excluded naturalization.'
7 Jefferson mentioned naturalization in one other place in the
Notes on Virginia. In giving a summary of the laws, he said: “A
ACT OF 1802
103
When we turn from the Notes on Virginia
to the message of 1801, it seems that the posi-
tion of Jefferson in the latter has also been
misrepresented. Hamilton reads in the mes-
sage "the proposal to abolish all restrictions
on naturalization, arising from a previous
residence."
Jefferson certainly did not define himself so
explicitly. He asserted the wisdom of the
Constitution in requiring for certain offices a
residence sufficient to develop character and
design and then questioned whether the “gen-
eral character and capabilities of a citizen"
might not "be safely communicated to every
one manifesting a bona fide purpose of em-
barking his life and fortunes permanently
with us." Whether a term of residence should
be an essential part of the mode of manifest-
ing this bona fide purpose, and attesting its
permanent quality, is a question that Jefferson
left entirely open, unless it can be maintained
that in adding "with restrictions, perhaps, to
guard against the case of fraudulent use of
the flag," he must be understood to imply
that he would have no restrictions in other
foreigner of any nation not in open war with us, becomes natur-
alized by removing to the state to reside, and taking an oath of
fidelity; and thereupon acquires every right of a native citizen:
and citizens may divest themselves of that character by declaring
by solemn deed, or in open court, that they mean to expatriate
themselves, and no longer to be citizens of this state."
104 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
cases.
It is possible so to understand him,
but it is, I think, unquestionable that Jefferson
did not seek to express himself clearly to that
effect. The natural interpretation of his
words does not find in them so extreme a
thought. But if it be held that Jefferson did
mean to recommend the naturalization of for-
eigners promptly upon their
their landing in
America, I think that at least as good a case
can be made out, from the evidence of the
Notes in the sentence, "If they come of them-
selves they are entitled to all the rights of
citizenship,” that in 1781 he had already
reached the same opinion.
Others followed Hamilton in alleging that
Jefferson was inconsistent in 1801 with the
views expressed in his Notes on Virginia. A
series of three articles on the message, signed
“Recantator," appeared while the act of 1802
was before Congress. The last of these is
a diatribe charging Jefferson with dishonest
change of opinion and with seeking the suf-
frage of alien fugitives.8 J. C. Hamilton also,
in his History of the Republic of the United
States,' tells us that the early opinions of
Jefferson would have wholly excluded natur-
alization; and again that Hamilton, replying
to the message, quoted Jefferson's early opin-
8 Washington Federalist, May 19, 1802. • VII, 148, 529.
ACT OF 1802
105
ions against the admission of foreigners to
citizenship on any terms.
In connection with the first of these mis-
representations occurs also a strange use of
material to save Hamilton from responsibility
with his party for the Federalist mistakes of
1798. The son is discussing the Naturaliza-
tion Act of 1798, and has declared that “Ham-
ilton's view differed from his party.'
.'
In
proof of this he writes the unqualified “He
said that," and follows it with details of Ham-
ilton's opinions quoted from the reply to Jef-
ferson's message as given above. Readers
are thus compelled to suppose that these
words represent Hamilton's expressed opin-
ions or advice at the time of the passage of
the act of 1798, before the election of 1800
could have influenced either his thought or
his utterance of it. Hamilton had said in the
same article: "The present law was merely a
temporary measure adopted under peculiar
circumstances, and perhaps demands
vision.” While it is true that temporary con-
ditions led to the passage of the law referred
to, there is no evidence that any of its sup-
porters intended it to be "merely a temporary
measure.” On the
On the contrary, most of them
probably regarded it as a compromise meas-
ure that stopped short of what they desired.
re-
106 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
The paragraph of Jefferson's message
under consideration was referred to the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, which reported a resolution “That
the laws respecting naturalization ought to be
revised and amended." 10 The House agreed
to the resolution,11 and a bill was soon
brought in by a special committee appointed
for the purpose.12 The most complete state-
ment of its contents and purposes as originally
introduced has been found in the Kentucky
Palladium. A general interest in the measure
is apparent on the frontier that was lacking
in the eastern cities.
The Palladium noted that a bill had been
reported for revising and amending the laws
on naturalization, and that it proposed several
objects. The first of these was to repeal the
act of 1798, passed when the United States
were threatened with being involved in Euro-
pean war.
Besides the fourteen-years-resi-
dence requirement, the alien
10 December 14, 1801.
11 December 15, 1801.
12 January 26, 1802; House Journal, Seventh Congress, First
Session, 17, 18, 70. The record upon this bill in both Journals
and Annals is very meager. The Kentucky Palladium for January
8 and 15, 1802, adds some details. Mitchell, in committee of the
whole on December 14, referred to his having presented two peti-
tions from aliens, and offered the following: "Resolved, That the
laws respecting naturalization ought to be revised.' To this an
amendment by Giles added "or amended.” One member sought to
secure instructions for the committee that they should prepare the
bill, and another opposed reference to a committee on the ground
that the bill to be proposed would affect every state in the Union.
The reference was made by a vote of 29 to 42.
ACT OF 1802
107
was also subjected to a variety of forms and penalties which
have, since the passing of that act, been disregarded both by
aliens themselves and by the magistrates of places in which
they resided.
The second object was to recur to the act of
1795 which required five years' residence, and
make that
that the rule governing admission.
There was a proviso against admitting alien
enemies, and against receiving the mere oath
of any alien to prove the time of his own resi-
dence in the United States, compelling him to
establish that point by other testimony. The
third object was to cause aliens to register
their names in the office of a clerk of some
federal or state court, a certificate of this reg-
istration to be produced later as evidence of
the time when the alien arrived in this country.
This provision was to apply to all who arrived
after June, 1798. A final object was to explain
some doubts relative to proceedings under the
naturalization laws, within the state of Penn-
sylvania.
There is no report of debate or of the nature
of the several amendments made to this bill
in the House. The Annals13 mention "some
time spent” upon it.14 The vote by which it
passed was 59 to 27.16 In the Senate a part
18 March 4, 1802.
14 House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 123, 127.
10 Ibid., 129.
108 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
of the amendments reported by a special com-
mittee were adopted, and the bill was then
recommitted.16 Again the Senate accepted a
part of the amendments that were made, and
further amended it.17 Newspaper reports in-
dicate that the Senate amendments did not
alter “the principle of the original bill," and
that “they are principally confined to the re-
instatement of several of the provisions of the
act of 1795.
The Senate also struck from the bill a
clause that limited to one year the operation
of the special proviso for aliens who were in
the United States before 1795; required of
them “due proof made to some one of the
"'18
18 Annals of Congress, Seventh Congress, First Session, 198,
200, 204; March 12, 18, 25.
17 Ibid., 251; April 1, 1802.
18 Philadelphia Advertiser, April 13 and 14, 1802. Various
considerations render it probable that the original bill had only
four sections, and in most respects was equivalent to the first
three sections of the law. The Senate combined secs.
I and 2;
perhaps transferred the part that repealed the original acts to a
new sec. 5; and probably inserted sec. 4, relating to minor children
of naturalized persons, to children of citizens born abroad, and to
persons already proscribed by any state. Some of the considerations
in support of these conclusions may be mentioned. The House
recommitted the fourth section of the bill (House Journal, 123);
a Senate amendment to the last line of the original is found in
the final sec. 3 (Annals of Congress, Seventh Congress, First Ses-
sion, 252; April 3); the Kentucky Palladium's summary contains
four parts, arranged in harmony with these views; sec. 4 of the act
is not referred to in the Palladium's summary of the bill as intro-
duced, and its provisions, as we expect the Senate amendments
to be, are taken largely from the act of 1795 (Philadelphia Adver.
tiser, supra). Finally, the House amended a section proposed to
be substituted by the Senate for secs. I and 2 of the original bill
(House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 187).
ACT OF 1802
109
courts,” in place of "declaring on oath or af-
firmation" that they had fulfilled the other
residence requirements; and inserted "imme-
diately preceding his application” to modify
the state residence required in the same pro-
viso. It also changed the word "admitted"
to "naturalized" in the last clause of sec. 3.
By the first of these amendments it secured,
for those who had been in the United States
seven years, the opportunity, not merely
within a year, as the House had provided, but
at any future time, to become naturalized
without a previous declaration of intention.
The next amendment made this proviso con-
sistent with the general provision as to proof
of residence. The third amendment required
a quality of residence of those having the bene-
fit of this proviso that was not definitely stipu-
lated for as to others. The final change substi-
tuted the most precise technical term for a
very loose general one.
The bill passed the Senate as amended, by
a vote of 18 to 8, and was further amended in
the House. 19 It became a law on April 14,
1802,20 and remains the law in all of its general
features after the lapse of one hundred years.
Two months later the Kentucky Palladium21
19 House Journal, Seventh Congress, First Session, 177, 187.
21 June 17, 1802.
20 Ibid., 194.
IIO
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
quoted from the National Intelligencer the news
that the revision had taken place, and the follow-
ing comment:
The justice due to a large number of people who emi-
grated under the faith of existing laws, and the policy of
opening the wilderness and acquiring the arts and manu-
factures of Europe required this revision. It is only the
revival of the Washington system.
During the winter of 1803 a number of pe-
titions, chiefly from aliens in Pennsylvania,
were received by Congress praying for a modi-
fication of the Naturalization Act. The first
of these asked amendment as related to aliens
who came to the United States to reside while
the act of 1798 was in force. It was objected
to on the ground that it was extremely dis-
respectful by reason of some severe com-
ments on the Adams administration, and that
the law had been amended in the interest of
the petitioners at the last session of Congress.
One speaker urged care lest they "uncitizen-
ize” themselves by going too far. After dis-
cussion pro and con, reference was lost by a
vote of 32 to 49.22
The following day another petition was
read containing an argument for easy naturali-
zation. Irish aliens had been invited by Con-
22 House Journal, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 324; An.
nals of Congress, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 465; February
7, 1803.
ACT OF 1802
III
gress. Two years' residence in Pennsylvania
and some other states was to give citizenship.
Encourage aliens and you will prosper. "Neg-
lect us, we suffer, but you are not served.” It
concluded with a prayer that Congress would
admit to citizenship those aliens that were shut
out from it by default of three years' previous
declaration of intention, and restore the two-
years’-residence requirement of the first nat-
uralization law. Again reference was refused
by the more emphatic vote of 23 to 61.23
Soon, however, other petitions of a similar
nature were referred to a special commit-
tee,24 but not without question and explanation
that the objectionable expressions of the for-
mer ones were not in these. The committee
worked rapidly, got leave to report by bill,
and did so in three days, 25 as follows: Any
alien being free white, resident in the United
States between June 14, 1802, and since, may
be admitted to become a citizen of the United
States, or any of them, without compliance
with the first condition of the Naturalization
Act [i. e., without making declaration of in-
tention three years before admission).
There was vigorous opposition when the bill
28 Annals of Congress, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 474,
480; February 8, 1803.
24 House Journal, Seventh Congress, Second Session, 339, 345;
April 14 and 16.
26 April 17.
II2
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
was put upon its passage. Goddard (Conn.)
was surprised that this bill was pressed
there was so little time left; none were less
entitled to the time of the House than these
persons. The language of their petitions was
at first so indecent that the House had refused
to consider them. They were returned within
two days with the same signatures and lan-
guage, except that the objectionable passage
had been omitted. Someone had remodeled
them. Dana (Conn.) also objected to giving
more attention to these aliens than to citizens.
Smilie (Pa.) defended them. He quoted the
objectionable paragraph and asserted its truth.
In substance, it was that from 1798 to 1801
aliens attached to liberty were abused in the
administrative papers; the president was no-
toriously hostile, and could banish them at pleas-
ure; an alien resident could have no induce-
ment to declare his intention to become a citi-
zen, as he was thus placing himself on a list
of proscriptions [calling the attention of a hos-
tile administration to himself].
He continued by inquiring what harm there
could be in admitting aliens after five years
of residence, even if they had not made a
declaration of intention at a time when fou
teen years' residence was required. Duty to
the aliens and to their own selves required
ACT OF 1802
113
their admission. Fears lest foreigners should
destroy or injure their political system were
ridiculous. Labor is of the last (i. e., great-
est) importance in the middle states. The
measure saves three years of residence to a
class of aliens, who without it must reside here
eight years before their naturalization. Davis
(Ky.) urged the turbulent and factious tem-
pers of aliens, and verily believed that in less
than five years they would be obliged to re-
enact fourteen years' residence. Was it right
or constitutional to apply four rules to some
aliens and three to others? Some of the oppo-
sition feared that perjury would result from
the measure. Lieb (Pa.) stated that the pe-
titions showed many persons to be affected.
Was there any magic in a declaration of in-
tention fitting aliens for citizenship? It was
the existing law that made inequality; it re-
quired five years' residence for some and eight
years for others, who came after 1798 and be-
fore 1802. Only four at most of the required
fourteen years had passed for these, and nine
were given before it became useful to declare
intention. An earlier declaration was a risk,
and exposed the alien to transportation. Both
the spirit and the letter of the last law were in
favor of the present bill.
Three votes were taken in disposing of the
114 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
measure. Postponement was refused by a
vote of 40 to 42. Griswold moved to recom-
mit, as it was too late to amend in the House.
If the measure carried, he wished it to carry
with it a provision for a declaration of inten-
tion one month or one year before admission.
The purpose of a declaration was to let
people observe the character and behavior of
the prospective citizen. He wished the select
committee, also, to investigate the charge of
forgery in reconstructing certain of the peti-
tions. Recommitment failed, 38 to 42. The
bill was then rejected by a vote of 37 to 42.26
A petition of Baltimore aliens brought up
the subject in the House early in the following
session,27 and a bill was soon reported.28 It
passed the House by a vote of 65 to 38, and
became a law on March 26, 1804.29 Section i
was the same as the bill of the previous year,
except that the words "or any of them” were
omitted after “may be admitted to become
a citizen of the United States.” They had
been in all the previous acts, except that of
1790, and their omission here indicates the as-
30
26 Annals of Congress, Seventh Congress, Second Session,
569-74; February 21, 1803.
27 House Journal, Eighth Congress, First Session, 518; January
6, 1804.
28 Ibid., 545; January 20, 1804.
20 Ibid., 655, 690.
30 See p. III.
1
ACT OF 1802
115
cendancy of a new conception of the relations
between state and federal citizenship.
Section 2 provided that when any alien who
had complied with the conditions in secs. I
and 2 of the act of 1802 (i. e., had made a
declaration of intention, had registered the
date of his arrival, and had received a certifi-
cate thereof) died before he was actually
naturalized, his widow and children should be
considered to be citizens, and should be en-
titled to all the rights and privileges of citizens
upon taking the oaths prescribed by law. The
House and the Senate each made one change
in the bill as reported. It is probable that one
of them made the change mentioned in section
1, and that the other added sec. 2 to the bill.
The latter section introduced a new principle
into the legislation on the subject.
McMaster refers 31 to the Federalist oppo-
sition in 1807 to the naturalization laws, as
causing trouble; and to their cry of repeal
those laws, give up to England her subjects,
and do not wage war for protection of British
deserters. It was this opposition that led, in
1808, to an effort in Congress to enact that
all citizens shall be considered such no longer than while
they actually reside within the United States; and that,
81 History of the United States, III, 255, 256. See IV, 389ff.,
for some instructive passages in regard to the immigration of this
period.
116 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
also, if any citizen shall expatriate himself, he shall, ipso
facto, be deemed an alien, and ever after be incapable of
becoming a citizen.
This bill was reported 33 by a committee ap-
pointed, 34 on the motion of Burwell (Va.), to
inquire into the expediency of amending the
act of 1802. It was twice read, and reached
reference to the committee of the whole a
month before the close of the session.
88 Annals of Congress, Tenth Congress, First Session, 1871;
March 26, 1808.
83 March 26, 1808.
84 Early in the following session (November 30, 1808) Burwell
renewed his motion for a committee, and soon (December 17) re-
ported a bill in the same form as before. He mentioned a modi-
fication of it, to which his committee had not agreed, that he in-
tended to propose in committee of the whole. The bill, however,
dropped from sight with its reference as before. House Journal,
Tenth Congress, Second Session, 133, 247, 368, 395; 19 Annals of
Congress, Tenth Congress, Second Session, 864; December 17, 1808.
CHAPTER VII
THE ACT OF 1813
Within ten days after the declaration of
war with Great Britain, in 1812, a committee
was appointed in the House to inquire into the
expediency of admitting to citizenship such
British aliens (now alien enemies, and in-
capable under existing laws) as had emi-
grated to the United States while they were
alien friends. The mover of the committee
urged that the immediate attention of Con-
gress was required, as the courts were pro-
hibited from naturalizing persons whose pro-
bationary period was ended and of whom
state laws required military service. The gov-
ernment was pledged to these; they were
strongly attached to the United States, and
there could be no danger from admitting
them. The committee promptly reported a bill
authorizing the naturalization of such British
alien enemies. An amendment was added
limiting to the next six months the time in
which application for the benefit of the pro-
posed law, and declaration of intention, could
be made. An amendment to exclude from its
1 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, First Session, 401.
» Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, First Session, 1561.
117
118 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
4
privileges all aliens of five years' residence in
the United States who had not already made
legal declaration of intention to become citi-
zens was lost. The bill passed the House,
without division, the third day after its intro-
duction. It went through the Senate in three
days, without amendment, and passed by
unanimous consent.3 July 6, 1812, it was sent
to President Madison.
Just after the opening of the following ses-
sion, in November, a message from the execu-
tive informed the houses that this bill had
been "liable to abuse by aliens having no real
purpose of effecting a naturalization," and
that, as it came to him too late to be returned
for their reconsideration, he had permitted it .
to fail of becoming a law. He recommended
that "provision be now made in favor of aliens
entitled to the contemplated benefit, under
such regulations as will prevent advantage
being taken of it for improper purposes.
Niles Register, in noting the failure of this
bill, said:
It is understood that some amendment to the bill in
one or other house in the course of its progress rendered it
objectionable in the view of the president.®
"
3 Op cit., 317.
* House Journal, Twelfth Congress, First Session, 403, 414, 421.
* Ibid., Second Session, 554.
8 Niles Register, II, 304; July 25, 1812.
ACT OF 1813
119
It seems to have had but one amendment, as
given above; and that one brought the bill
more into line with the suggestion of the mes-
sage than it was without it. In the course of
the debate on a subsequent bill, the ground of
the president's opposition was explained to be
that the bill contained no authorization for the
removal of alien enemies before their naturali-
zation was completed. Interest in this ex-
planation is increased when we remember that
the president who wrote this veto message
wrote also the Virginia resolutions.
The committee of the House to which the
message was referred reported a new bill with-
in two weeks. It authorized the admission to
citizenship, in the manner prescribed by the
naturalization acts, of all persons resident in
the United States or the territories thereof on
June 1, 1812, notwithstanding anything grow-
ing out of the existing state of war, provided
that no alien enemy was to be admitted unless
he declared his intention and made the appli-
cation required within nine months. Nothing
in the act was to be construed to prevent the
removal, according to law, of any alien enemy
before his naturalization was completed.”
Besides the addition of this last proviso, the
? Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 467.
8 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 554.
8 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 153.
I 20 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
substantial changes from the former bill were
two. The date at which residence must have
been acquired was changed from June 18 (the
opening of the war) to June 1; the time within
which declaration of intention could be made
was changed from six months to nine months.
A varied experience met the bill in the House.
The committee of the whole reported it with-
out amendment. The House amended it by
adding as sec. 2:
That every naturalized citizen of the United States or
the territories thereof, shall forfeit such citizenship upon
his voluntarily removing from and remaining out of the
United States or the territories thereof, for and during the
term of two years.iº
This is probably the origin, or a very early
prototype, of the similar two-year term in va-
rious later treaties. Apparently, the radical
amendment the bill had now undergone de-
stroyed the interest of its friends in it. A
month passed by when, on motion of the
father of the measure, Lacock (Penn.), it was
recommitted to a committee of the whole for
amendment. The recommendation of that
body, that the new section providing for expa-
triation be struck out, carried in the House by
a vote of 71 to 43.11 Lacock made an effort
10 Shown by Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second
Session, 153, in connection with House Journal, Twelfth Congress,
Second Session, 569 and 684.
11 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 684.
ACT OF 1813
I 21
now to amend by extending the naturalization
of aliens to all those "who have heretofore,
or may within nine months hereafter, declare
their intention agreeably to law to become
citizens of the United States." This amend-
ment failed by three votes. It would have re-
moved any question (such as arose with a later
bill) as to a new declaration of intention being
required from those who had taken the first
steps toward citizenship. But much more im-
portant would have been the permission given
to naturalize all alien enemies arriving in
America within the next nine months.
A reason alleged by Bacon (Mass), the fol-
lowing day, for opposing the bill, that it was
impolitic to encourage the emigration of alien
enemies during war 12 would seem to be valid
only on the supposition that it was made at
an earlier date, while the foregoing amend-
ment was pending. But his motion to recom-
mit to the committee of the whole for amend-
ment, supported by Grundy, who wished to
amend certain details of the bill, and carried
by a large majority, leaves little possibility of
doubt that he spoke at the later date.
For a third time the committee of the whole
approved the bill in its original form, and it
passed the House on February 23 as “an act
19 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 1076.
I 22
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
supplementary to the existing naturalization
acts."'13 A day later the Senate special com-
mittee reported it with amendments. It was
read the third time, as amended, by unanimous
vote, and passed on March 3, entirely too late
for further consideration in the House. 14 Just
as the bill passed the House, a petition was
received from certain naturalized citizens, for-
merly British, who, referring to a proclama-
tion of the prince regent, declared that they
were threatened by the English as traitors, if
they aided the United States. They asked
that the wisdom of Congress protect them.15
Third bill: A special session of Congress
was held during the summer of 1813. Lacock,
who had championed the cause of the enemy
aliens in the House, had been transferred to
the Senate. On the last day of May he pre-
sented therein a memorial of certain English
aliens praying for admission to citizenship,
notwithstanding the omission of certain forms
of application. The language of this petition
would seem to embrace the removal of the
enemy disability, and also admission without
13 House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 689, 702,
703.
14 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 100,
102, 109, 121; House Journal, Twelfth Congress, Second Session,
736.
18 Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, Second Session, 98;
February 23, 1813.
ACT OF 1813
123
a declaration of intention. In response to it,
a bill was reported within two days, amended
in committee of the whole in manner un-
known and passed within a week of the re-
ceipt of the petition.16 It authorized the ad-
mission, according to law, of all alien enemies
who were resident in the United States at the
beginning of the war; but limited to nine
months the time for making the required
declaration of intention. Nothing contained
in it was to be construed to prevent “the ap-
prehension and removal, agreeably to law, of
any alien enemy, at any time previous to the
actual naturalization of such alien."17
The bill met with no opposition in the
House committee of the whole, but, when re-
ported to the House, Burwell (Va.) stated
that he wished to offer amendments, one of
them being to confine the privileges of
naturalized citizens to actual residence with-
in the United States.18 Later he waived his
purpose to amend this bill, declaring that he
should propose a radical change of the natu-
ralization laws at the next session. He held
it to be the duty of Congress to repeal its
10 Ibid., Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 19-23; May 31 to
June 7.
17 House Journal, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 22; or
Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 147.
18 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 147;
June 9, 1813.
I 24 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
naturalization laws in toto, or to dry up the
sources of collision with foreign powers aris-
ing out of them; but time was then lacking
for mature consideration of the subject. He
must oppose the present bill, unless it was
amended, as it would give "to the numerous
class of foreign merchants who have been
ordered from the seaports, the advantage of
availing themselves of all the benefits of citi-
zenship, and the protection and privilege they
convey, by merely declaring an intention to be-
come citizens."'19 This objection involves the
idea that protection would be given by the
United States even to alien enemies who had
taken but one step toward citizenship.20
Gaston (N. C.) had many objections to the
bill. He secured a change in its wording to
make clear that those who had already de-
clared their intention should be exempt from
a new declaration. A motion to validate any
naturalization of alien enemies made since the
war began was lost by a vote of 57 to 73.
Further opposition arose to the bill in its exist-
ing form, and, with an amendment pending to
confine its privileges to those who had already
declared their intention to become citizens,
10 Op. cit., 154; June II.
20 It can hardly be that the privilege of the American flag in
commerce is what is referred to. That would involve an idea
about as unlikely and much more inadequate.
ACT OF 1813
125
it was agreed nem. con. to refer it to the
Committee of Foreign Affairs.21 It returned
with three amendments, of which the House
accepted one, limiting the privileges of the
bill to aliens who had already declared their
intention, or of whom no declaration of inten-
tion was required.22 King (Mass.) failed in
an effort, probably in the interest of alien
sailors, to strike out the limitation to persons
"resident in the United States or the Terri-
tories thereof."23
Again those who wished to open the way
for the admission of all resident alien enemies
rallied their forces, and, by a very close vote, 24
succeeded in recommitting the measure to a
favorable select committee. Kennedy (N. C.)
supported their report at some length. He
urged that the situation of the alien enemy
was extremely disagreeable, shut out as he
was from all mercantile business within forty
miles of tide water, and harassed by the adver-
tisements of United States marshals ordering
him to register. The recent law relative to
seamen did not restrict their naturalization
21 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 154;
June il, 1813.
22 In the debate of the twelfth, Kennedy referred to a clause
limiting the privilege of naturalization under the act to aliens who
had declared their intention. This justifies the conclusion given as
(Annals of Congress, p. 433 ).
23 House Journal, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 74, 88.
24 Fifty-seven to fifty-three.
to the nature of the amendment
126 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
until peace came. Those who thought that it
did might amend this measure to naturalize
only after five years' residence, and all diffi-
culty would be removed. The measure would
strengthen the country for war and relieve
persons who had, for the most part, been
banished by oppression, had fled to the only
asylum open to them, and were now threat-
ened again. In his section they were general-
ly Irish. Some persons were contending for
letting them be naturalized by state govern-
ments. In that case the United States could
not claim them as citizens and screen them
from punishment for treason. Could the gov-
ernment treat as alien enemies, and deny civil
rights to, those who joined its armies? Such
a course would sour the minds of those well
affected. He had it on good authority that
the president's opposition to the former bill
was because it contained no provision for the
removal of alien enemies previous to their
naturalization.26
The House amended the report of the com-
mittee, evidently by reinserting the require-
ment of a declaration of intention before the
outbreak of the war. 26 Roberts, the chairman
of the special committee, then sought again
26 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 465.
26 This is shown by Roberts' amendment (House Journal, Thir-
teenth Congress, First Session, 113).
ACT OF 1813
127
to remove this restriction and insert in place
of it, “if they shall have resided therein [in
the United States) for the continued term of
five years immediately preceding their admis-
sion as citizens in manner aforesaid.” Ken-
nedy had suggested this measure to those who
opposed the admission of any whose declara-
tion had not been made before June 18, 1812,
as a compromise that would be acceptable.
His side were now driven to urge it as a last
resort in defense of their contention. The
Roberts amendment failed, as did also an
effort to admit of later declaration by those
who had intermarried with a citizen of the
United States." The bill became a law on
July 30, 1813.27 It was entitled: "An act sup-
plementary to the acts heretofore passed on
the subject of an uniform rule of naturaliza-
tion.” It provided “that persons resident
within the United States, or the Territories
thereof,” at the outbreak of the war, "who had
before that day made a declaration according
to law" of intent to become citizens of the
United States, or who, by the existing laws,
were entitled to become citizens without
making a declaration, might be admitted to
become citizens thereof, notwithstanding they
should be alien enemies, at the time and in the
37 House Journal, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 113, 114,
A Senate amendment was disagreed to.
130, 131, 135, 141.
128 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
manner prescribed by the laws heretofore
passed on that subject; provided that the act
was not to be construed to interfere with the
removal, etc., of any alien enemy before his
actual naturalization. 28
In summing up the foregoing history, we
note that the first bill simply removed the
enemy disability from those in the United
States at the beginning of the war (June 18,
1812); but it was amended to limit declara-
tions to six months after its passage. This bill
received a pocket veto. The second bill re-
moved the alien-enemy disability from all who
were in the United States on June 1, 1812, but
required a declaration of intention within nine
months. It was amended by the senate too
late in the session for further action in the
House. The third bill originated in the Sen-
ate. It removed the alien-enemy disability
from those who were in the United States on
June 18, 1812, but any required declaration of
intention was to be made within nine months.
The House, after a lively struggle within it-
self, succeeded in limiting the application of
the measure to those whose declaration of in-
tention was made before the outbreak of the
war, or who needed to make no declaration.
28 Statutes at Large, III, 53.
I
CHAPTER VIII
AN ACT CONCERNING EVIDENCE
During the discussion of the bill for the
naturalization of alien enemies, Dana (Conn.)
made repeated attempts in the Senate to se-
cure consideration of a bill concerning evi-
dence in cases of naturalization. He intro-
duced it on July 19, 1813, and, failing to gain
a hearing for it so late in the session, secured
its postponement to the first week in Decem-
ber.1 In the following session, however, he
introduced a new bill.2 Three weeks later he
secured its reference to a committee of which
he was chairman, and reported it unchanged,
but could get for it no other consideration
than a second postponement over the recess.
Early in the first session of the new Congress
in 1815 he renewed his efforts, with better
success. After amendment in both House
and Senate, his bill became a law March 22,
1816.4 The title was: “An act relative to evi-
dence in cases of naturalization."
3
1 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, First Session, 59,
62, 79; July 19, 21, 30, 1813.
» December 23.
8 Annals of Congress, Thirteenth Congress, Second Session,
563, 571, 759, 775; December 23, 1813; January 10, April 18, 1814.
+ Senate Journal, Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 50, 55,
68, 73, 77, 83; House Journal, Fourteenth Congress, First Session,
164, 305, 312, 336, 411, 418, 496.
129
130 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
It provided that the certificate of report
and registry required by the act of 1802, and
also a certificate of the declaration of inten-
tion, should be exhibited by every alien who
should have arrived in the United States after
June 18, 1812, and that each should be recited
at full length in the record of the court ad-
mitting such alien to citizenship. Otherwise
he should not be deemed to have complied
with the conditions required for becoming a
citizen of the United States. Any pretended
admission of such citizen, after the promulga-
tion of the act, without such recital of each
certificate at full length, should be of no
validity. Any person admitted without a cer-
tificate must prove to the satisfaction of the
court that he was a resident in the United
States before April 14, 1802, and had resided
therein continuously since. The proof of his
residence for the five years immediately pre-
ceding his admission must be by the oath or
affirmation of citizens of the United States,
who must be named in the record as witness-
es. The fact of continuous residence must be
stated in the record, also all places of residence
for five years. A record of naturalization
without these particulars should not entitle a
person to be considered a citizen.5
6 Statutes at Large, III, 258.
ACT CONCERNING EVIDENCE
131
In January, 1816, Wilson (N. J.) submitted
for the consideration of the Senate a resolu-
tion for a committee to inquire into the ex-
pediency of revising and digesting the several
acts of Congress on the subject of naturaliza-
tion, or of compiling and publishing the said
acts, and distributing the same to the officers
of courts authorized to issue certificates of
naturalization. The outcome of this was a
resolution that the secretary of state have
printed four thousand copies of the laws then
in force on the subject of naturalization, and
send two copies of each to the clerk of each
federal or state court authorized to naturalize,
to each collector of customs, and to each mar-
shal of a United States judicial district. Re-
maining copies should go to the executive de-
partment and the Library of Congress.?
During a debate in the House in committee
of the whole, in 1816, on a bill to incorporate
subscribers to the national bank, Randolph
(Va.) moved to add the word "native" in the
clause that limited the choice of directors to
citizens of the United States, thus making it
read "native citizens." This motion was
agreed to (ayes, 68) without debate. When
8 Approved April 16, 1816.
7 Senate Journal, Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 77, 79,
371, 422, 478; House Journal, Fourteenth Congress, First Session,
636; Annals of Congress, Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 1918.
132 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
the clause providing for the appointment of
directors for branch banks was reached, a
similar motion was made to insert "native"
in a similar provision. Calhoun then objected
to the amendment. He said that it was the
first attempt that had been made to discrimi-
nate between native and naturalized citizens.
The constitution recognized no such distinc-
tion, except in eligibility to the highest office,
and he could see no reason for introducing at
that time so odious and unprecedented a dis-
tinction. Randolph replied to Calhoun at
considerable length, and, in the words of Niles
Register, “he inveighed with much acrimony
against the whole class of naturalized citi-
zens." He declared that the United States
owed to its naturalization laws the spirit of
faction by which it had been torn for twenty
years, and along with it the war just over.
Protecting foreign seamen had also grown out
of it. How long the country must endure this
foreign yoke in its most odious and disgusting
form he could not tell! He would much rather
be ruled by the British Parliament than by
British subjects in America. They must teach
the people of Europe that all they must hope
to receive in America was protection. They
must have no share in the government.
Wright replied warmly to Randolph, and this
ACT CONCERNING EVIDENCE
133
motion was lost without division. When the
bill came before the House, Calhoun secured
the rejection of the first amendment also, by
a vote of 44 to 67, although Randolph again
advocated it in a short speech.
8
8 Annals of Congress, Fourteenth Congress, First Session, 1152,
1153, 1200; Niles Register, X, 31, 47; March 6 and 11, 1816.
CHAPTER IX
EXPATRIATION
In giving a summary of the laws of Virginia
in 1781, Jefferson wrotel that “citizens may
divest themselves of that character by declar-
ing, by solemn deed, or in open court, that
they mean to expatriate themselves, and no
longer to be citizens of this state.” He added
to this summary of the laws the statement that
the first assembly after Virginia became a state
appointed three men to revise the code.
Among the most remarkable alterations they
proposed was “to define with precision the
rules whereby aliens should become citizens,
and citizens make themselves aliens.''2
In the summer of 1817,3 a few months be-
fore the exhaustive debate on the subject of
expatriation occurred in Congress, Jefferson
wrote from Monticello to Dr. John Manners:
My opinion on the right of expatriation has been so
long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of
the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right
expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The
evidence of this natural right like that of the right to life,
liberty, and the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happi-
ness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations
1 Jefferson, Writings, III, 240; in his Notes on Virginia.
2 Ibid., 242, 243.
3 June 12.
.
134
EXPATRIATION
135
of the reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man.
We do not claim these under the charters of Kings or
legislators, but under the King of Kings. If he has made
it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness,
he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode;
and we may safely call upon the whole body of English
jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for
each individual, the geographical line which she forbids
him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not
exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I
might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civil-
ized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right.
I doubt if there is another which refuses it exercise.*
Jefferson had, while president, occasion to
make practical application of his views upon
this subject in a case in which he maintained
the binding force of the doctrine against a
man who wished to free himself from the
consequences of his own act in having former-
ly availed himself of it. Jefferson wrote to his
secretary of the treasury (Gallatin):5
The Attorney-General being absent, we must decide for
ourselves the question raised by Colonel Newton's letter,
whether Mr. Cooper can own a registered vessel? or, in
other words, whether he is a citizen of the United States.
I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every
man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being right-
fully taken from him even by the united will of every other
person in the nation. If the laws have provided no par-
ticular mode by which the right of expatriation may be
exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and
4 Jefferson, Writings, X, 87.
5 June 26, 1806.
136 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
unequivocal act or declaration. The laws of Virginia have
provided a mode; Mr. Cooper is said to have exercised his
right solemnly and exactly according to that mode, and to
have departed from the Commonwealth; whereupon the
law declares that “he shall thenceforth be deemed no
citizen." Returning afterwards he returns an alien, and
must proceed to make himself a citizen if he desires it, as
every other alien does. At present he can hold no lands,
receive nor transmit any inheritance, nor enjoy any other
right peculiar to a citizen.
The general government has nothing to do with this
question. Congress may by the Constitution "establish an
uniform rule of naturalization," that is, by what rule an
alien may become a citizen. But they cannot take from a
citizen his natural right of divesting himself of the char-
acter of a citizen by expatriation.
From many points of view this is a most
interesting letter. It unhesitatingly accepted
the view that a state was competent to legis-
late in the matter of expatriation, involving,
as Jefferson held that it must, the loss of fed-
eral citizenship. The Virginia law being in
force and applying to this person, the appeal
to it was, from Jefferson's point of view, ab-
solutely necessary, and apparently none the
less acceptable. Perhaps he did not decide the
question as to whether Congress could also in-
dicate a valid mode of expatriation. At any
rate, his language seems to necessitate the
view that it could not establish an exclusive
mode, although he took the position that the
o Jefferson, Writings, VIII, 454.
EXPATRIATION
137
legal mode or modes, when there were such,
were exclusive of all others. "The general
government has nothing to do with this ques-
tion,” is indefinite as to whether it applies to
the particular case Jefferson had in hand, or
to the general question of expatriation. His
last sentence might seem to have been framed
to avoid expressing a decision upon this point.
The citizen character lost by expatriation was
totally lost, and the person became an alien.
That character was not resumable at will, nor
by consent of the government, but only
through the full process of naturalization. He
had no question, such as Madison once ex-
pressed," as to the right of an expatriated
American to become naturalized under the
laws that applied to foreigners.
In the summer of 1797 considerable discus-
sion on the subject of expatriation occurred
in the House committee of the whole during
the consideration of a bill to prevent citizens
of the United States from entering foreign
service. We are informed merely that Rut-
ledge (S. C.), W. Smith (S. C.), Dayton
(N. J.), Brooks (N. Y.), Otis (Mass.), and
Kittera (Pa.) spoke in favor of marking out
a way for expatriation. On the other hand,
An opinion of Hamilton on the subject of expatriation
has been quoted, in another connection, on page 3.
7 See p. 54.
138 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
8
Coit (Conn.) was probably successful in his
motion to strike out a section declaring that
for the due execution of a portion of the act
it was expedient to define and ascertain the
mode in which a citizen might dissolve the
ties of citizenship.
Great interest and much feeling on the sub-
ject of expatriation were aroused by the de-
cision in the case of Isaac Williams, who was
tried 10 in the Circuit Court of the District of
Connecticut for accepting a French naval
commission, contrary to the law laid down in
Art. XXI of the Jay Treaty, that subjects or
citizens of the one country should not accept
commissions from a foreign state at war with
the other. Williams claimed that he was ap-
pointed to a place in the French navy in 1792,
and was naturalized in France the same au-
tumn. He had only visited in the United
States, less than six months, in 1796. The
court held that "the common law of this
country remains the same as it was before the
revolution," that all the members of a civil
community were bound to each other by a
compact, and that one of the parties to the
compact could not dissolve it by his own act.
8 Annals of Congress, Fifth Congress, First Session, 348;
June 20 and 21, 1797.
• Rendered by Chief Justice Ellsworth, of the United States
Supreme Court.
10
1799.
!
EXPATRIATION
139
There had been no consent or default on the
part of the community. Nor did he admit the
implied consent that had been argued from its
policy, condition, and acts. Their country had
no inhabitants to spare. They naturalized,
but did not inquire as to the relation still sus-
tained to the other country. “But this im-
plies no consent of the government that our
own citizens should expatriate themselves."
The fault and folly of embarrassing himself
are his own.11
Various articles upon the subject appeared.
One in the South Carolina Gazette,12 signed
"South Carolina Planter," was written by
Charles Pinckney, and was called forth by
another case, that of Mackay and Nicks vs.
the Polacre Ship “Adams," condemned by the
British. The claimant was held to be a British
subject because he was not admitted a citizen
of the United States until March, 1796,13 and
hence could not be considered, with respect to
England, a citizen of the United States, to
permit of his trading with the British enemy.
On the right to change nationality Pinckney
quoted Cicero as saying that "the way is open
from every state to ours and from ours to
11 Wharton's State Trials, 652; quoted in part in Snow's Cases
on International Law, 215.
12 October 10, 1799.
18 He had settled in the United States in 1792; the war began
in February, 1793.
140 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
every state."
He cited Grotius, and quoted
Vattel as saying that a man may leave his
country "except when he cannot abandon it
without doing it a remarkable prejudice.” In
case of naval war or distant expeditions no
danger was threatened at home, and England
had been at war more than half of the last
century. The law of England and of Russia
infringed upon the right of naturalization. The
United States must protect the commerce of
its new subjects, or their grant of citizenship
was a public deception.
The Williams decision was printed in the
South Carolina Gazette for November 28,
1799. A week later a reply, entitled "On Ex-
patriation," signed "A Federalist," appeared in
the same paper. This writer urged that the
common law, on which the decision was based,
had been greatly modified by the Revolution.
He admitted that the government was based
on a compact, and that one could not dissolve
it. But the only compact with American citi-
zens was the Constitution. It contained no
express principle against a citizen of the
United States joining another state. Posterity
were not bound in their personal liberty by the
Constitution when they left the country. An
article in the same paper a year later 14 blamed
14 October 16, 1800.
EXPATRIATION
141
the Federalists for supporting the Williams
decision.
A series of articles in the Aurora, 15 signed
“T. C. of Northumberland,” discussed the sub-
ject of expatriation. New light had come to
English law on this subject from the revolu-
tionary period. In earlier European history
the people gradually came to be considered
the subjects or property of their rulers, and
from this fact allegiance was considered to be
perpetual. Yet writers on general law had
always claimed exceptions. These had grad-
ually been extended. This progress of opinion
caused a presumption that the right of expa-
triation was to be more universally ac-
knowledged. The latest writers were fifty
years old and from despotic countries. As
general arguments in favor of expatriation he
noted exceptions allowed by the writers, as
follows: (1) the case of a government plainly
tyrannical; (2) religious duties, etc., being
prohibited; (3) extreme economic reasons,
such as the usual nieans of subsistence failing;
(4) failure of duty by the state (also to the
state); (5) the fundamental laws being vio-
lated. He suggested also to be added to these:
(1) desire of bettering fortune; (2) demands
of health, relations, etc. Thus he found that
15 January 22, 24, 25, 1800.
142 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
exceptions applied to nearly every case and
destroyed the law. Moreover, the extreme of
the law would show that no allegiance was
due to any of the existing governments. Only
the first government could be lawful. Again,
the law directly opposed every revolution. It
was unnecessary to any good government.
And again, the being able and willing was im-
plied in the making of all valid contracts.
These illustrations indicate the trend of the
thought of the time.
The failure of Burwell's attempt in 1808 to
enact "that all citizens shall be considered
such no longer than while they actually reside
within the United States, and also that if any
citizen shall expatriate himself, he shall ipso
facto, be deemed an alien, and, ever after, be
incapable of becoming a citizen," has been
mentioned.16
An expatriation bill before Congress in 1817
led to an exhaustive debate upon the subject.
The bill "by which the right of citizenship may
be relinquished"17 was reported 18 by a com-
mittee 10 appointed 20 to inquire into the ex-
16 See p. 116.
17 Probably the language of its title.
18 December 22, 1817.
19 Robertson (La.), Mason (Mass.), Poindexter (Miss.), Ross
(Pa.), and Floyd (Va.).
20 December 15, 1817.
EXPATRIATION
143
pediency of providing by law for the exercise
of the right of expatriation.21
In making the motion for the committee,
Robertson said that he had offered a similar
resolution some years before, during the war.
The war question had made a decision neces-
sary. England had treated many prisoners as
traitors, and the United States could not con-
sistently retaliate, for she had not recognized
in her own citizens the right that she demand-
ed that Great Britain should concede to hers.
In the Williams case a man had been fined and
imprisoned by the United States courts, on
the ground that he could not divest himself of
United States citizenship. It was proper for
the legislature to decide so important a ques-
tion. Under a treaty with Spain,22 a citizen
of the United States holding a commission
from any government at war with Spain while
we are at peace with her, is considered as a
pirate. They were not neutral as between
Spain and her colonies so long as a citizen of
the United States in fighting for the colonies
was a pirate, and in fighting against them was
not. He wished to see American citizens at
perfect liberty to become citizens elsewhere on
21 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 50, 73.
29 Art. XIV of the treaty of 1795 is referred to. No citizen
of either nation is to take commission or letter of marque from the
enemy of the other.
144 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
any terms the other nation might prescribe.
He favored the principle involved, and the
existing circumstances required it.
His reso-
lution was adopted without opposition.23
The bill reported contained two sections.
The first section provided
That whensoever any citizen of the United States shall, by
a declaration in writing, made and executed in the district
court of the United States, within the state where he
resides, in open court to be by said court entered of record,
declare that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and
shall depart out of the United States, such person shall,
from the time of his departure, be considered as having
exercised his right of expatriation, and shall thenceforth
be considered no citizen.24
The second section enacted
that such person shall be held as an alien forever after, and
shall not resume the rights of citizenship without going
through the same process of naturalization as other citi-
25
zens.
When the bill first came up in committee
of the whole, 26 Lowndes (S. C.) remarked that
it dealt with "a subject of too much import-
ance to be acted on by so thin a house," and
it was postponed. Robertson (Ky) opened
the long debate.27 The same proposition years
ago had met with opposition both expected
23 Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 448.
24 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 284.
26 Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 495.
The quotation is taken from a summary of the bill.
26 December 24, 1817.
27 December 26, 1817.
EXPATRIATION
145
en-
and unexpected. It had been considered, as
most principles not borrowed from the com-
mon law (to which he alluded in a very sar-
castic way), as fraught with great mischief.
It interfered with negotiations, and
couraged desertion, piracy, and every sin in
the Decalogue. But he was now redeeming
his pledge to bring it up again. It was not
borrowed from England, and it might prove
beneficial to the patriots of South America,
and odious to the friends of Ferdinand. It
might rescue citizens from the crime of piracy
attributed to them by treaty. Yet he should
press the principle.
He considered expatriation to be an ac-
knowledged natural right, and demanded that
opponents show proof of indelible allegiance.
Man had natural rights, governments had
The friends of liberty were not inno-
vators. The right of the government to per-
petual allegiance did not exist here—where
was it in the Constitution? His principle,
liberty, was in the Constitution. It was in-
alienable, and was a necessary consequence of
naturalization. He denounced the absurdity
of their right to naturalize and the right of
another government to the allegiance of the
person naturalized.
He had seen some in-
genious quibbling in favor of that nonsense.
none.
A
146
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Perhaps the right of expatriation had never
been denied in ancient or modern days except
by English, Chinese, and, it might be, Hottentot
governments. Thor and Woden were be-
lieved to be the authors of the principle of in-
delible allegiance—the idea had originated in
the dark ages. Expatriation had been prac-
ticed by Jews, Greeks (Lycurgus), and Ro-
mans. He quoted as Cicero's this language:
O glorious right by the Divine favor obtained for us by
our ancestors in the commencement of the Roman name;
by which no man can be the citizen of more than one
country; by which no man can be compelled to leave it
against his will, nor remain in it against his inclination !
This is the firmest foundation of our liberty, that every
man should have an absolute power to retain or abandon
his right at his election.
France in 1793 had made the loss of citizen-
ship follow from naturalization in a foreign
country or the acceptance of office from other
than a popular government. Since the right
of expatriation had been denied in America,28
and the enjoyment of it denied when the right
was admitted,20 it was necessary for Congress
to secure them by law. The law proposed was
in substance a copy of the Virginia act. It did
not presume to give the right, but pointed out
the manner of exercising it.
Anderson (Ky.) had no doubt of the exist-
28 Case of I. Williams.
3 Dallas, 133.
EXPATRIATION
147
ence of the right; probably it would not be
denied or doubted. But he would examine
the question of constitutional power of pre-
scribing rules for its exercise before that of
the policy of so doing. Such power did not
exist. It could not be fairly inferred, nor was
it necessary or convenient for the exercise of
other powers. The grant of the power to
naturalize did not imply its correlative, any
more than the power to borrow money im-
plied that to lend money, or import duty power
implied export duty power.
They must also distinguish between ac-
knowledging a right and granting power to
prescribe the manner of enjoying the right.
The proposed Thirteenth Amendment, exclud-
ing any citizen from office under a foreign
power, with the penalty that he "shall cease
to be a citizen of the United States," had been
sanctioned by twelve states. That Congress
deemed there was a necessity for that amend-
ment was a recognition of the fact that they
could not declare the acts that should be
equivalent to renunciation of citizenship. Yet
that was what the bill in effect did. Rights
that the Constitution created might be con-
trolled in their exercise by law, but this right
was not created by it. If this power existed in
any legislative body, it was in the state legis-
148 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
latures. Some of them had already exercised
it; denying it to them would lead to a conflict
with Virginia.
This power of declaring what should dis-
franchise a citizen of a state was too great a
one to concede to the general government.
It was a question whether the unrestrained
enjoyment of the right was not better and
more fully secured by denying to anybody the
power to legislate regarding it. Legislation
to secure rights was often unnecessary, and
often dangerous. Their perfect enjoyment de-
pended upon the entire absence of legislative
control. Power could be claimed that would
enable Congress' to require a mode of expa-
triation so inconvenient as to amount to an
entire denial of the right. Foreign legislators
might even require forms and notice of inten-
tion. They were then recognizing the validity
of British statutes that held the emigrant to
be bound by his foreign allegiance. No coun-
tenance should be given to the idea that their
naturalized citizens had not every privilege
and safety. Emigration was rapid among
the states and mere departure forfeited the
character of citizenship. No state had deemed
law to be necessary to define the act of for-
feiture.
They must rest simply upon the character
EXPATRIATION
149
of the government to keep their citizens. He
would never raise legal fences against immi-
gration, nor have any artificial barriers to keep
men in; yet he thought the bill before them
was both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Johnson (Ky.) declared that the Declara-
tion of Independence recognized the right of
expatriation. Denial of it was not modern, but
originated in the days of feudal tenures and
oath of fealty, perpetual fealty leading to per-
petual allegiance. Not a nation in Europe re-
fused to let its citizens or subjects become citi-
zens and subjects of another nation. The
right was as sacred and inalienable as any
right. But what became of the power to
naturalize when the right of expatriation was
denied ? Judicial decisions against the right
made legislation to point out the mode of its
exercise indispensable.
Pindall (Va.) had understood the friends of
the bill as viewing it only as providing a
record of a legal expatriation, but their com-
plaints against the courts, etc., proved that this
was not so. Was it intended
Was it intended to expatriate
from the general government only and not
from the states? Or from either one? Or
both? Congress, he declared, had no control
over state allegiance, and state allegiance se-
cured to a person general privileges. There
150
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
were no considerations of policy or of ex-
pediency to recommend the bill. It would be
a shelter for the traitor and the pirate, and its
passage would involve the commission of
fraud against their treaties, several of which
contained the article that was in the Spanish
treaty. No one would ever avail himself of the
provisions of the bill without motives of idle-
ness or criminality. He had never heard of any
country that granted naturalization only after
an expatriation according to law. If it were
otherwise, citizens might have an excuse for
the use of that bill. He was willing to grant
the right of expatriation, but not that of fight-
ing against one's country. Something was
still owed to the former citizenship. There
was no hint in the Constitution of an oath of
abjuration.
As to the difficulties growing
out of double allegiance, they might well leave
the individual to the result of his own en-
tangling, and explain anomalies by reference
to the abnormal state of war and the force it
necessitated. The awkwardness of the con-
ception was due to forsaking the old view of
expatriation as involving a prejudice (dis-
grace) rather than a right. Virginia, the only
state adopting expatriation as a policy, did so
at the close of the Revolutionary war, and the
fact was an evidence of her magnanimity.
EXPATRIATION
151
Little harm had resulted from her action, and
yet her statute was better regarded as a mu-
seum ornament than as a legislative precedent.
The bill before them would do much evil.
Lowndes (S. C.) moved to strike out sec.
I of the bill.30 It would bring no benefits and
was unconstitutional. The existence of the
right was admitted, and was sufficiently recog-
nized by Congress. So delicate a power as
that of regulating it should be expressly grant-
ed. It would release from all liabilities and
also release from all privileges. The view
that the Constitution should control the rights
of citizens was upheld by the proposed amend-
ment already referred to. As there was no
law to regulate the exercise of rebellion, so
no legislation was necessary to secure the
right of expatriation, even if the Constitution
had given the needed power. What did the
treaty provision mean more than the loss of
protection? Robertson (La.) replied at
length to Lowndes. Henry Clay took the
same view as Robertson as to the Spanish
treaty and referred to a piracy trial at Boston
as illustrating its effect.
An all-day discussion 31 ensued on the mo-
tion to strike out the first section. McLane
80 This motion was, of course, intended to kill the bill.
81 February 28, 1818.
152
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
It
(Del.) declared it to be unnecessary to affirm
or deny the right to expatriate. He would
seek to show that the measure was unconstitu-
tional and would be inefficient. Assuming the
right, it was a civil one whose exercise must
be consistent with mutual obligations. He
dwelt on the states’-rights argument against
the constitutionality of the measure. Even if
released by the general government, a person
continued to be a citizen of his state. An in-
definite supremacy over the personal rights
and effects of individuals was implied in the
measure.
was inexpedient for many
reasons, novel and unreasonable. It con-
cerned a delicate and extreme right shaking
the foundations of civil government.
The
exercise of the right presupposed a fault in
the country, and was always to be deplored.
They should not make that exercise easy,
weakening the love of country.
A better
policy was to encourage immigration. The
right claimed exonerated man from every
sort of civil obligation, and legalized treason,
plunder, and spoil. Their duties to their own
dignity and to the world forbade that. The
effects of the law in the case of a crisis at home
might be serious. Many would evade the
danger by means of it.
Johnson replied that McLane's arguments
EXPATRIATION
153
rested on an old feudal doctrine unknown in
England till the time of William I. No Vir-
ginian would abandon his country in danger.
Citizens of the United States did possess the
right in question in most ample, unlimited,
and unlimitable degree. They had derived it
from heaven. The decision in the Williams
case was an act of tyranny and oppression, for
which the judge ought to have been im-
peached. England's conduct in making two
years' service in the navy constitute a person a
citizen asserted the right. To presume to
naturalize, and at the same time to deny the
right of expatriation, ought to subject a gov-
ernment to ridicule and scorn. Nevertheless,
he believed that the bill was unconstitu-
tional.
Cobb (Ga.) said that the object of the bill
was not to change any known law, but rather
to declare that the principle of perpetual al-
legiance had no force in the United States.
The constitutional right to point out the man-
ner of exercising it was clearly incidental to
the power of establishing a uniform rule of
naturalization, and necessarily resulted from it.
The powers were correlative, and the one
could not be conceived without the other. In
the case of naturalization, the law only pre-
scribed the rule for the act of the individual.
154 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
It was also so in expatriation, for the bill im-
posed no restriction on the right. They need
not be anxious about the fate of the citizen
who became an outlaw by his own act. He
could not conceive of any effect of the meas-
ure on state sovereignty. After renouncing
the citizenship of all the states, one could not
claim to be a citizen of any one of them.
Prince Eugene, Marshal Saxe, and General
Patkul had all fought against the country of
their birth. Had no difficulties arisen, there
liad been no necessity for legislating upon this
subject.
A decision to strike out sec. I was reached
by a small majority of the committee of the
whole. The House concurred in this action.
A sharp contest then ensued to save the bill,
Johnson and Robertson claiming that it was
yet capable of amendment. Others opposed
this effort as utterly unparliamentary, and ad-
journment was finally accomplished with a
motion by Johnson pending, to lay the bill on
the table. Later 32 Johnson withdrew his mo-
tion, and proposed as a substitute for the re-
maining section of the bill a new measure, as
follows:
That whereas sundry persons who had been citizens of
the United States of America, and who had exercised the
33 March 2, 1818.
EXPATRIATION
155
right of dissolving the connection which bound them to the
United States in the character of citizens, by voluntarily
and regularly becoming citizens or subjects of other gov-
ernments, have been held bound to answer in the character
of citizens, in the courts of the United States, for offences
alleged to have been committed subsequently to the exer-
cise of this right; and for which citizens only would be
amenable, in the said courts. And whereas, in the Declara-
tion of Independence, of the thirteen United States of
America, the following truths are held to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There-
fore be it enacted and it is hereby expressly enacted and
declared that all men do possess the right to seek their
happiness in any climate, and under any form of govern-
ment they may elect; and that, consequently, the right to
dissolve the connexion which binds the individual to the
government of the United States, in the character of citi-
zen, and to form a similar connexion with any other gov-
ernment, is equally unalienable, and founded on truth
equally self-evident.
Williams (N. C.) declared it to be beyond
the constitutional power of the House to pass
the measure, and that every honest man in the
country would disdain to take advantage of
it. Should they then legislate for the vicious ?
No man in the House was a stronger advocate
of the right of expatriation than he was, but
they could not regulate it without circum-
scribing it. It was a right reserved to the
people. They were proposing to legislate fel-
low-citizens into aliens. He touched a very
156 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
If an
fundamental question when he said that his op-
ponents held that the right of expatriation at-
tached to the individual upon his leaving his
native country, while those with him held that
it attached upon his becoming the citizen or
subject of another country. The difference was
as to a point of time. All persons must be
subject to the laws of some society. The
United States could not make a person a sub-
ject of Great Britain, nor Great Britain make
one a subject of the United States.
American became a subject of Britain, it was
by British law; and this right to become a Brit-
ish subject the United States acknowledged.
Abbott (Ga.) favored the amendment as a
mere declaratory expression of Congress. It
might have some weight with the courts.
Johnson also declared that the question before
them then was a mere declaratory provision,
the object being to exclude a wrong inference
from the last vote. It prescribed no rule and
no act. No construction of it as legislating
a person out of his rights was possible. After
other unreported speeches, a motion to post-
pone indefinitely both bill and amendment
failed: yeas, 73; nays, 88.33 A motion to sub-
stitute the word "declared" for "enacted” in
the enacting clause was lost.
33 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 289.
34 Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 1093.
34
Vote, 67 to 76.
EXPATRIATION
157
Again an amendment was offered in an ef-
fort to save a part of the contention of the sup-
porters of the bill, and provide a measure that
a majority of the House would accept. Rob-
ertson moved to strike out the second section
and insert the following:
That in all prosecutions which may hereafter be insti-
tuted against any person for having engaged in military, or
naval service, for or against any foreign power, when with-
out the jurisdiction of the United States, who, before the
commission of the fact with which he may stand charged,
shall have been a citizen of the United States, but shall
have exercised his right of expatriation, by becoming the
citizen or subject of any foreign state or community by
adoption, it shall be lawful for such person to give such
fact of expatriation in evidence, upon the general issue,
and if upon the trial of such person so charged as aforesaid,
he shall prove such fact to the satisfaction of the jury, he
shall be discharged from such prosecution.*
As a result of this amendment, action on the
bill was deferred to give time for its considera-
tion. When the bill was next before the
House,34 Forsythe moved to insert between
"by” and “becoming” in the phrase "by be-
coming the citizen or subject of any foreign
state," the words “recording in the office of
the clerk of some one of the district courts of
the United States, a declaration that such is
his intention twelve months prior to.”
36 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 291.
30 March 4, 1817.
158 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Robertson's amendment had proposed the
test of foreign citizenship to determine expa-
triation. He had thus occupied the ground of
Williams (N. C.), only that he sought to add
to it the sanction of a law with a limited ap-
plication. Forsythe's amendment involved a
long step back toward the measure first pro-
posed, and was certain to revive a string of
constitutional objections. It was lost, appar-
ently without division. A motion followed to
strike out "for or," and thus limit the appli-
cation of the measure to the case of service
"against any foreign power.” Thus a right
to fight against one's native country would
have been refused recognition, and empha-
sis given to fighting against a foreign power.
The motion was
was supported by Terry and
Coulson, and opposed by Edwards, Rob-
ertson, and Lowndes. It failed to pass by a
large majority. “For or against any foreign
power” remained, but a motion in the same
direction as the last one, avoiding some of the
inferences that it would have involved, passed.
The phrase "and not in hostility against the
said states' was inserted after the words
“United States," by a vote of 65 to 59.
Several other amendments were then agreed
to, the result of which was to eliminate all direct
reference to expatriation. The clause "shall
EXPATRIATION
159
have exercised his right of expatriation, by be-
coming the citizen or subject of any foreign
state or community by adoption," was changed
to read “shall have bona fide and voluntarily
become the citizen or subject of any foreign
state, while within its jurisdiction.” This re-
sult was reached step by step. “Or com-
munity" and "by adoption” were dropped out
separately, and “bona fide and voluntarily,"
and “while within its jurisdiction,” were sep-
arately added. In the original amendment,
"give such fact of expatriation" was changed
to "give the fact that he has been naturalized
in some foreign state.”
After being thus amended, the amendment
was substituted for sec. 2 (all that remained of
the original bill), by a vote of 93 to 61.
Sec. 2, which thus disappeared, had made
the renaturalization of persons expatriated
the condition of their restoration to citizen-
ship. Williams (N. C.) offered at this point
a new section declaring that no person who
availed himself of the privileges of the bill and
became expatriated should ever after be per-
mitted to be naturalized as a citizen of the
United States. His motion was rejected.
Robertson opposed the bill as it had been
amended, mainly the clause that denied a
87 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 298; An.
mals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 1104-6.
37
160 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
right to fight for the country of adoption
against the native country. His opposition
led to the reconsideration and defeat of the
amendment by which the phrase "and not in
hostility against the said states” had been in-
serted. The final action taken at the end of
this long course of debate and maneuvering
was to reject the bill by a vote of 64 to 75.38
No other serious attempt to define the right of
expatriation occurred for fifty years.
Niles Register39 quoted the National Intel-
ligencer in reference to what the latter called
"the animated debate" on the expatriation
bill. It said that the sense of the House ap-
peared to be
against legislating on the question of expatriation, on the
ground, that to prescribe the mode of exercising a funda-
mental right is to assume the power of limiting it, which
power, it is contended, does not belong to Congress.
The question was one surrounded with diffi-
culties, but the able debate would have shed a
light that might lead to a
definitive rule on a point regarding which it appears, that
the decision of Congress and the opinion of the courts of
the United States are at variance.
A few later references to the subject may be
mentioned in closing this chapter. Editorial
88 House Journal, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 300; Am.
nals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, First Session, 1107.
89 XIV, 27; February 27, 1818.
EXPATRIATION
161
articles appeared at different times in Niles
Register on the subject of expatriation. In
one the editor wrote: "Without expatriation
there cannot be naturalization." 40 In another
the “perpetual allegiance doctrine" of "praters
of royalty" was attacked, and proofs were of-
fered that even Russia was naturalizing. 41 A
similar and more forcible article was based
upon the report in London papers of the nat-
uralization of George Leopold Coburg by Par-
liament "in the space of six minutes.” Per-
petual allegiance was asserted to be "the most
abominable doctrine that ever was held forth."
For anti-slavery people to hold it "was too im-
pudent to be borne with patience."42
ticle entitled “Who Are Citizens?” held that
Americans who had served Mexico in war
were expatriated and should not vote in the
United States. Either they were not citizens
or they were pirates; and yet a law was needed
to provide regularly for expatriation.43
John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary in
1824 that Calhoun doubted the right of ex-
patriation, declared that he had always been
against it in feeling, and had never committed
himself upon it during the War of 1812.
An ar-
10 Niles Register, V, 237; 1813.
41 Ibid., X, 167; 1816.
42 Ibid., X, 170; 1816.
48 Ibid., XXXV, 162; November 8, 1828.
162 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Adams agreed with him in sentiment, but
thought that they had foreclosed that argu-
ment against themselves by the oath renoun-
cing foreign allegiance, which they required
from foreigners as the condition of naturaliza-
tion. A few days later the subject came up
again between them, and Calhoun was em-
phatically of the opinion that native-born citi-
zens of the United States had no such right,
except Virginians. They had it by virtue of
a law of their state. 44
The limitation of this opinion to native-born
citizens involves a peculiar distinction. The in-
ference from it is that the United States, by
requiring renunciation of former allegiance
from foreigners, had conferred upon them a
right (not shared by native-born citizens) to
claim the principle of expatriation against the
government, if they should wish to do so.
Probably the suggestion given by Adams
helped Calhoun to reach this conclusion. The
suggestion as to Virginians is a striking illus-
tration of the controlling character of the
states'-rights idea in the mind of Calhoun at
that early period. The complete denial of any
real federal citizenship, or at least of any such
citizenship without the domain of ordinary
state control, is fundamental to it.
44
J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, VI, 381, 385; June 10 and 13, 1824.
EXPATRIATION
163
The United States Senate in 1839 45 referred
and ordered printed a resolution of the Mich-
igan General Assembly urging the adoption
of measures to insure that foreign powers
recognize the rights of naturalized citizens.
In substance, it was as follows: Whereas the
constitution of Michigan is pre-eminently char-
acterized by its spirit of liberality to the for-
eign emigrant, 46 and it is just, right, and proper
that no envious distinctions should exist in
the United States between adopted and native
citizens, and the free right of expatriation is
yet unrecognized in treaties with foreign
nations, subjecting, in case of war, many adopted
citizens to the peril of being deemed and treated
as traitors; Resolved: That our senators are in-
structed and our representative is requested
to use their efforts for the adoption of such
measures as will insure the recognition, by
foreign powers, of the absolute citizenship of
all foreigners naturalized by the existing laws
of the United States. This resolution, by its
reference to treaties with foreign powers on
the subject of expatriation, forecasted clearly
the ultimate solution of the question.
45 (341) Senate Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Ses-
sion, No. 262 (February 25, 1839); (337) Senate Journal, Twenty-
fifth Congress, Third Session, 270; and (353) ibid., Twenty-sixth
Congress, First Session, 84.
16 Every "white male inhabitant" of legal age who was “a
resident of the State" at the time of the adoption of the first
Michigan constitution in 1835 was given the suffrage (Poore,
Charters and Constitutions, I, 984).
164 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
An accompanying memorial 47 of natural-
ized citizens of Michigan prayed for measures
to secure the recognition of their rights as
citizens of the United States. They had sev-
ered former relations, transferred their alle-
giance, and were attached by strongest ties
and by solemn oath to the United States gov-
ernment. By requiring them to bear arms
it virtually guaranteed to them the full and
equal rights of natives. Yet British jurists
and courts insisted on the doctrine of perpet-
ual allegiance, which was at war with their
equal rights. The enlightenment and liberal
policy of the British cabinet at that time 48
justified belief in their favorable consideration
of the measures desired. A few weeks before
the resolution of the Michigan Legislature
was received, the Senate had referred the pe-
tition of a naturalized Irishman, who had es-
caped from Canada after being sentenced for
treason for aiding in the Canadian rebellion.
He asked that the rights of naturalized citi-
zens of the United States might be ascertained
and defined. England's laws were character-
izing one-fourth of the population of the United
States as her perpetual subjects. The United
47 (341) Senate Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Ses-
sion, No. 263.
48 This was the second Melbourne ministry. Palmerston, John
Russell, and T. B. Macaulay were in the leading offices.
EXPATRIATION
165
States should settle forever their status in time
of peace, for in case of war with England
they could enlist only subject to treason pen-
alties.49
A petition of Sherlock S. Gregory, Renssel-
aer County, New York, was presented in the
House in 1837 by John Quincy Adams. The
author prayed to be considered an alien, or
stranger in the land, so long as slavery existed
and the wrongs of the Indians were unre-
quited or unrepented of.50
In January, 1858, a resolution was agreed
to in the House directing the Committee on
Judiciary to inquire if any, and what, legisla-
tion by Congress might be proper to define
what acts should, or should not, work expa-
triation or severance of allegiance by citizens
of the United States;
and also whether provision by law ought to be made for
reinvesting with citizenship such persons, born in the
United States, as may have assumed allegiance or citizen-
ship to any foreign government.
Two years later52 a similar resolution received
the same reference, and with it the further
query whether provision by law ought not to
49 (340) Senate Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Ses-
sion, No. 165.
60 (310) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, First Session,
53; September 14, 1837.
81 (940) Ibid., Thirty-fifth Congress, First Session, 199.
62 February 16, 1860.
1
166
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
be made to vindicate the exemption of nat-
uralized citizens of the United States from the
claims of other governments of a right to en-
force against such citizens the obligations of
a prior and different allegiance.53 Later the
Judiciary Committee, at its own
request,
was discharged from the consideration of
this last subject in the resolution, and it was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Af-
fairs.54 A bill introduced by I. N. Morris,
to provide for expatriation, etc., and to restrain citizens of
the United States from entering into the military or naval
service of foreign States, etc., and for other purposes,
was before the House Judiciary Committee in
1860; and was ordered printed, together with
certain notes on the subject, in March of that
year. A few days later, on motion of its chair-
man, the committee was discharged from further
consideration of this bil1.55
63 (1041) House Journal, Thirty-sixth Congress, First Session,
314.
54 (1042) ibid., 994.
66 (1041) ibid., 216, 311, 423, 519.
t
CHAPTER X
THE ACT OF 1824
After the War of 1812, and with the com-
ing of peace to Europe, immigration to the
United States increased very rapidly. It was
generally welcomed until 1838. Nearly all of
the agitation on the subject of naturalization
had for its object the removal of restrictions
upon aliens. The provision of the laws that
required a previous declaration of intention
was the one most vigorously attacked. The
opposition to it was successful in changing
the law in several respects during the decade
from 1820 to 1830. The general principle
that there should be a preliminary testing
period under a declaration of intention with-
stood all attacks upon it, but the period re-
quired was reduced from three to two years.
A special modification of the law was made in
favor of aliens who came to the United States
as minors, and hence were incapable of taking
the steps preliminary to citizenship during the
early years of their residence. It was thought
that persons who cast their lot with the United
States in youth could more safely be trusted
to make good citizens than those who came
167
168 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
later. Their admission did not require the
same safeguards. Another change was in the
interest of persons whose long residence in
the United States might compensate for the
lack of the required declaration. The history
of these measures is now to be considered.
The first two of the changes mentioned above
were made by the act of 1824, and the third
by that of 1828.
Early in 1822, on motion of Tucker (S. C.),
the House Judiciary Committee considered
the matter of allowing aliens who had resided
in the United States one year before the be-
ginning of the War of 1812, and continuously
since, to become citizens without complying
with the requirement of a declaration of in-
tention three years before their application.
The report on the subject was as follows:
The condition is, in the opinion of the committee, a
very reasonable one, and one with which it is easy to com-
ply where the intention really exists. To dispense with it is
to commit a breach in the established system, and to make
residence without declared intention to become a citizen,
sufficient to entitle a person to become a citizen. This does
not seem to the committee to be necessary or expedient, and
they therefore offer the following resolution: "Resolved,
That the committee be discharged from the further con-
sideration of the subject."
The report and the subject were both effect-
ually disposed of for that session by reference
ACT OF 1824
169
to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union. The next session the House
ordered the report to be reprinted.?
Preliminary to the passage of the act of
1824 there was consideration of a request for
a private naturalization act, the object of
which was to avoid the requirement of resi-
dence after a declaration of intention. Rep-
resentative Cobb (Ga.) presented the petition
of Peter L. Jackson, representing that he was
a native of England, and came to the United
States while a minor in 1802. He had not been
naturalized, but had grown to manhood in the
country, had married a
married a native American
woman, raised a family of children, and had
repeatedly performed military duty in the last
war with England. Since the war he had re-
peatedly been appointed to office by the ex-
ecutive and the people of Georgia, and had
ever considered himself to be a citizen of the
United States. Recently, however, he had
been ejected from a civil office to which he
had been elected, as the result of a judicial
decision that he was not a citizen of the United
States. He prayed that a special act might be
passed admitting him forthwith to the rights
1 (62) House Journal, Seventeenth Congress, First Session,
268, 349; (70) House Reports of Committees, Seventeenth Congress,
First Session, No. 68.
? (86) House Reports of Committees, Seventeenth Congress,
Second Session, No. 47.
170
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
of a citizen. The House Judiciary Committee,
to whom this petition was referred, reported
briefly: “Resolved, That the prayer of the
petitioner ought not to be granted." The
House concurred in the report.3 Probably no
favor would have been shown to any propo-
sition to naturalize a single individual. The
same session of Congress that rejected this
petition, did, however, let the bars down for
the class of persons to which this petitioner
belonged.
The aliens of Paterson, N. J., at a meet-
ing held October 21, 1823, perhaps inau-
gurated the movement leading to the changes
that were made in 1824. They addressed
"their fellow emigrants throughout the union,"
and called on all brother-aliens to co-operate
with them. They said:
We, conceiving that the alien laws are detrimental to
the United States, and injurious to us, deem it to be our
duty to make an appeal to Congress to obtain a revision of
them.
They were unalterably convinced that their
full participation in the republican immunities
was essentially interwoven with the prosperity
of the commonwealth. The interest of the
citizen and the republican immigrant were in
union of sentiment. They hoped that discus-
3 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 86,
118.
ACT OF 1824
171
sion of the subject of intention would make
clear that the probationary laws were oppo-
site in their nature to the liberal and mild in-
stitutions of the United States, which had at-
tracted them from transatlantic despotism.
Thousands of them, unacquainted with the
nature of the existing alien law, had neglected
to comply with its provisions. They had
lacked knowledge of the proper mode of pro-
cedure, and distance from the proper authori-
ties had been an almost insuperable obstacle
in their way. They called earnestly for the
attention of their brother-aliens to consider
their best interests, and submitted to them
the propriety of petitioning Congress to facili-
tate the right of citizenship. They urged the
aliens in each state to solicit the aid of their
members of Congress. They appealed to citi-
zens also for assistance to obtain their reason-
able request. It would remove the prejudices
generated by national feeling, and enable the
firm supporters of the government to distin-
guish friends from foes. Finally, they resolved
to raise a subscription to further their views,
and solicited editors generally to insert their
appeal.
Petitions from various parts of the country
were soon before Congress. New Jersey and
4 Niles Register, XXV, 150.
172 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
New York City were represented, and citizens
of New York supported the request of the
aliens in a separate petition.5 Sundry aliens
of Louisiana prayed that the laws upon the
subject of naturalization be amended to the
end that greater facilities might be afforded
to foreigners intending to become citizens.
Other Louisiana aliens prayed that a special
law might be passed for their naturalization,
for reasons set forth in their petition. A
memorial of certain inhabitants of Savannah,
Ga., represented that they were natives of
foreign countries, who had reported, upon
their arrival in America, to the clerks of courts
of the United States and signed a declaration
of intention to become citizens of the United
States. They had also taken the oaths, and
ever since, until lately, had supposed them-
selves to be citizens of the United States. A
recent decision of the United States District
Court for Georgia had held that their naturali-
zations were illegal, and that they were aliens
in consequence of their not having reported
themselves and signed the declaration in open
court. They prayed that one act might be
passed to legalize the acts by which it was
supposed that they became citizens.
6 Annals of Congress, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 1428;
January 19, February 9, 1824.
House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 238, 288.
? Annals of Congress, Eighteenth Congress, First Session,
1619; February 23, 1824.
7
ACT OF 1824
173
The House referred the Louisiana petitions
to a select committee, and a little later trans-
ferred to it a number of petitions that had
gone to the Judiciary Committee. Among
the subjects transferred to the special com-
mittee was a resolution of inquiry as to
whether any changes were necessary in the
existing naturalization laws,
and also, into the expediency of furnishing copies of those
laws to the courts of the several states authorized to
naturalize aliens, so as to secure to persons desirous of
naturalization the benefit thereof.10
As a rule, reference to a select committee
meant consignment to the hands of friends.
It was the regular method of saving a meas-
ure from a hostile standing committee, or from
a committee whose attitude toward it might
be uncertain. A bill was reported in part on
March 8,11
Apparently the committee in-
tended to deal with the variety of questions
involved in the various petitions before it, but
for some reason, probably because the Senate
was making progress with a measure before
it, the House carried its own measures 110
farther.
8 February 16, and March 3.
9 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 238,
288; Annals of Congress, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 1627;
February 24, 1824.
10 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session, 46.
11 (92) ibid., 298.
174 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
The Senate had started from a petition of
Indiana aliens, praying for a modification of
the laws. The first bill reported by its Judi-
ciary Committee was recommitted. It was re-
ported back without amendment and laid on
the table, and a new bill that accompanied it
was pushed rapidly to its passage, after under-
going one amendment, on the motion of
Holmes (Me.), limiting its provisions to free
white persons. A motion by Taylor (Va.) to
strike out all after the first section, and insert
two new sections, was lost. Nothing can be
conjectured as to the nature and purpose of
this amendment.12
There remained only six days of the ses-
sion. After three days the House Judiciary
Committee reported the Senate bill without
amendment. The House passed it the next
day at an evening session, and the President
signed it the same night.13
Meanwhile the House Judiciary Committee
had received instructions to inquire into the
expediency “of fixing, by law, the fees proper
to be allowed for the official duties performed
in relation to the naturalization of aliens," 14
12 (88) Senate Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session,
136, 151, 196, 290, 298, 449, 455; Annals of Congress, Eighteenth
Congress, First Session, May 21, 1824.
13 (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress, First Session,
568, 509, 577, 593; (88) Senate Journal, Eighteenth Congress,
First Session, 499.
14 March 3, 1824.
ACT OF 1824
175
» 15
and the expediency "of prohibiting, by law,
the employment of any person, except a citi-
zen of the United States, in any of the Depart-
ments of the Government.
The act of 1824 was entitled: “An act in
further addition to 'An act to establish an
uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal
the acts heretofore passed.'” Sec. I provided
that any alien, being free white and under
twenty-one, who should have resided in the
United States three years, and continued to
reside therein to the time of making his appli-
cation to become a citizen, might, after be-
coming twenty-one, and after he had resided
in the United States five years, including three
years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of
the United States without having made the
required declaration three years before his ad-
mission. The required declaration was to be
made at the time of his admission, and also
the further declaration on oath, and proof to
the satisfaction of the court, that for the prev-
ious three years it had been his bona fide. in-
tention to become a citizen of the United
States. In all other respects the former laws
were to be complied with.
Sec. 2 declared that no certificates of nat-
uralization previously obtained from any court
16 March 8, 1824; (92) House Journal, Eighteenth Congress,
First Session, 289, 299.
176 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
of record should be deemed invalid in conse-
quence of omission to comply with the re-
quirements of sec. I of the act of 1816. Sec. 3
referred to any declarations of intention made
bona fide before the clerks of proper courts,
and made them as valid as though they had
been made before the courts themselves. The
final section provided that a declaration of in-
tention to become a citizen made according
to law by any free white alien, two years be-
fore his admission, should be a sufficient com-
pliance with the requirement of the law.10
Aliens still urged further modifications of
the laws for naturalization. Van Buren pre-
sented a petition to this effect in 1825, and
another in 1826.17 In 1826, on the motion of
Weens (Md.), the House Committee on
Judiciary was instructed to consider the ex-
pediency of amending the naturalization laws
so that when any person applied for citizen-
ship and proved, by two witnesses, five years'
previous residence in the United States, with
the places of the same, he should be deemed
a citizen and be entitled to a certificate of nat-
uralization, although he had omitted, from
ignorance or improper information, or from
being a minor, to have entered his name as a
10 Statutes at Large, IV, 69.
17 Niles Register, XXVII, 412; (124) Senate Journal, Nine.
tecnth Congress, First Session, 103.
ACT OF 1824
177
19
candidate for naturalization. The committee
was to inquire also as to other alterations that
might be necessary. Nothing came of this nio-
tion, and it was renewed the following session
with as little result.18
John Quincy Adams, then president, wrote
in his diary, July 3, 1827:
Mr. Rush called, and read me a letter from himself to
C. J. Ingersoll upon the subject of naturalizing foreigners.
He is averse to all laws restrictive of naturalization, and
would confer the rights of a native citizen to every for-
eigner from the day of his setting foot upon our soil. With
this opinion I do not exactly concur.
A year later 20 the above-mentioned com-
mittee received similar instructions as to "re-
vising and reducing into one, the several acts
of Congress establishing rules of naturaliza-
tion;" and, also, as to admitting aliens who
were in the United States before 1812 on the
same terms as those who arrived before 1802
were admitted (i. e., without a previous dec-
laration of intention). For the third time
Weems now secured the reference of a reso-
lution for inquiry as to amending the naturali-
zation laws.21 His former resolutions had con-
templated the admission of aliens, although
18 (130) House Journal, Nineteenth Congress, First Session,
347; (147) House Journal, Nineteenth Congress, Second Session,
87.
10 Memoirs, VII, 301.
20 December 11, 1827.
21 December 20, 1827. .
178 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
they had omitted to make declaration of inten-
tion. The instructions mentioned had now
provided for the consideration of a part of that
subject. Weems' motion directed the inquiry
into the expediency “of so harmonizing the
several conflicting laws” on the subject of nat-
uralization “that persons heretofore or here-
after applying to become citizens of the United
States," upon making the required proofs of
five years' previous residence, should, two years
thereafter, be deemed citizens of the United
States, and, upon taking the oath of allegiance
and paying the legal costs, should be entitled to
receive certificates of naturalization.22 This
seems to involve giving the rights of citizen-
ship without the requirement of an oath of
allegiance, and without the expense involved
in procuring a certificate. Perhaps it was
thought that the oath need not be required,
nor would a certificate be necessary while the
new citizen remained in the United States.
If, however, he wished the certificate for any
purpose, let him take the oath of allegiance
and pay for the certificate. The oath of alle-
giance would thus become merely a special
pledge of allegiance already due.
A little later,23 Buchanan reported from the
Judiciary Committee a bill to amend the nat-
22 (168) House Journal, Twentieth Congress, First Session, 76.
23 January 30, 1828.
ACT OF 1824
179
uralization acts. In a statement to the House
concerning the matter, he said that an alien
must prove five years' residence in the United
States by disinterested testimony, and must
exhibit a certificate that he had declared his
intention two years before he made applica-
tion to become a citizen. Neither of those
provisions was to be interfered with. A cer-
tificate of registry before a court was also re-
quired as the only legal evidence of the time
of arrival in the United States. An alien who
had lived in the United States ten years must
reside therein five years longer, if he had neg-
lected to register his arrival. Such neglect
was common, indeed almost universal. The
law was either unknown by them or was neg-
lected. Some courts carried out the require-
ment of the law, while others did not do so.
In 1824 Congress had made certificates of nat-
uralization good without their reciting the
fact of registry. The committee thought that
it would simplify the law to dispense with the
registry. Sec. 2 was to provide for another
class of cases. Aliens who had arrived since
the passage of the act of 1802 must show a
certificate of declaration of intention made two
years before their application for admission.
The committee thought that this might be
dispensed with, if they showed continuous
180 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
24 and
25
residence in the United States from before
June 18, 1812. This would require proof of
constant residence for nearly sixteen years,
and accorded strictly with former precedents.
Similar provisions had been inserted in the
law in 1802 and in 1804, but none since then
for twenty-four years.
In thus representing
the matter, Buchanan ignored the fact that
the chief object of the former provisions was
to mitigate special hardships arising from
changes made in the laws. The bill passed
both houses without any amendment,
became a law May 24, 1828.2
In 1835 the House had before it a memorial
of sundry citizens of New York state praying
that the naturalization law be so amended
that thereafter no declaration of intention
should be required, but that aliens should be
fully entitled to all the privileges of citizen-
ship, if they proved two years' residence in
the United States. The Judiciary Committee,
to which this was referred. was soon there-
after discharged from further consideration of
it, and the petition was laid on the table.2
24 In the House a paper containing amendments that he in-
tended to propose to the bill was submitted by Verplank (N. Y.)
and referred to the committee of the whole in charge of the bill.
This was on February 15.
26 (168) House Journal, Twentieth Congress, First Session,
233, 662, 670, 677, 875; (162) Senate Journal, Twentieth Con-
gress, First Session, 352, 353, 427, 484; Register of Debates,
Twentieth Congress, First Session, 2555.
26 (270) House Journal, Twenty-third Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 307, 358.
26
ACT OF 1824
181
In the early thirties the House Judiciary
Committee was three times instructed to in-
quire into the expediency of putting into a
single act all of the naturalization provisions
then in force. Twice these instructions in-
cluded also the question of revising the laws.
A bill was reported in February, 1832, making
further provision for the naturalization of
aliens.27 Nothing came of any of these meas-
ures.
Several measures giving or seeking to give
additional civil rights to aliens may be noticed
here. One of them was passed in 1832, as
the result of an inquiry relative to amending
the patent law "so as to place aliens who have
applied to become citizens on an equal foot-
ing with citizens, or aliens who have resided
two years in the United States.” 28 Taylor, who
reported the bill, said that the Patent Act of
1790 gave aliens the same privileges as citi-
zens; that of 1793 had limited the privileges
to citizens; that of 1800 had extended them
to aliens two years in the United States, who
made oath that their invention had not been
made anywhere before. At least seventeen
27 (205) loc. cit., Twenty-first Congress, Second Session, 60, 171;
(215) Ibid., Twenty-second Congress, First Session, 57, 317; (232)
Ibid., Twenty-second Congress, Second Session, 48.
28 (205) ibid., Twenty-first Congress, Second Session, 258;
(215) ibid., Twenty-second Congress, First Session, 158, 177, 1145,
1148, 1187.
182 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
acts had been passed since, dispensing with
the two years' residence, and requiring only
actual residence at the time of the application
for a patent. The bill in hand was on the prin-
ciple of those seventeen acts. It required
residence in the United States, declaration of
intention to become a citizen. and the oath
of the act of 1800.29 Besides the points men-
tioned by Taylor, the act provided that rights
granted under it should lapse, if the invention
were not in use within one year and continu-
ously thereafter, and also in case the inventor
failed to become a citizen at the earliest legal
period.30 In 1837 there was a proposal to
amend the laws in relation to imprisonment
for debt so as to place alien plaintiffs on the
same footing as citizens as to legal remedies, 31
In 1840 the question of granting letters tes-
tamentary and administrative to aliens in the
District of Columbia was referred to the
House Judiciary Committee.32 The New York
Legislature in 1845 passed an act to allow
John Horsley Palmer, president of the Bank
of England, to hold real estate. 33
He was
12 Register of Debates, Twenty-first Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 1500.
30 Statutes at Large, IV, 577.
81 (300) House Journal, Twenty-fourth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 320.
89 (362) ibid., Twenty-sixth Congress, First Session, 966.
33 Niles Register, LXVIII, 179.
29
ACT OF 1824
183
said to have been very favorable to invest-
ments in America, but of course he had no in-
tention of becoming even an alien resident.
Whether he could by the law of a western
state have gained the right to purchase fed-
eral land therein, would be an interesting
question.
CHAPTER XI
THE BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM
There are no reliable statistics of immi-
gration before 1820. The arrivals during
Washington's administration
were
chiefly
English and French. Transportation rates
were high, and were kept up by legislation
limiting the number of passengers to two per
ton of the ship's capacity. The immigrant
was necessarily a person of some means, and
opposition to him was from a political, not an
economic, point of view. The actual influence
of the French Revolution upon immigration
was very great, and its anticipated influence
was much greater. With the advent of the
Napoleonic period most of the immigration
ceased. It began again in greater numbers, and
from other countries also, when peace re-
turned to Europe. We have seen that the in-
clination in America generally was for some
time thereafter in favor of it. Every succeed-
ing period of economic depression, however,
produced a violent reaction against it.
The immigration during each of the two
decades ending in 1820 and 1830 was about
i per cent. of the total population at the end
184
1
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 185
of the decade. During the next decade it
reached 31/2 per cent. of the population in
1840. This percentage was a little more than
doubled during the next decade, and for suc-
ceeding periods it has been 8, 6, 6, and 8 per
cent. The population, the base of these per-
centages, increased quite uniformly by one-
third during all except the later periods.
Niles Register, during 1816, made frequent
mention of the continuing immigration. Dur-
ing the following winter immigration was
"powerful” and would increase. In Septem-
ber, 1817, an article favoring immigration es-
timated the average at ten thousand per year.
That year it would be thirty thousand. The
arrivals for one week in 1819 were given as
1,414. Then came the first note of disap-
proval, as follows: "The time has been when
we were pleased to see the progress of eni-
gration, it is now painful to observe it, because
of the want of employment for our own peo-
ple.” 3 A few weeks later 4 the swelling tide
of foreigners had aroused greater apprehen-
sions, and the first fears of foreign paupers
were expressed. “We have always until just
now greeted the stranger on his arrival here
with pleasure.” There had been room for all,
1 Niles Register, XI, 359.
2 Ibid., XIII, 35.
8 Ibid., July 31, 1819.
4 September 18, 1819.
186 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
but the population in the maritime districts,
and in some parts of the interior, seemed too
dense. The western country was overstocked
by the domestic emigration. A good many
from England, disappointed in finding employ-
ment, were on their way home.
It is reported, that to relieve themselves of their pau-
pers, many such will be sent to the United States by the
church wardens, etc., of England! It will therefore become
the state authorities to be careful to take the proper securi-
ties of those who bring passengers, that they will not
become chargeable on the public.
Probably not fewer than four thousand per-
sons had arrived in two weeks, and perhaps
a thousand more in a month by way of Canada.
The writer felt sure that forty thousand was
more than had ever arrived in any one year,
and that never had so many come any former
year as that year. Yet, he said, the New York
Gazette · spoke of an estimate by a gentleman
of 500,000 in five years as what the emigra-
tion would amount to." A week later it was
said that perhaps three thousand had arrived
the past week. This number was termed
"enormous.
In 1821 the editor thought: "It is not prob-
able that 20,000 persons ever emigrated to the
United States in any one year.'
In 1822
6 Niles Register, XVII, 38.
& Ibid., 63.
7 Ibid., XX, 193.
> 6
97
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM
187
ple." 8
many more had arrived than during the last
year. "They appeared to be substantial peo-
At the close of the year the arrivals
had been greatly overestimated. They ap-
peared, from the official statement laid before
Congress, to have been only 8,482 the past
year. Also this number included citizens of
the United States returning from foreign
ports, but did not include those arriving by
way of the St. Lawrence.' Late in 1823 Niles
ventured the opinion that the United States
in 1821 and 1822 "gained less than 6,000 per-
sons from foreign places." 10
The same year
he noted that twenty-six paupers had been
sent over by a parish in Sussex, which had
paid their passage and given them some
money." In 1827 it was noted that unusual
numbers were arriving, of classes “mostly not
such as we would generally prefer.” 12 A year
later a large number of English families had
arrived lately at the expense of their parishes.
The significant comment followed: "there is
room enough for the poor people and our-
selves.'
By the summer of 1831 the sentiment of
sympathy for paupers was fast going. Niles
8 Ibid., XXII, 155.
Ibid., XXIII, 305.
10 Ibid., XXV, 232. He probably means each year.
11 Ibid., XXIV, 113.
13 Ibid., XXXII, 310.
13 Ibid., XXXIV, 411.
19 13
188 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
"15
indorsed a Massachusetts law to allow no
alien to land till the master of the vessel on
which he came had paid the city five dollars.
He would not check desirable immigration
but concluded that the country was "wretched-
ly imposed upon.” The British were deluging
their cities with paupers, and this required a
strong corrective.14 Again, immigration was
very large. “The greater number of them are
men of substance and character." "Some car-
goes of English paupers are expected. A
little later there is a statement that all the
cities are severely taxed to care for foreign
paupers. Nearly half of the inmates of the
New York almshouse were foreigners. Strong
regulations should be adopted. “Let those
who suck the orange not throw the peel at
Again (September 15, 1832), there
was much greater immigration than ever be-
fore—100,000 or more already that year. Very
many Germans were arriving at Philadelphia
and Baltimore. They were hardy, healthy,
and industrious, and nearly all of them had
the means of going to the interior. They
would soon be among their most valuable citi-
zens. They differed much from the loads of
English paupers "shoveled upon us.” They
) 16
us.'
14 Loc, cit., XL, 74, 130.
10 Ibid., 273; June 18, 1831.
10 Ibid., XLI, 356.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 189
would work and support themselves, and not
fill the poorhouses.17
In 1833 there appeared a memorial of the
mayor and council of Baltimore to the general
assembly, calling for relief from the influx
of foreign paupers. All reports of the health
officers since 1827 had called attention to the
destitute and diseased condition of emigrants.
They were filling the almshouse, and swarms
of foreign beggars were infesting the streets.
While they would extend the right hand to every
immigrant able and willing to support himself,
they requested laws to protect them from
others.18 A little later Niles noted that a late
law "may abate this nuisance." An unprece-
dented number of immigrants from Germany
were expected, sober and industrious, exactly
the kind needed.19 Again (June 8, 1833), im-
migrants were pouring in from Ireland, Eng-
land, Scotland, and Wales; but the greater
number, most probably, were from Germany.
Many were of the best productive classes,
while others were mere day laborers. They
were patient and industrious, and exceedingly
economical.20
As the country was passing through a
most prosperous period, Niles recovered from
his fears. In 1833, he wrote:
17 Ibid., XLIII, 40.
10 Ibid., XLIV, 131.
18 Ibid., 391.
20 Ibid., 233.
190 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
There can not be a want of it [room] for some hundred
years to come; and for the sake of the human race it is
earnestly to be wished that the United States of America
should have first rank among the nations of the earth, and
remain an asylum for the oppressed,” the hope and pride
of all men who love liberty. 21
Six months later there was a great surplus
of labor just now," and he did "not wish new
importations to send our own people supper-
less to bed.” 22 "We regret to see that many
emigrants are arriving from Europe
We are already much overstocked with la-
borers.” Foreign paupers were discharged
on their shores. It seemed reasonable to ex-
pect that the United States and Canada would
receive one hundred thousand immigrants in
1834. Many of the Germans were well pro-
vided for, “though we had several shipments
of disgusting paupers or beggars from Ger-
many, a year or two ago.
The foregoing ideas and extracts from one
of the most intelligently edited papers cast
niuch light upon the problem of immigration.
They exhibit influences and tendencies the
existence of which at that time has not been
generally recognized. In connection with
them the rapid increase of immigration there-
after, the changes in its character, and the
21 Loc. cit., XLV, 2.
22 Ibid., XLVI, 1.
23 Ibid., 218, 244, 398.
11 23
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 191
Or-
deterioration in its quality go far to explain the
outbreak of Native Americanism and Know-
Nothingism, whose influence upon naturaliza-
tion I am about to trace.
The Native American Association
ganized on a distinctly political basis at a
meeting held in Washington on July 11, 1837,
in the midst of the panic conditions of that
year. The meeting was described as large,
and composed of Native Americans of all
parties. An address set forth the necessity
for a repeal of the naturalization law, to save
their institutions from the corruption of
foreign countries and themselves from the loss
of their birthright. A preamble and constitu-
tion were unanimously adopted. The former
declared that all governments were bound by
the principles of national preservation to
govern by their own citizens. The republican
form of government of the United States was
believed to be an object of fear and dislike to
the advocates of monarchy in Europe. The
United States were imperatively called upon
to administer their peculiar system free from
all foreign influence. By admitting strangers
they were weakening the attachments of na-
tives, and could gain only a sordid allegiance
from foreigners. They were maintaining in
its most extended form the right of the
192 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
native-born American. He only should exer-
cise the duties of government, from the high-
est to the lowest post. To that end they said:
"We shall advocate the entire repeal of the
naturalization law by congress.” As the con-
stitution forbade ex post facto action, they
sought only prospective action. They solemn-
ly believed that Americans should unite as
brothers. A critical period had been reached,
when every wind blew ragged paupers to their
cities, and brought elements of degradation
and disorder. A great moral revolution was
to be fought.
The Constitution bound members to co-
operate to procure the repeal of the naturaliza-
tion laws by all lawful means; not to hold
guiltless the man who should place foreigners
in office; and declared that they would be a
separate and independent party of Native
Americans, and would not connect themselves
to any religious sect or denomination. Reso-
lutions were adopted to the effect that they
would seek to support a Native American
press in Washington, and would prepare an
appeal to the Native Americans of the United
States.
At a later meeting 24 a memorial to Con-
gress was unanimously adopted. It was de-
24 December 26, 1837.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 193
scribed as the memorial of more than nine
hundred citizens of the United States associa-
ted at Washington under the name of the Na-
tive American Association. It urged that the
power to naturalize was given to Congress to
add to the physical strength of the United
States, attract skilled workmen, and draw
capital thither. It had not been anticipated
that it would be used so as to place "a large
portion of the power of this government in
the hands of adventurers of every clime," be-
fore they learned the language, or the first
principles of a republican government. The
very short term of five years would not qualify
a foreigner for citizenship. There was mani-
fold injustice and soon to be serious danger in
giving them such privileges. Already many
of the most important elections had been
swayed and decided by the votes of foreigners,
notoriously ignorant, used by artful dema-
gogues. Rome had lost her liberties by ad-
mitting large bands of foreigners, and England
had preserved hers by excluding them. They
humbly believed that the fit time had arrived
when the laws should be carefully revised and
amended, or altogether repealed.
A strong plea was made against pauper and
criminal immigrants. The governments of
Europe, seeking to free themselves from a
194
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
vast increase of pauperism and crime, had
chosen the free and happy American land for
their criminal and burdensome classes. Any
wish to shut doors against reputable immi-
grants was disclaimed. They desired the land
to continue for all time, in a fair and proper
sense, “an asylum for the oppressed of all na-
tions.” To worthy foreigners they would say:
"Come to us and be at rest;" mingle not in
politics; be content to be governed, and seek
not to govern those who entertain you and
give you shelter and protection; exercise free-
ly every religious and social right, but do not
expect political privileges, at least until length
of residence has guaranteed you to be fully
acquainted with the nature and extent of the
obligations of American citizens.
In conclusion they prayed Congress to re-
peal the naturalization laws, or so modify them
as best to secure to native citizens the full en-
joyment of the privileges and rights they were
entitled to under the Constitution; and also to
make ample provision for the protection of
the United States from any future influx of
foreign paupers and convicts.
Patton, who presented the memorial,26
moved its reference to a select committee and
accepted instructions to the committee, moved
26 Janvary 8, 1838.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 195
by Lincoln, to consider the expediency of
revising and amending the laws so as to re-
quire a longer term of residence in the United
States previous to the admission of foreigners
to citizenship, and greater checks and securi-
ties against frauds in the means and process of
obtaining naturalization; also legislation re-
garding vagrants and paupers sent to the
United States. Debate arose on the question
of reference, the opposition seeking to send
it to the Committee on Judiciary; and it was
laid on the table to take its turn under the
rules. 2 Hopeless, apparently, of securing a
select committee, although soon after a less
imposing memorial was
memorial was referred to one,
Lincoln at length moved to instruct the Ju-
diciary Committee as above, and it was done.27
A memorial of over five hundred citizens
of two towns of Massachusetts urged an in-
quiry to solve four questions: (1) whether
there were designs against the liberties of the
country by means of an influx of foreign im-
migration; (2) whether the character of the
immigration did not augur a vast increase of
pauperism and crime in the land; (3) whether
oaths of allegiance were not binding some to
20 (320) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Session,
235; (325) House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress,
Second Session, V, No. 98.
27 (320) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 465.
196 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
a foreign despotic prince, and whether such
had equal claims upon the government with
dutiful subjects, or were entitled to the con-
fidence of the nation; (4) whether there was
not a foreign conspiracy against the govern-
ment, and measures and plans working for its
execution. They entreated that a faithful in-
vestigation be made and action taken.28
A few weeks later the subject was again
brought before Congress in the memorial of
ninety-seven electors of Washington County, N.
Y., praying a revision of the laws regulating the
naturalization of foreigners. It declared that
the easy access of foreigners of doubtful
morals and hostile political principles to the
elective franchise was a source of danger to
the country's civil and religious liberties. The
Constitution had not contemplated a majority
hostile to its principles. Since naturalization
laws had been thought to be necessary, let
them be adequate to their defense. They had
deep concern at the influx of Catholics, but
sought legislative defense only against the
political principles interwoven with their
religion. They desired inquiry as to whether
a plan was not in operation for the subversion
of their liberties by gaining American suf-
frage for Catholics from Europe; and whether
28 House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Sec-
ond Session, II, No. 70.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 197
an amendment of the naturalization laws
could more fully secure American institu-
tions, liberties, etc., against the danger of sub-
version by foreign influence, and despotic ty-
rannical principles even under the cloak of
religion. Here were Know-Nothing princi-
ples in full bloom, with foreigners and Catho-
lics both to be feared. This time reference
to a special committee was secured without
any apparent opposition, and, later, various
other papers, including that of the Native
American Association, were referred to the
same committee. 29
Among these later papers was a memorial
from citizens of New York City. The great
and rapidly increasing influx of foreigners, the
character and condition of a large proportion
of them, the indiscriminate freedom by which
suffrage was given them, they urged, were
evils which wrongfully deprived “us” of “our”
native rights, and fearfully tended to the de-
struction of their government and their liber-
ties. They referred to “grievous frauds” in
the execution of the Naturalization Law, and
to paupers and criminals oppressing and de-
29 The committee consisted of Russell (N. Y.), Lincoln (Mass.),
Beatty (Ky.), Casey (I11.), and Jackson (Mass.). Jackson soon
after was excused, and Rhett (S. C.) took his place. (320) House
Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 576, 614; (327)
House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, VII, No. 154.
198 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
moralizing. The time for naturalization was
quite too short. They earnestly prayed an
amendment requiring twenty-one years' resi-
dence of all aliens not already having declared
intentions, before they should be entitled to
the suffrage. If guilty of crime that would
disqualify a native, even that residence should
not qualify them. The power to grant cer-
tificates of naturalization should be confined
to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the su-
perior courts of the states. 30
This was, per-
haps, the first mention of the twenty-one
years' residence period in a document that
reached Congress.
Some time before this agitation began, the
report of a legislative committee of Louisiana
had shown a 50 per cent, increase of patients
in the charity hospital of New Orleans coin-
cident with unprecedented good health in the
city. Of nearly six thousand inmates, nearly
70 per cent. had been aliens. The Baltimore
American had reported that among the in-
mates of the alnishouses of Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore, in all over ten
thousand, there were 10 per cent. more
foreigners than Americans. These reports re-
lated to the year 1835. In 1837 the mayor of
New York, allowed by state law to collect
30 (329) House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress,
Second Session, IX, No. 313.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 199
31
from one to ten dollars as commutation
money in place of taking from masters of
vessels an indemnity bond to secure the city
from foreign paupers, decided to collect ten
dollars per passenger instead of the one dollar
before collected.
The report of the Select Committee on
Foreign Paupers and Naturalization laws 32
contained 116 pages, and included a report
from the secretary of state and one from the
secretary of the treasury. It referred to simul-
taneous appeals to Congress from different
sections to save the country from the blight-
ing influence of a pauper, vagrant, and male-
factor population sent over at the expense of
foreign governments, arriving destitute, and
becoming at once burdensome. One-half of
the pauper population of the United States and
three-fourths of the convicts in Sing Sing were
foreign. The foreign population of the United
States was about one in nineteen. Foreign in-
fluence was most dangerous to governments,
and the influence of the Old World monarchies
was especially so to the United States. The
idea that foreigners on their arrival were
entitled to the privileges of citizenship was not
well founded. Some were worthy, but no rule
of discrimination could be adopted without
31 Niles Register, XLIX, 62, 69; LII, 250.
32 July 2, 1838.
200
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
creating invidious distinctions. The commit-
tee concluded that the term of probation
should be extended from five years to
years. Owing to great complaint of frauds in
the lower courts, and in order to preserve
uniformity in the execution of the laws, natu-
ralization should be confined to the courts of
the United States or to the supreme court in
the states. Record of the previous declara-
tion of intention was also thought advisable.
An appendix contained reports from Ameri-
can consuls in regard to the deportation of
paupers from Europe. Passage from Bremen
was as low as sixteen dollars. Hamburg had
deported condemned criminals to New York.
Some Irish landholders, where tenants were
becoming too numerous, had sent from Dublin
perhaps a hundred a year for five or six years.
From Liverpool and London it was reported
that some parishes sent abroad their excess
population, always giving from five to ten
pounds in money besides passage and food.
Convicts, workhouse inmates, the old and de-
crepit, were never sent. Six hundred were
sent from Liverpool in 1830 by parishes, five
hundred in 1832, and not more than three
hundred in any year since. In 1831 complaint
had been made to England of an act of the
Jamaica government under which American
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM
201
vessels touching at that island had been com-
pelled to carry away a number of paupers pro-
portioned to the size of the vessel.33
The committee, after obtaining permission,
introduced two bills, which after some debate,
were sent to the Committee of the Whole on
the State of the Union.34 One member of the
special committee, Beatty, asked for time that
he might submit a counter report. He pro-
tested against the monstrous doctrine in the
report, reviving in full force the doctrines of
1798.
Late in the following session of Congress,
the House referred to the committee of the
whole “to which is committed the bill re-
ported last session" a memorial "signed, it
is believed, by several thousand citizens of
the state of Louisiana.” 36
They asserted
that hundreds of foreigners, alien to the ob-
ligations they so readily incurred, were daily
acquiring rights. Both parties, throughout
the United States, made constant charge of
bribery of foreigners in elections and this
was imperiling the welfare of the country.
The existing facilities for naturalization were
88 (336) House Reports of Committees, Twenty-fifth Congress,
Second Session, II, No. 70.
84 (320) House Journal, 1207; Congressional Globe, 489; July
2, 1838.
36 Congressional Globe, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Session,
178; February 7, 1839.
202
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
highly injurious to the safety and perpetuity
of free institutions. A dreadful deterioration
of morals and increase of crime were appar-
ent within ten or fifteen years. Seven hun-
dred convicts had been sent out from one
place The whole country was suffering.
They would not abridge the rights of those
naturalized or who had declared intentions,
but they wished the passage of a law putting
native-born and naturalized citizens at least
on an equal footing:36 They solicited the
entire repeal of the naturalization acts then
in force, and ample provision for the protec-
tion of the United States from the indiscrimi-
nate influx of foreign emigrants.
Should
these things be delayed, ere long they would
have to sue at the footstool of a power alien
in feelings, prejudices, and aspirations. 37
The Twenty-Fifth Congress expired with-
out further action on these subjects. There
was, however, a resolution introduced look-
ing to the exclusion from the privileges of
citizenship of the children of persons who
removed from the United States and took
the oath of allegiance to the government in
which they resided, until they should become
36 This is doubtless a plea for twenty-one years' residence be-
fore naturalization, and indicates that the argument for it had been
developed.
37 (347) House Executive Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress,
Third Session, IV, No. 162.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 203
naturalized like other foreigners. Debate
arose upon this, and it was laid over under
the rules, not to appear again.38
During 1840 much attention was given in
and out of Congress to the naturalization
question, and a strong effort was made in
both the Senate and the House to repeal the
existing laws. In the House easier naturali-
zation was sought; in the Senate, more
stringent legislation. The matter was more
quiet the following year, and in 1842 there
might seem the indication of a reaction in
a proposition debated briefly in the Senate
to return to the two-year requirement of the
act of 1790. In 1843, however, the twenty-
one-year agitation became distinctly aggres-
sive. Thereafter, until the Civil War, it had
to be reckoned with continuously as an im-
portant political factor. Sometimes, in vari-
ous eastern states, the issue involved in it
dominated all other issues.
Two letters written in 1840 by the Whig
candidate for president give an indication of
the political importance already attached to
the question of naturalization. The first was
written 39
to a committee in Indiana. It ac-
knowledged the receipt of a letter mention-
38 (343) House Journal, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Session,
398; January 28, 1839.
39 July 4, 1840.
204 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
ing a report prevailing "that I am averse to
emigrants from foreign countries being nat-
uralized short of twenty years," and declared
that he had never ceased to pronounce this
a calumny. On the contrary, he had done
everything in his power to facilitate the ac-
quisition of citizenship by those near him;
and, when in Congress, to give them before
their naturalization the same privileges in
taking up and holding public lands as na-
tives.40 In the other letter he wrote to a
Philadelphian:
Through the whole course of my political life, I am
satisfied, that no sentence ever fell from my lips, which
could be construed into an unfriendly feeling to the
Europeans who have emigrated hither, to enjoy the advan-
tages which our free institutions afford, or a wish to
extend the period, which is fixed by the existing laws, for
their full admission to the rights of citizenship.41
A petition from Louisiana, in form at
least the same as that before the House in
the previous Congress, was referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee early in 1840.42
It sought the entire repeal of the naturaliza-
tion laws, and new stringent legislation on
the subject. The committee reported that
the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be
40 Niles Register, LVIII, 397.
11 North American Review, LII, 220; January, 1841.
12 January 7.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 205
granted.43 Two other petitions for the re-
peal of the naturalization laws, one of these
from citizens of Louisiana and the other, pre-
sented by Clay, from citizens of the United
States engaged in the navigation of the west-
ern waters, were laid on the table. The Sen-
ate adopted the report of its committee.44
At the same session the Senate passed a
joint resolution for the printing of all the natu-
ralization laws "as soon as practicable," but it
seems not to have passed the House.46 Mean-
while, in the House, Hand (N. Y.) had ob-
tained leave and introduced a bill to estab-
lish a uniform rule of naturalization, and to
repeal all existing acts on that subject. A
controversy ensued as to its reference, but
it went to the Judiciary Committee and re-
mained there.46 Early in the following session
Hand again got leave and presented a simi-
lar bill. This time he pressed the question of
reference to a vote, and lost by a narrow ma-
jority. He wished to send it to the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, where thus early in the session he
13 February 12, 1840.
44 February 18, 1840, (353) Senate Journal, Twenty-sixth
Congress, First Session, 81, 174, 179, 187, 208; (340) Senate
Documents, Twenty-fifth Congress, Third Session, III, No. 246.
46 (353) Senate Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, First Session,
330, 357, 363.
46 (362) House Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, First Session,
556, 587. See also Congressional Globe.
206 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
might expect to secure discussion upon it.
On the other hand, it was argued that so im.
portant a subject should go to the Judiciary
Committee. The vote was 96 to 90. Hand
received practically the solid support of the
Democratic party.
John Quincy Adams
wrote in his diary at the time that it was the
second vote in which a sufficient number of
the Kinderhook time-servers had given way
to turn the majority.47 A motion to recon-
sider the reference was debated at some
length, but the debate is not reported. It
was lost by a vote of go to 93,48 and the bill
was left to be buried by an unfavorable com-
mittee.
About the same time the Legislature of
Missouri passed a memorial which was pre-
sented in the House and referred a year
later.49 This memorial referred to the exist.
ing excitement and discussion; to societies
organized to procure the repeal of exist-
ing laws and the passage of a law extend-
ing the time of residence required for natur-
alization; and, finally, to the bill introduced
in Congress by Hand to effect those pur-
47 J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, X, 375.
48 (381) House Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 29, 42, 48, 59, 73. See also Congressional Globe.
10 This memorial was approved February 16, 1841, and re-
ferred on January 7, 1842.
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 207
poses.50 It declared that the objects of such
societies are disapproved by the General As-
sembly of Missouri, "as being illiberal, intol-
erant in spirit, intending to rivet the bondage
of mankind in the old world, and as unwise
in effect, in repressing emigration to this
country, and retarding its population and
improvement.” Senators were instructed and
representatives requested to oppose the re-
peal of any law that provided for the natur-
alization of aliens, and to resist all measures
designed to cause further delay or difficulty
in the attainment of citizenship.51 Nearly
coincident with this action of the Missouri
Legislature was the adoption by the Louisi-
ana House of Representatives, by a vote of
25 to 10, of a resolution requesting that
state's senators and representatives in Con-
gress to endeavor to procure a change in the
laws to require twenty-one years' consecu-
tive residence in the United States for nat-
uralization.52
In the committee of the whole in the
House, during a debate on the Treasury-Note
Bill, in January, 1841, Duncan (Ohio) ex-
hibited a bill on the subject of naturalization
50 This memorial shows a complete misconception of the char-
acter of Hand's bill.
61 (402) House Executive Documents, Twenty-seventh Con-
gress, Second Session, II, No. 37.
62 Niles Register, LIX, 404.
208
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
that he intended to introduce, and explained
that he expressed his views upon it then lest
he should have no opportunity to introduce
it. The object of the bill was to secure to
those fleeing from despotism the rights and
privileges that the ancestors of Americans
secured by their flight. The elective fran-
chise was the principal ingredient of free gov-
ernment. He had ever thought that the fran-
chise as related to foreigners was unneces-
sarily limited and trammeled. Its difficulty
and expense were incompatible with the
nature of their free institutions. He had ever
intended expressing his decided hostility to
the naturalization laws as they existed, and
trying to amend them in harmony with the
nature of their government and the spirit of
the Constitution. The government, at first
an experiment, had been trammeled in some
of its institutions. He would have it as free
as the experience of the age would permit.
There was no longer apology for restrictions,
incompatible with their free institutions and
personal rights, and originally founded in a
lack of confidence in the people. He wished
a shorter residence requirement, and natur-
alization with as little trouble and expense
as possible. He would have the alien enjoy
all the rights and privileges of the native-
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 209
born, not denied by the Constitution, upon
taking the oath of allegiance. Jefferson had
thought thus, and the Democratic party had
always favored the least possible restraint
upon naturalization and upon the suffrage. The
Federalists limited speech, debate, the press,
and the franchise. They "throw all the re-
strictions and embarrassments possible in
the way of naturalization, and are now en-
deavoring, in violation of the Constitution,
to deprive foreigners of the rights of citizen-
ship. Proofs of his assertion were the act of
1798, passed by the Federalists and opposed
by the Democrats in Congress and out; the
act of 1802, opposed by the Federalists and
passed by the Democrats by the hardest ef-
fort. During the past winter, Hand, a Demo-
crat, had early introduced a bill to shorten
the residence requirement. It was referred
to the Committee on Judiciary, a majority
of whom were Federalists or modern Whigs,
and "no power on earth was able to rescue
it from their hands. It slept the sleep of
death." A similar bill had been introduced
at the commencement of that session, and a
motion to refer it to a Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union
failed by a party vote. Reference to the Ju-
diciary Committee carried by a party vote,
210
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
“every Federalist in the House voting for
it and the Democracy against it, and there
that bill now is safe for an eternal sleep.”
He could make a book of the party struggles
on the subject of naturalization. The Fed-
eralists no longer stopped at restrictions and
embarrassments, but sought to overthrow
the privilege and constitutional rights of nat-
uralization. They were seeking to make the
foreigner a vassal.
Moreover, the country was overspread by
Native American associations, whose object
was shown by a petition from Illinois. It de-
clared that time had "fulfilled the object had
in view by our fathers” in giving Congress
the power to naturalize foreigners, and that
“farther admission of foreigners to a partici-
pation in the political rights of native Ameri-
cans would be hurtful to the interests of our
country.” It would sooner or later prove de-
structive to their republican institutions. At-
tention was asked to petitions for repealing
naturalization laws, and the entire repeal of
such laws. In view of their object, these
Federalist associations were infamous. In an
address one of them has said:
We do solemnly resolve to oppose the election or
appointment of any but American citizens to office, and
henceforward use our united efforts and unsparing zeal to
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM
2II
procure such an alteration in the naturalization laws as
shall exclude from the right of suffrage all foreigners who
come into the country after such law has passed.
Duncan declared further that Federalist op-
position to foreigners was due to a preponder-
ance of Germans and Irish among the immi-
grants, and to the fact that they were Demo-
crats. The Federalists wished to abolish or
prohibit the franchise of Irish and Germans
because the latter were opposed to Federalist
principles and institutions. He would main-
tain and extend their franchise because they
favored democratic principles and institu-
tions. The names of Lafayette, DeKalb, and
Montgomery attested the obligation that was
due to foreign blood poured out in the Revo-
lution. The national jealousy and selfishness
which shut out the foreigner rarely ever
failed to produce evils. Good policy dictated
admitting them.
He closed with an appeal
to foreigners to support democracy in order
to secure to themselves the liberties which
the Revolution had purchased.53
It was in August, 1842, that Walker in the
Senate asked leave to bring in a bill “to re-
duce from five to two years the term of resi-
dence required for the naturalization of for-
eigners." This led to some discussion.
68 Congressional Globe, Twenty-sixth Congress, Second Session,
Appendix, 266; January, 1841.
212 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Archer (Va.) declared that the subject was
too grave to discuss at the heel of the ses-
sion. He believed that naturalization laws
were sufficient for all present purposes, and
hoped that the Senate would resist the bill
at the threshold. He moved to lay the re-
quest on the table. Walker replied that he
was only seeking to revive the original act,
sanctioned by Washington. Why should
that be thought extraordinary! The aliens
in 1830 had numbered 107,832. They were
not counted in 1840; but if they had increased
in proportion to the immigration, they num-
bered then 283,543. He objected entirely to
the existence of so many aliens among the
population, particularly as he did not believe
they desired to be aliens. Increasing the
number of aliens increased the jurisdiction of
the federal courts. The vast immigration
would increase the business of the Supreme
Court prodigiously, and it was already so
great that the court could do only one-half
of its business at the last session. The de-
bate in the McLeod case had called attention
to the matter. Looking at what had taken
place that very session in relation to cases
in which aliens were parties, he was really
alarmed at the enormous stretch of federal
power. There was a necessity of diminish-
BEGINNINGS OF NATIVE AMERICANISM 213
ing the number of individuals in respect to
whom the jurisdiction of the federal courts
could be applied.
If he had anticipated
the possibility of any such objections as
had been offered to the introduction of
the bill, he might state other reasons more
at length. He did not even then apprehend
that the unusual course of refusing in-
troduction to the
the bill would be taken.
Every steamboat to the West was crowded
with emigrants, going to purchase lands and
place their families there. Their exclusion
from citizenship had been so severely felt that
two of the western states had given them
the right to vote. This anomalous state of
things was the result of changing the resi-
dence requirement from two to five years.
There was no reason why men should not be-
come citizens at the end of two as well as of
five years. In case of war they had 300,000
aliens, mostly along the western frontier, who
would be claimed by a foreign power. He
rejoiced to see the numbers coming, wel-
comed them, and called attention to the ef-
forts being put forth to divert them to the
British colonies, and particularly to Australia,
by granting the privilege of citizenship. Ar-
cher made answer that he was totally averse
to other terms of naturalization. Their ances-
214 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
tors had soon changed from two to fourteen
years, and then back to an intermediate
term. Five years was a proper, just, and
reasonable time. No good man ever re-
nounced entirely his attachment to his native
soil. Would it be proper in any sense to
admit as citizens a large class having foreign
attachments and feelings adverse to theirs ?
He desired to stigmatize the proposition by
its immediate rejection. King thought cour-
tesy alone might dictate a vote against
Archer's motion. Walker's request was,
however, laid on the table by a vote of 21 to
18.
CHAPTER XII
THE PERIOD OF AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERI-
CANISM
re-
About forty petitions asking for amend-
ment of the naturalization laws were
ceived in both Senate and House during the
session of 1843-44. Some of them contained
hundreds of signatures. One was said to be
the petition of ten thousand citizens of New
York state.1 One from Wisconsin Territory
sought an extension of the suffrage to resi-
dents of the territories.2 Two froin western
New York were in the interests of alien sail-
ors whose employment took them out of the
territory of the United States during their
preliminary residence period. Nearly all of
the others sought to extend the residence
period for naturalization to twenty-one years.
Buchanan presented one in the Senate
numerously signed by citizens of Philadel-
phia. He said that he could not advocate
the prayer it contained, nor consent to the
requirement of twenty-one years' residence.
He was opposed to any change in the natu-
1 (438) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session,
433.
2 Ibid., 357; February 7, 1844. : Ibid., 706, 717.
215
216 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
ralization laws. The memorialists, however,
were anxious for a decision as early as pos-
sible, and he thought that there were impera-
tive reasons why it should be made. He
moved reference to the Judiciary Committee,
and expressed his strong desire that they re-
port with as little delay as possible. Twice
thereafter he repeated his strong desire for
a speedy report.4
Sturgeon presented one of the petitions,
and was far from concurring in the necessity
for the action sought. It was his conviction
that foreigners ought to be entitled to citizen-
ship as soon as they were ready to give sat-
isfactory proof of a preference for the coun-
try and its institutions such as induced them
to make it a permanent residence. Since it
was difficult to act on a presumption of in-
tentions, he believed that the law as it stood
was, on the whole, best calculated to obviate
all difficulties. He thought that foreigners
ought not to object to the restriction,
since in many states native citizens could
not enjoy the privileges of state citizenship
till after two years' residence. There was
further discussion a few days later upon the
• Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session,
675; June 1, 1844.
6 Ibid., 691, June 6, 1844.
o June 11, 1844.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
217
presentation of two memorials from Phila-
delphia asking for twenty-one years' resi-
dence and "more solemn sanctions." Archer
said that the time was too short before ad-
journment to admit of the possibility of de-
cided action. On a proper occasion, if no
other person did so, he would make the
necessary motion to secure the object of the peti-
tioners. Berrien, of the Judiciary Commit-
tee, said that this was a question of the great-
est importance and had been so considered
from the foundation of the government. Re-
cently it had been productive of great excite-
ment, the result of which was deeply to be
deplored. This prayer was presented at a
very late period of the session, when the com-
mittee had a variety of matter before it. He be-
lieved it was too late to secure deliberate action
of the committee.
Allen was utterly opposed to any such
? The diary of John Quincy Adams, for May 9, 1844, ex-
plained what he termed a new subject of political excitement that
must have great influence for good or evil “(God grant it may be
for good)” upon thc future history and fortunes of the Union.
There was a deadly feud between the native American poor popu-
lation and the Roman Catholic Irish multitudes gathered in the city
of Philadelphia. Animosities between those classes had been fer-
menting in all the Atlantic cities for several years, much aggra
vated by the pernicious factious influence of Irish Catholics over
the elections in all the populous cities. The reaction of the native
American population had effected a total revolution at the recent
election of the city government of New York, and had just broken
out in furious riots in Philadelphia, where from the first of the
week a succession of bitterly exasperated mobs had destroyed multi-
tudes of human lives, dwelling-houses, schools, and churches, un-
restrained by the government of the city or of the state (XII, 24).
218 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
9
change of laws to the prejudice of the people.
It involved manifest injustice and inhuman-
ity. Nothing could tend more to exasperate
the feelings of men, disturb harmony, and ex-
cite hostility to their institutions in the very
bosom of the country. He should resist it
to the utmost.8 Benton presented two memo-
rials, but was opposed to their prayer, agreed
with Allen, and was favorable to the largest
liberty.
On June 15, 1844, Berrien reported for the
Senate Committee on Judiciary on sundry
memorials before it. The question was one
of awakening interest and affected a policy
little varied from the commencement of the
government. The memorialists thought that
changes in conditions rendered proper a
modification of the laws. The committee
was disposed to treat their suggestions with
deserved respect, and to give the questions
involved the most deliberate consideration.
But it was obviously impracticable to give
them the needed consideration, and impos-
sible that any action should be had, at that
session. They therefore asked to be dis-
charged from further consideration of the
subject.10
8 Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session,
658; June 11, 1844.
9 Ibid., 658, 686.
10 (436) Senate Documents, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Ses.
sion, 395.
l
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
219
In the House during this session three dif-
ferent members gave notice of a motion to
be made for leave to introduce a bill to amend
the naturalization laws, but it does not ap-
pear that any bills were introduced upon the
subject. John Quincy Adams presented a
Pennsylvania petition praying for such
amendments to the naturalization laws that
twenty-one years' residence after they had
declared their intentions should be made the
indispensable prerequisite to the admission
of foreigners into the inestimable rights of
American citizens. Adams said that he pre-
sented the petition in a formal way because
it related to a subject of considerable im-
portance upon which there was considerable
difference of opinion. He was willing to af-
ford the unknown petitioners the satisfaction
of having their matter brought pointedly be-
fore the House; but he would not bind him-
self in any way to support their prayer. In
his diary he wrote that he presented the pe-
tition of 180 Native Americans of Philadel-
phia praying for a change in the naturaliza-
tion laws and twenty-five years’11 residence
for political rights; but he did not approve
of the change in the law, and felt obliged to
11 Either "twenty-five" was used as a round number, and may
thus indicate the newness of the twenty-one year agitation, or it is
The House Journal is explicit with reference to
this petition.
an evident error.
220 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
say that he could not support it. He had
moved its reference to the Committee on Ju-
diciary, but a motion to lay on the table, by
Brown (Ind.) and Hammett (Miss.), had
carried by a vote of 128 to 26.12
After two weeks Adams secured the re-
moval of the petition from the table and its
reference to the Judiciary Committee. Near
the close of the session he was seeking a copy
of it of the clerk, and intending to see whether
the National Intelligencer would publish it.
He wrote that it was the first memorial on
the subject presented to
to the
the House, and
predicted that at the next session of Congress
the Native American party would be heard
in both houses, when the proceedings of the
House on that first memorial would have a
material influence on the debate.1:
The extreme note in the Native American
agitation of this period was perhaps struck
in a work on the Civil Government of the
Hebrews by Professor Wines. He would
welcome the immigrants fleeing from wrongs,
but go to Moses for a public policy and study
the principle of his naturalization laws. Ad-
mission to citizenship was called "entering
into the congregation of Jehovah.” Certain
12 Memoirs, XII, 40.
18 (438) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, First Session,
988, 1130; Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, First
Session, 633; May 31, 1844; J. Q. Adams' Memoirs, XII, 40, 65.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
221
races were not to be admitted to the tenth
generation—in other words, never. Some
other foreigners could become Israelitish
citizens in the third generation. In other
words, the grandchildren of immigrants
could be admitted to the privileges of natives
of the soil. Thus naturalization in senti-
ments, habits, sympathies, and manners was
required before privileges were given by a
legal naturalization. The principle must
commend itself, but need not always be ap-
plied in equal rigor.14
During the next session of Congress thirty
Native American petitions found mention in
the Senate Journal, and a larger number were
received by the House, including some of the
former ones. A resolution by Johnson in-
structed the Senate Judiciary Committee to
inquire into the expediency of modifying the
laws to extend the term allowed to enable
foreigners to become citizens, to require
greater guards against fraud in the steps to
be taken in procuring naturalization papers,
and to prevent, as far as practicable, fraud
and violence at elections. To this resolution
was added by an amendment, “and prohibit
the introduction of foreign convicts into the
United States.” 16
11 Niles Register, LXVII, 162.
16 (448) Senate Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses
sion, 30.
222
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
A resolution submitted by Barrow a little
later gave similar instructions for an inquiry
to be made whether naturalization papers
had been granted to foreigners by any fed-
eral or state court in violation of the pro-
visions of the laws of Congress; also with
regard to empowering the district court to
cancel and declare null all naturalization
papers which were found, upon judicial in-
vestigation, to have been granted in viola-
tion or fraud of the laws of Congress.16
The Johnson resolution called forth some
vigorous expressions of opinion before it was
referred. Johnson held that the facilities
with which foreigners had been naturalized
for a few years past, the perjuries committed,
the fraud and violence controlling elections,
proved the necessity of an immediate change
in the naturalization laws. There was no
doubt that public sentiment everywhere called
loudly for prompt action. Thousands of for-
eigners were naturalized and voted within a
few weeks after reaching America. In New
York City alone over three thousand persons
were naturalized a few days before an elec-
tion. A Philadelphia vigilance committee
had reported 305 votes in a single ward, and
not one of the persons was found after ten
10 Loc. cit., 40, 44.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
223
days. The laws had been valuable at first,
and had brought much development and
many good citizens.
Now the country was
strong and did not need outside strength.
There was no longer need to invite knowl-
edge by promising political privileges.17
Some desirable persons might continue to
come, but the mass was not desirable. He
would grant property rights, but require a
long residence for political rights. They
must prohibit the sending of convicts and
paupers. The question was one far above
party considerations, and all were equally in-
terested in guarding against dangers.
Archer said that there was very great
solicitude in the question by the people. He
believed in his very conscience that it had
become the most important question that
could agitate the public mind. It was more
than transcendental in magnitude and impor-
tance, comprehending every other vital issue.
He hoped for an early report.
Rives had no hesitation in favoring an in-
quiry as to frauds. There was no doubt as to
the alarming extent of the abuses. He would
not exclude nor unreasonably restrain nat-
uralization; and would give every foreigner,
17 This was a reference to an idea, not met with often, nor
for a long time before, namely, that liberal naturalization laws were
necessary to attract skilled and educated foreigners who would
be particularly serviceable to the country.
224
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
when naturalized, his fair and just share in
the government. The long and successful
policy of the past seemed to him wise and
prudent. But the practice had degenerated
into a public mockery, and idle, empty form.
A ridiculous pantomime made full-blown
citizens, by platoons of twenty to fifty at the
clerk's desk, of persons ignorant of the lan-
guage. It was so in New York. Buffalo,
Philadelphia, and probably in Louisiana.
The evil came from relaxations from original
provisions of the law. The remedy was to
reinvigorate the present laws. Registry of
arrival was important, and a full record in
the certificate of naturalization. Making the
declaration to a clerk, and the reduction of
the time required for it from three to two
years, were among the sources of the evils;
also the repeal in 1828 of Jefferson's and
Madison's provisions. It would be time
enough to extend the period after restoring
and trying those provisions.
Merrick thought that the excitement
should be directed against their own people
who had abused the laws. Dickinson said
that the resolutions apparently were not
aimed at abuses, but at the system. It was
impossible to improve men's condition by de-
nying them political rights and privileges.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
225
Foster thought that persons unfit for citizen-
ship in five years after their arrival would be
after twenty years. There was no moral test
applied to those who were born in the United
States. Berrien said that it was scarcely
practicable to have a very prompt report.
Great frauds were alleged, and considerable
frauds seemed to be almost universally ad-
mitted. Judging from the magnitude 'and
delicacy of the inquiry, a prompt report was
not to be expected.18
Buchanan, in remarks at the presentation
of a memorial the next day, was against ex-
tending the five-year period. If frauds as
charged were established, he would go with
the farthest-going in amending the laws to
prevent them.
Archer was extremely anxious to express
his sentiments, but that was not the time for
them. He perceived that there was to be a
hot war in the country in relation to the sub-
ject, and was deeply concerned at the indi-
cations of the previous day's debate. He had
hoped before that an impression had been
produced on the Senate such as he knew
prevailed in the country. He was grieved
not to see that feeling there, but was glad
that the people knew the Senate's position
18 Congressional Globe, 32; December, 16, 1844.
226 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
so early. It was not enough to cut off ex-
crescences; they must eradicate the root of
the evil. If the Senate did not give redress,
the people would.
A request from the Senate, made at the
instance of Berrien of the Judiciary Commit-
tee,19 brought a report from the secretary of
state as to the practice of foreign govern-
ments in transporting paupers and criminals
to the United States. Aside from a letter
from Hamburg in 1832, showing that a num-
ber of persons from prisons and houses of
correction, claimed mostly to be guilty of
boyish indiscretions, had been released and
given passports to North America, nothing
of consequence was shown in addition to
what was in the report made in 1838.20
Five weeks before the expiration of the
Twenty-Eighth Congress, Berrien made a
preliminary report for the Senate Judiciary
Committee. They had given earnest atten-
tion to the subject, on account both of its in-
trinsic importance and of the public feeling
manifested in regard to it. They had issued
commissions that were in process of execu-
tion, and had “prepared a bill meanwhile cal-
19 (448) Senate Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 50.
20 (450) Senate Documents, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second
Session, No. 42.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
227
culated to supply the more prominent de-
fects” of the existing system. They sub-
mitted it on account of the short time remain-
ing and the importance of action at that ses-
sion, postponing further report until returns
should be received from the commissions.21
A second report from Berrien's committee
was made March 3, 1845, just at the close
of the Twenty-Eighth Congress.22 The com-
missions for taking testimony in New York,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore had completed
their work too late for the committee to do
more than present abstracts from the testi-
mony they had taken. The New Orleans
commission reported later.
The investigation in
New York
thorough, and included the collection of much
testimony from judges, and clerks of courts,
political workers, and others. A great deal
of light is thrown upon the practical work-
ings of the naturalization law in several
classes of courts. Judge Hammond, of the
Marine Court for the Southern District of
New York, testified that for the first six of
his ten years' service as a judge his court had
probably naturalized more persons than any
other one court of New York. Declarations
was
21 lbid., No. 59.
22 (458) ibid., No. 173; March 3, 1845.
228 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
A cer-
and depositions were printed in blank and
bound up in books for record. They were
signed by the party and sworn to.
tificate was taken away. Only one witness
was required, except for those showing resi-
dence between 1802 and 1812. He always
examined persons orally; they subscribed
their names and were sworn on the Bible.
The character of the applicant, and his atti-
tude toward the government and the Constitu-
tion, were sworn to by the witness.
He was
not cross-examined with regard to them.
Others testified to the same procedure in
this respect in other courts, and that it was
very much a matter of form or entirely nuga-
tory, as questions were seldom asked. A
witness was never known to hesitate to swear
to these particulars.
Since about 1839 or 1840 the Marine Court
had interpreted literally the requirement of
five years' residence in the United States.
It had excluded eight persons in one week
for having been out of the United States
during their residence period. Before the
time mentioned this requirement had been
generally overlooked. Decisions upon this
point in other courts had conflicted. A du-
plicate certificate of naturalization was given
when the original had been lost or destroyed.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
229
The facts were sworn to if there was doubt
about them. The judge knew of one case of
a witness being convicted who had made a
practice of testifying for applicants. Natur-
alization was the only business the law al-
lowed to be done on election day. About
eighty in an eight-hour day was the most
they had naturalized. At other than election
times they averaged perhaps three or four
a week.
The clerk had once counted up
eighteen hundred naturalizations in a year.
Two thousand would probably be the ex-
treme number, and some years the number
was probably not one thousand. The clerk
attended to the fees. A former clerk had
probably compounded the fees, making an
arrangement by which voucher slips were
presented- drawing on a sum of money de-
posited with him.
Another justice of the Marine Court had
known the same person to get several dupli-
cate certificates of his declaration of inten-
tion. It was easy to get a duplicate after a
naturalization in another court. The examin-
ation was always oral, and often fifteen or
twenty a day were rejected. Naturalizations
at election times were mostly due to the in-
ducement of others. At other times of the
year they were usually for the purpose of
230 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
holding real estate. He had observed one
political witness who appeared to be em-
ployed for the purpose of giving testimony.
Papers filled out in writing and in print had
come to his court addressed to other courts.
The parties bringing them had said that they
got them at Tammany Hall and were sent
there. An interpreter was often required-
at the time of the last election in the case of
nearly half of the applicants. Arrangements
with committees had been made frequently
by the former clerk, and tickets drawing upon
a sum of money deposited had been accepted
‘in place of fees. Papers had been withheld
until the parties had voted.
Another justice said that perjuries had been
complained of to him. The courts' refusal to
arrange with committees had driven the prin-
cipal business to other courts. One judge
could naturalize from fifty to a hundred per-
sons in seven hours. The number would de-
pend upon the intelligence of the parties, etc.,
and upon the care taken.
Judge Vanderpoel, of the New York Su-
perior Court, knew of no fraud. Before the
decision of the State Supreme Court in Octo-
ber, 1844, persons domiciled in the United
States for five years, and sailors on the pack-
ets with families in the United States, had
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
231
been naturalized. The chief justice had told
him that a decision favored this practice.
When applicants were numerous, they were
sworn by the clerk either in open court or in
the clerk's office. They came next to this
judge, who administered the general oath to
the witness and indorsed the papers when he
had approved them. In cases of doubt he
examined them critically. The applicant and
his witness then went into open court before
another judge who was holding court, and
took the printed oaths. In a majority of
cases the applicants came with their prelimi-
nary papers filled out. He believed that this
was done by a naturalization committee in
session at Tammany Hall, or by their oppo-
nents.
Henry Raymond testified that he arranged
for the use of tickets recently, as he had done
for years. There might have been a thousand
or fifteen hundred tickets.23 The parties paid
their own fees if they were able. His com-
mittee employed a dozen clerks who prepared
papers and filled up affidavits.
Henry E. Riell testified that he was presi-
dent of the Naturalization Society of New
28 Other testimony showed that a printed ticket was used with
the names written in, in form as follows:
“NEW YORK, Apr. 17, 1840.
"The Marine Court will please naturalize George Terry.
Endorsed: “Burlington, N.J."
JAMES JOHN VALENTINE."
232 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
24
York City. Its members were generally
Democrats.. He made out most of the papers
for Tammany. It was customary to advertise
that the committee was in session. Tickets
were issued, and he redeemed them. They
were generally given to poor people—those
who wished to pay their own fees went di-
rectly to the court. The usual number natu-
ralized through the agency of the committee
at spring and fall elections was about one
thousand, except that in the fall of 1840
about three thousand were naturalized in five
months. The parties invariably received
their certificates at the time of their admis-
sion, and voted for whom they pleased.?
They came to his committee voluntarily in
all cases, and he took it for granted that they
were Democrats.
Other evidence indicated that the Whig
committees had for a time pursued similar
methods, but for two years past had resolved
not to do so longer.
The report of the Philadelphia commission
dealt mainly with the numbers naturalized in
various courts, and the fees charged. It
showed, however, that sixty-four declarations
of intention, fraudulently interpolated in the
records of a court, and dated back two years
24 Other testimony was to the effect that certificates were some
times withheld until after the parties had voted.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
233
to admit of the prompt naturalization of the
parties, had been discovered and annulled a
few days before the election of 1840. At
Baltimore various cases of fraudulent voting
by using dead men's naturalization papers
were discovered. The New Orleans report
dealt with the testimony in the impeachment
of a judge who was removed in 1844 for
naturalizing with great haste, carelessness,
informality, and disregard of legal require-
ments. The reports show that the number
of persons naturalized varied greatly in the
different courts. It was much greater in the
state courts, where the fees were lower and
the requirements generally less rigid. Natu-
ralizations
were largely had within two
weeks of election days.
The fees varied greatly, being much higher
in federal than in state courts. They were
often reduced by arrangement with political
committees. The legal fees ranged from 50
cents to $3 for naturalization, and from 20
cents to $1.25 for a declaration of intention.
The fees had recently been much reduced in
the New York state courts.
There were many recommendations made
by the witnesses, most of which were for the
purpose of preventing fraud or of securing
better-qualified citizens. The niore important
234 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
ant of them were already embodied in the bill
of the committee before the commissions had
finished their work. There was little demand
for a long term of residence, but a general
desire that a residence for six months or a
year after naturalization should precede suf-
frage. One would shorten the five-year term
by this period. Others would prohibit natural-
ization for some time before an election. Many
would confine naturalization to United States
courts, and there was a suggestion that
special United States courts be established
for naturalizing. A previous notice of inten-
tion shortly before the application was
favored. This should be served on the dis-
trict attorney or a federal officer; or a notice
with names of witnesses should be published.
A certificate of declaration of intention should
be evidence of the time of arrival in the
United States. Again, applicants should be
required to swear to their term of residence.
They should also swear to their attachment
to the Constitution, and to being well dis-
posed to the government. A description of
the person should be in the declaration of in-
tention and in the certificate of naturaliza-
tion, so that one person could not use the
papers of another. The papers should be
indorsed with signature, if the person could
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
235
write, and the certificate should be produced
at the polls. Vessels should deposit a list
and description of all persons brought to the
United States. Candidates for naturalization
should understand and speak the English
language, and should expressly abjure all
temporal allegiance to the pope. Congress
should fix all fees and forbid remitting any
part of them; or again there should be no
fees allowed. Persons should be punished
for applying for naturalization in another
court after having been once rejected. A
wide door for fraud was in the granting of
duplicate certificates of declaration of inten-
tion. Sometimes fifty a day of these were ap-
plied for in a single court at election time.
Meanwhile the bill before the senate was
entirely ignored to the end of the Congress.
Its leading features were compulsory record
of arrivals to form documentary evidence of
length of residence, naturalization restricted
to United States courts and to times remote
from elections, the process of naturalization
more minutely specified, fraud of any sort to
be punished severely, and the naturalization
secured by it to be annulled. The bill provid-
ed that collectors of customs should receive
reports of aliens arriving in the United
States, and register in a book of record full
236 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
descriptions of their persons, with countries,
times and places of arrival, and vessels, places
of residence in the United States, and mem-
bers of their families. The declaration of in-
tention to become a citizen could be made
only in United States circuit and district
courts, at least three years after the registry
of arrival, upon petition and production of a
duly authenticated certificate of registry. It
must contain a full description as before, be
subscribed in a book of record together with
oath as to being the person described in the
certificate, be sworn to in the presence of
the judge of the court, and attested by him.
Two years later the alien could be naturalized
in a similar court upon presenting a petition
setting forth the circumstances of his case.
His certificate of registry and declaration
must be given up, canceled, and filed. The
court must be satisfied, after examination, of
his identity, of the genuineness of his certifi-
cates, lack of fraud, residence (five years and
one year, as before), character, and disposi-
tion (as before), and that he had not been
convicted of any felony. These facts were
to be proved by citizens of the United States,
whose names, residence, and occupations
must appear in the record and in the certifi-
cate. Support of the Constitution must be
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
237
promised, and the usual renunciation of
foreign allegiance made. When the court
was satisfied, it might decree admission to
citizenship, and direct a certificate to be
granted under seal of the court, signed by
judge and clerk. The certificate must con-
tain a copy of the registry with full descrip-
tion and particulars, and both the record and
the certificates must show that all require-
ments of the law had been met. No admis-
sion could take place except by express order
of the court declared in the records.
Any person who had been registered while
under sixteen as a part of the family of an alien,
and had continued his residence the required
time, might be naturalized according to law
without producing a certificate of registry
or a previous declaration of intention.
No second certificate could be granted
without proof of loss of the first by accident,
and two months' public advertising for it, and
then only to the party, or to his legal repre-
sentative if dead.
Proper certificates of two years' war-time
service by an able-bodied male person at least
seventeen years of age at enlistment should
be evidence authorizing naturalization on
taking the oath of allegiance and making the
required renunciations. No decree of natural-
238 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
ization could be made within months of
any general election in the state or district,
and no rights were conferred outside of the
state or district for months after naturali-
zation. No alien enemy could be naturalized.
No proof should be admitted or received of
any facts made a matter of record, except the
certificate of the record. Any attempted
fraud by any person in naturalization was
made a high misdemeanor. The court having
decreed a naturalization could re-examine the
same at any time within five years, upon pe-
tition of any citizens, or upon its own mo-
tion; and if fraud, wilful irregularity, or gross
negligence appeared, it must rescind and re-
verse the decree, and declare the naturaliza-
tion to be utterly null and void. Any alien
already in the United States who should at
any time within six months prove five years'
residence within the United States, and that
he was in all other respects, except as to a
certificate of registry, entitled to naturali-
zation under the new act, could be admitted
to citizenship by a decree of the court. A11
conflicting provisions of former laws were
repealed.26
In the House a motion was "laid over" that
sought the institution of an inquiry as to the
25 (458) Senate Documents, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second
Session, No. 173, 198.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
239
expediency of a law to authorize taking the
testimony of absent witnesses.
The plan
suggested was for the court, upon the motion
of an applicant, to issue a commission author-
izing any justice of the peace or clerk of a
court where the witnesses resided to take
their testimony in writing, certify to it, and
send it to be used as competent evidence to
secure the applicant the benefit of the natu-
ralization law. While this plan would doubt-
less have been very serviceable to many
honest applicants, the abundant enlargement
of the opportunity for fraud that it would
have made must have prevented its accept-
ance, even at a time when the necessity for
guarding the franchise was less prominently
in the public mind, and when political wisdom
could be found in legislating in the interest
of aliens.26
A motion for a similar inquiry as to a law
to require that the name of every emigrant
should be registered at the custom-house,
and a certificate of such registration be the
indispensable proof of the term of his resi-
dence in the United States; also as to a law
that the right of suffrage should not be
granted until two years after naturalization;
and as to any other amendments necessary
26 (462) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 96; December 17, 1844.
240 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
for the pervention of frauds and the preser-
vation of the purity of the elective franchise,
was laid over under the rules, on notice of
debate.27 Its proposal that Congress should
legislate to control the right of suffrage is
rather remarkable for this period.
The House Judiciary Committee report-
ed28 on the petitions referred to it, and pre-
sented a bill to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization, and to repeal all other acts or
parts of acts on that subject. The report first
analyzed all former acts, both existing and
obsolete. It said that the laws were liberal,
simple, and easily understood, and had under-
gone no change for seventeen years. They
might require condensation for convenience
and perspicuity, and some amendments to
prevent imposition and fraud. But the peti-
tioners asked for a radical change in the
residence requirement, which the committee
supposed, in the words of Jefferson, "would
in effect operate as a denial of the privilege
altogether.” Such a restriction would con-
flict with the policy of each and all the states
in their early settlement, and control the for-
mer liberal policy of the federal government.
The right to emigrate, and the privilege of
27 Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses
sion, 64; December 23, 1844.
28 January 31, 1845.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
241
being naturalized under provisions the least
onerous and restrictive, were everywhere
recognized in state laws and constitutions.
The principle involved, the right to renounce
an allegiance by birth and not by choice, was
acknowledged from the constitution of New
Hampshire to that of Louisiana. The Dec-
laration of Independence had complained of
England that she "obstructed the laws of
naturalization of foreigners.” The constitu-
tional clause for naturalization met with not
the slightest objection either informing or
adopting the Constitution. The secretary of
state reported of foreign governments that
they all used aliens in war against their na-
tive country, even when not regularly natu-
ralized, and that they allowed their own sub-
jects to emigrate.
But why multiply references and examples in support
of the principle and right of emigration and expatriation,
in contradistinction to the doctrine of native allegiance, and
the disavowal of naturalization a doctrine which belongs
to those dark and gloomy periods when conquest fettered
the persons, and superstition weighed down the minds of
men.
were
Greece, Rome, and modern France
better models. The French constitution of
1791 had made the single condition of natural-
ization: "those who-being born out of the
kingdom of foreign parents—reside in
242
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
France, become French citizens after five
years' continued residence in the kingdom.”
The seven- and nine-year periods for office for
foreigners, in the Constitution, were not in
harmony with this twenty-one-year period, by
which thirty years were required after the
declaration of intention. The petitioners
seemed to suppose that increase of population
was the only object of naturalization laws. It
was one object, but not the only one. The
committee would say: "It was to assert the
great principle of expatriation, and the right
of every man to leave the country of his birth
for the one of his choice." Not merely the
new states, but many of the old ones also,
would gladly add to their strength and wealth
by an increase of their numbers. If frauds
were practiced, guard against them by
amendments. Were they practiced only or
chiefly by the naturalized, or also by natives?
The committee thought it advisable to col-
lect all naturalization provisions into one gen-
eral law, and believed that the bill it pre-
sented, if adopted, would carry out the in-
junctions of the Constitution, preserve the
rights of aliens, and guard against all just
grounds of abuse and complaint.29
The bill that the committee presented con-
20 (468) House Reports of Committees, Twenty-eighth Congress,
Second Session, No. 87.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
243
tained ten sections. It was chiefly a re-enact-
ment of the existing law, with some addition-
al provisions to remedy minor defects, to
make fraudulent practices more difficult, and
to secure the punishment of fraud. Any alien
free white was to be admitted a citizen of
the United States in the mode and on the
conditions given, and not otherwise. He
must declare on oath in open court before a
supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of
a state or territory, or a circuit or district
court of the United States, at least two years
before his admission, his intention to become
a citizen, and to renounce his foreign alle-
giance. Two years later, and after five years'
residence in the United States, he might be
admitted a citizen, provided he took an oath
that he would support the Constitution and
did renounce any other allegiance and any
title; exhibited a certificate of his declaration
of intention, and took an oath that he was
the person named therein; furnished two wit-
nesses, citizens, who should swear that they
were well acquainted with him and believed
him to be the person named in the certificate,
and that he had resided five years in the
United States and one year in that state; and
proved that he was of good moral character,
attached to the principles of the Constitu-
244 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
tion, and well disposed to the good order
and happiness of the country. The full par-
ticulars of his certificate, residence, names of
witnesses, etc., must be stated in the record.
Otherwise it should not be competent for any
court to grant a certificate of naturalization
or pronounce a judgment of naturalization,
nor should the person be deemed a citizen of
the United States.
Any minor living in the United States for
two years before he was twenty-one, and
thereafter, might, after becoming twenty-one
and after five years of residence, be admitted
without the previous declaration of intention,
provided that he made the declaration at the
time of his admission, and declared and
proved that it had been for three years his
bona fide intention to become a citizen, and
complied with all the other requirements.
When any alien died after having declared
his intention, his widow and children, dwell-
ing in the United States, should be considered
citizens upon taking the oath and renouncing
their former allegiance. Minor children of
naturalized citizens dwelling in the United
States should be considered citizens. The
children of free white citizens, born out of
the United States during a temporary absence
of their parents, should be deemed native citi-
zens.
AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERICANISM
245
Every court of record of any state, having
common law jurisdiction and a seal and clerk,
should be considered a district court within
the meaning of the act. Any declaration be-
fore the passage of the act made bona fide
before the clerk of an authorized court should
be held as valid as if made before the court.
Clerks of courts should grant certificates of
declaration, and receive a fee of one dollar
each for granting and recording them; also
a fee of two dollars for a naturalization certifi-
cate to be paid before the naturalization was
allowed. Fraudulent application or naturali-
zation was to be a high misdemeanor, and be
punished by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars, or by imprisonment of not
more than six months, or by both. Anyone
knowingly aiding in the fraud was liable to
one-half of the specified penalties. A fraudu-
lent naturalization was to be void. It should
be the duty of a district attorney learning of
fraud
to file information; scire facias
should then issue to show why the naturali-
zation should not be null; and if it was shown
by confession, default, or jury trial that the
naturalization had been procured by fraud,
it was to be the duty of the court to adjudge
it to be null and void. Knowingly and wil-
fully using or permitting the use of any cer-
an
246 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
tificate of declaration or of naturalization, ex-
cept for the proper person and lawfully,
should be a misdemeanor, liable to one-half
of the before-mentioned penalties. All other
acts and parts of acts respecting naturaliza-
tion were to be repealed.30 This bill was re-
ferred, after two readings, to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, and had not come up for considera-
tion when the session and the Congress ended
a month later.
30 Congressional Globe, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, Appendix, 130; January 31, 1845.
CHAPTER XIII
THE PERIOD OF AGGRESSIVE NATIVE AMERI-
CANISM (CONTINUED)
In July, 1845, a Native American national
convention was held at Philadelphia, with
delegates present from nine states.
It set
forth its principles in a number of resolu-
tions, formally took the name "Native Ameri-
cans,” and sent out an address called “The
Second Declaration of Independence.” The
resolutions declared that they could give
their suffrages only to persons born on the
soil, and favored twenty-one years' residence
for foreigners thereafter naturalized. They
would kindly receive persons who came to
America, and give them every privilege ex-
cept office and suffrage.
Archer, during the next session of the
Senate, presented thirty memorials for
"twenty-one years'
years” legislation. Three-
fourths of them were from Pennsylvania.
They were referred, and no other action was
taken on the subject.
In the House the naturalization question
attained much greater prominence. A series
of resolutions of the Massachusetts Legis-
247
248 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
lature was presented early in the session, and
the question of its reference brought on a
prolonged debate. 31 According to the reso-
lutions, experience had clearly shown that
the naturalization laws were loose and defect-
ive, affording opportunity for gross frauds,
destructive to the rights and morals of the
citizens and the stability of their institutions.
The rights, interests, and morals of the
people demanded an immediate and thorough
revision of the naturalization laws. The legis-
lature regarded it as the imperative duty of
Congress so to amend those laws. While a
liberal and just policy should be adopted
toward foreigners who were in the country
or might come there, the rights and privileges
of their own countrymen should be kept in-
violate and the ballot box be permanently
guarded against improper influence. The
solid Whig delegation of nine members that
Massachusetts had in the House, and her sen-
ators, were especially requested to use their
utmost exertions forthwith to
procure
amendments in accord with the views ex-
pressed.32
Levin, for some time thereafter a striking
Native American figure in House or Senate, ob-
31 This debate began December
was continued on
December 17, 18, 29, and 30.
32 House Journal, Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session, 96.
15, and
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 249
jected to referring the bill to the Judiciary Com-
mittee on the ground of established usage or
privilege of the House, which (he said) se-
cured to a measure full and fair discussion on
its merits from a committee that was not pre-
judiced against its main principle. The doc-
trine was clearly laid down that those opposed
to the main principle of a bill were not to
be appointed its judges. Reference to a com-
mittee known to be hostile was tantamount
to a rejection, and that was prejudgment that
would suit a sultan. The eyes of the nation
were turned on the House. The people loved
this child of theirs, “monster” as it had been
called. They expected consideration for it,
and Congress could not grant a smaller act of
justice. Giddings inquired whether Levin
had not always voted at that session to
smother petitions against slavery of eighty
thousand native-born Americans. Brodhead
questioned where there was evidence of any
disposition on the part of the Judiciary Com-
mittee to smother the matter. There was
none on which to found so offensive an impu-
tation. Why let the American party select
a committee ? Must the House dignify by a
report of a select committee what but six ou
of two hundred and twenty-three representa-
tives of the whole American people professed
250 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
to advocate? So very small a minority must
be treated as other minorities were treated.
How was it to be expected that the majority
would endorse the opposing view? He called
for the previous question to save time from
useless discussion, but withdrew it at the re-
quest of Rathbun, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Rathbun favored granting the request of
Levin. If the memorial was sent to his com-
mittee, he should move to discharge it at
the first meeting. Let the few there have the
nursing of this new and original thought of
theirs as to naturalization, and present the
bantling when sufficiently grown. Let them
show that the previous course of the nation
was all wrong, and that a foreigner should
not vote until the infant born on the day of
his arrival voted at his side. Maclay re-
gretted Rathbun's willingness. Two years
before he would have granted willingly the
reference asked, on account of the promi-
nence in the public discussions that the subject
seemed to occupy. There was a great change
since, and the public judgment had been pro-
nounced. The miserable Native American
movement no longer excited the regard of
an intelligent community. It never had any
strength except in large cities, and could not
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 251
stand country atmosphere.33 Let the Judi-
ciary Committee examine the subject patient-
ly, and report showing the sheer absurdity of
any change in the system that had prevailed
from the foundation of the government and
was the cause of so large a part of the coun-
try's prosperity. McDowell was utterly op-
posed to twenty-one years, but had no objec-
tion to revision for the more effectual pro-
tection of the ballot box. But if the object
was to get up political excitement in the
House, and send out nourishment to a party
fast dwindling into insignificance, he would
vote to table the memorial. Payne (Ala.) be-
lieved the present movement was one to get
up a faction in the House such as the Anti-
Mason and Abolition factions, and hoped for
a merited rebuke for it. Yancey (Ala.) be-
lieved it ever the practice to refer a matter
to its friends, and favored a special commit-
tee to meet the matter fairly.
Others thought that, though the Native
Americans were few and feeble, yet they were
entitled to courtesy and a fair hearing.
There was not a native American on the Ju-
33 Later, another speaker, either John W. Davis (Ind.) or
Jefferson Davis, declared that the Native American party
erated by the corruption of the great cities, and could not live
in the pure atmosphere of the country—that nobody had ever
heard of a meeting of Native Americans in a country schoolhouse.
Native Americans were but a wing of the Whigs. Open doors
to immigration was the true policy of the government.
gen-
252 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
diciary Committee, and there could not be
even a minority report from it. What harm
could a select committee do-there had been
a bill and a report at the last session, but no
action? These measures marked the in-
cipient stage of making a great alien class.
The Native American party had its birth in a
storm-one of the most wretched and dis-
graceful scenes ever seen in Philadelphia-
and was everywhere declared to be seeking
the offices that were held by the foreign-born.
The question was entitled to no more respect
than Abolition.34 The attempt to divert the
reference was an acknowledgment that they
were seeking to throw firebrands, and to send
out an inflammatory report to make converts
for Native Americanism.
Levin replied that so strong and attractive
a principle as that of the Native Americans
yet promised a majority of the House and
the country. In fifteen years the native-born
would be in a minority. Americans were
shot down in Philadelphia on the plea that
they were on the Irish quarter, and that no
Americans were allowed there. They were
charged falsely with being "burners
"burners of
churches.” They had saved a church at the
risk of their lives, and had destroyed none.
They were neither bigots nor fanatics.
34 This was from Chipman, a Democrat from Michigan.
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 253
Bayly (Va.) regarded the resolutions as a
bold attempt
to interfere with the ac-
knowledged rights of states. The general
government had no jurisdiction in the matter
and could not control suffrage. They could
do no more than to deprive the foreigner of
his right to the habeas corpus, to hold prop-
erty, and other rights pertaining to citizen-
ship. His right to suffrage was exclusively
under the jurisdiction of the states. The
measure proposed would deter men of prop-
erty and character from coming, but would
hardly keep out paupers. He could not con-
sent to take a great constitutional question
from the law committee and refer it to a special
committee.
Bayly's constitutional argument ignored
the important fact that the states had, very
generally and largely as a matter of course,
made United States citizenship a qualification
for suffrage, and that perhaps in most of them
a change of opinion as to their legal right
would be necessary before that requirement
could be removed. It followed that a federal
law hindering naturalization would act effect-
ively to deprive the majority of foreigners
of their rights to the suffrage. To be sure,
some states were then asserting, and perhaps
all would today acknowledge, their legal
254 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
power to overcome this difficulty; but most
states then thought it to be either illegal or
unwise to take such action. So long and so
far as this opinion prevailed, Congress had
actual control of the situation. A remarkable
fact to notice, also, is that Bayly did not claim
for the states any control over the right to
hold property. I think that the explanation
of this must be found in the federal owner-
ship and control of the sale of the public
lands, and the importance assumed by the
public lands among the possible property
holdings of aliens. In other words, the prop-
erty right then meant to an alien the right to
buy public lands.
Stephen A. Douglas said that naturaliza-
tion conferred the right of citizenship, which
included the rights of protection, access to
the courts in time of war, holding real estate,
inheritance, and various other rights. The
federal convention had discussed the matter
of fixing uniform rules of voting, and aban-
doned it. The differences were too many and
too great to reconcile or remove, and it be-
came necessary to split or compromise. The
right of each state to qualify voters had
never been questioned.85 The states defied and
85 A very inadequate statement. An absolute right, not sub.
ject to the limitations of the naturalization laws, had been denied
often in Congress and elsewhere.
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 255
derided the attempts of the Native Americans
to control the suffrage by naturalization. The
Judiciary Committee of the last Congress had
offered a bill to remedy frauds. Also there
was now a different committee. If there had
been any fault before, it was that of Congress
rather than of the committee.
In closing the debate, two members de-
fended the Whig party from responsibility
for Native Americanism. It had arisen in
Democratic districts in the outskirts of Phila-
delphia. Democratic loss of the Irish vote
had started it. The party was of no practical
use to anybody but Democrats. Whig Ohio
had denounced it in resolutions of the legis-
lature. That it had sprung from the Demo-
cratic party as its source could be demon-
strated. The debate was ended only with the
previous question.
The resolutions were
sent to the Judiciary Committee December
30, 1845.86
The committee presented an emphatic re-
port on the both of February. They had
waited some weeks for proofs of the state-
ments in the resolutions, but none had been
offered them. The time of the resolutions had
been least favorable for an unprejudiced ex-
amination of the truth of the matters, owing
86 Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session,
67-74, 77-82, 105-7, 113-18.
256
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
to the great excitement in the election of 1844.
Complaint had naturally followed defeat. It
was difficult to perceive dangers from the
naturalization laws or from the votes of
naturalized persons.
The committee under-
stood the resolutions to complain only of
looseness of the laws and opportunity for
fraud upon them. The judge and the clerk
were in this, the same as in their other duties,
under a legal and moral responsibility to ad-
minister the laws honestly and justly. A vio-
lation of this duty was a high crime. Wit-
nesses were all liable for perjury. The com-
mittee was unable to devise any
devise any greater
penalties for perjury in harmony with the
humane spirit of the age. It would be re-
garded as barbarous and inhumane to forfeit
life. They were constrained to believe that
the naturalization laws were sufficiently
guarded and sufficiently stringent. Some
thought that the period of probation should
be twenty-one years. The committee thought
differently and were sustained by experience.
The longer the probation, the greater was
the inducement to fraud. It was impolitic to
perpetuate the character of alien longer than
was absolutely necessary.
If all foreigners
who had come for twenty years were still
aliens, and excluded from all rights in soil and
1
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 257
government, consider the danger, especially
in case of war with England. Her subjects,
embittered and denied rights, could not aid
the United States. Nor could or would the
United States protect aliens. It was wise and
prudent to Americanize the whole class as
speedily as possible. The reasons for liberal
naturalization laws still existed in all their
force. They ought not to be disregarded,
nor ought any disadvantageous or repulsive
restrictions to be added to the laws. When
the population became dense, labor cheap,
employment scarce, then, and not till then,
would it be necessary to inquire as to a
change. The states controlled suffrage, and
had the remedy for evils in themselves. They
could, but ought not to, proscribe naturalized
citizens. The committee had no knowledge
of frauds nor evidence concerning them.
They would not look among ignorant aliens
for perpetrators of frauds. These might be
instruments in the hands of unprincipled citi-
zens. They recommended a resolution: that
no alteration of the naturalization laws is
necessary for the preservation of rights, in-
terests, and morals of the people, or for the
guarding of the ballot box from every im-
proper influence. 37
37 (489) House Reports of Committees, Twenty-ninth Congress,
First Session, No. 231.
258 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Two native Americans, Levin and Camp-
bell (N. Y.), replied later to some of the
points in the report.
Levin's speech was
made in connection with a motion of his to
amend a bill for raising a regiment of mount-
ed riflemen by providing that the officers and
soldiers should all be Americans by birth.
He referred to what he called the effort to
make it appear that the states possessed the
power to create citizens of the United States.
The Judiciary Committee's report had re-
ferred them to state laws for every right,
civil and political, that an alien could possess.
In fact, the federal system was purely politi-
cal, and naturalization must confer rights
purely political-suffrage and office-holding.
The Constitution gave states the unquestion-
able right to decide on what terms American
citizens could vote. But if they could grant
to aliens suffrage for presidential electors,
they could also grant eligibility to the presi-
dency to aliens. No probation would be
necessary if naturalization were designed only
to confer rights relative to property, or other
civil and personal rights of residents of states.
If the states controlled the suffrage, and did
ot discriminate between aliens and citizens,
no certificate of naturalization would be
necessary, no record of alienage could be
.
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 259
traced, and the functions of government
would come entirely within the power of
foreigners, in flagrant violation of the Consti-
tution. Changes in the period of probation
showed conclusively that the great and fun-
damental right of naturalization was suffrage,
and suffrage only. Five or fourteen years’
residence, knowledge, good character, were
not required to hold property, fight, or act in
civil relations. The very idea of probation
applied to the ballot box, and the practice, ex-
cept in Illinois and Michigan, sustained this
view. The absurdity of the report on that
point was self-evident. It was absurd to
prove the non-existence of a law by its vio-
lation. If the states could admit aliens to
vote, the Constitution was a dead letter. If,
as they were told, the denial of naturaliza-
tion and the suffrage would create discontent,
cabal and insurrection, they should exclude
foreigners totally. In twenty-one years all
distinct interests, jealousy, and rivalry would
cease, and the foreign party would be ex-
tinguished. No other country on the globe
admitted the foreigner, or even its own peo-
ple, to rights of sovereignty.
Campbell declared that alien voting
Michigan and Illinois was a plain violation of
38 Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session,
38
in
605.
260 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
as
to
the spirit of the Constitution. The first con-
stitution of New York (1777) gave the state
power to pass general laws for naturaliza-
tion, but the state never passed any such law,
and passed only one special act naturalizing
by name about one hundred persons. They
had not thought it was wise to open wide the
door to citizenship.39
The real question in dispute between
Campbell and the committee was
whether in making the Constitution a distinct
federal citizenship was established, and the
various state citizenships merged into it, to
the extent at least of all of their political
rights. In that case, unquestionably, the
right of suffrage must be derived from this
new citizenship, and could never be extended
beyond it while the Constitution, in letter
or in interpretation, remained unchanged
and retained its controlling force.
In this view of the case, the federal citizen-
ship from which suffrage derived attached to
former state citizens by the adoption of the
Constitution. Thereafter it could be gained
only by birth or by naturalization. Birth any-
where within the United States wrought a
uniform result in this respect, and the effect
of birth abroad would be regulated by the
39 Loc. cit., 619.
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 261
federal naturalization laws.
The power of
naturalization was confided wholly to the
general government.
Thus the states 110
longer had anything to say as to who became
citizens, while they had full control of the
terms on which citizens could vote, subject
only to the constitutional requirement that
the citizens of each state have the privileges
of citizens in the several states.
By the process described the idea of state
citizenship must have lost so much of its con-
tent as to change its character or destroy it
entirely. Two courses would remain by
which the idea might survive in a limited
sense. It might be applied to distinguish
those federal citizens who resided in the state
from other federal citizens, leaving all other
persons in the state to be regarded as aliens
from every point of view. In this case there
would scarcely be contrast enough to support
a very definite idea of two citizenships. Or its
application might be extended to include un-
naturalized foreigners in the exercise of cer-
tain rights secured to them through residence
in the state, in which case the content of the
idea would be reduced to the sum of those
alien rights. State pride could be depended
upon to prevent state citizenship from being
reduced to mean so little, and the alter-
,
262
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
native would involve identifying it with fed-
eral citizenship.
But if the federal citizenship did not mo-
nopolize the suffrage power, and the states
retained the right to make voters, of any
grade at all, from aliens, the presumption
would be easy and natural that they were
not excluded from granting to aliens the suf-
frage for members of the lower house of the
legislature. With that granted, nothing could
prevent the entire federal suffrage from be-
ing given at the will of the state. That would
give to state citizenship ample content, and
the distinction between it and federal citizen-
ship would be forced into prominence.
The constitutional provisions are that
members of the House of Representatives
shall be chosen "by the People of the several
States," having "the Qualifications requisite
for Electors of the most numerous Branch of
the State Legislature;” and “Each State shall ap-
point in such manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a Number of presidential Elec-
tors." The only restrictions are in the one
case that the "State shall appoint," and in
the other that elections shall be by “the Peo-
ple of the several States." If these terms
were construed abstractly in the light of
strong notions of allegiance, or of the con-
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 263
trast between aliens and citizens, they would
be found to warrant Campbell's conclusions;
but, when considered practically in a new
country, where aliens were numerous or set-
tlers were greatly desired, and where ideas of
individual liberty had dethroned perpetual al-
legiance, foreigners would clearly be “People
of the several States." Perhaps nothing short
of an explicit exclusion, such as was made in
regard to the presidency, could have kept
them from the suffrage wherever the terms
of naturalization were thought to be harsh.
Levin spoke in the next Congress on a bill
intended to prevent the crowded condition
of emigrant ships. He was opposed to the
whole system of importing voters, and at-
tributed it to party policy intended to weaken
the Native American party. He should move
to amend the title to, "A bill to accommodate
the paupers and criminals of Europe in their
migrations to the United States.” The nat-
uralization laws were obsolete in principle,
object, and tendency, and most destructive in
practice. They had been designed to adopt
a class of aliens qualified by morals, manners,
and education to aid in expanding the country
and consolidating the new government. But
Europe no longer drove out her valuable
and gifted sons—instead of them she was
264 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
rance.
sending over famine victims. He would feed
them, but not rally to the polls that living
mass of moral putrescence and pitiable igno-
When the Native American vote
equaled the foreign vote, the question would
be settled.40
The question of pauper and criminal immi-
grants continued to be agitated throughout
the Native American and Know-Nothing
periods, and has begun to be solved only in
much more recent times. Memorials brought
the subject before both House and Senate in
the spring of 1847. The Senate at length
discharged its committee from consideration
of it, but printed information from the sec-
retary of state showed shipments of these
classes from Switzerland and Germany, and
probably of paupers from Ireland. 41 A bill
was introduced in the House to prevent the
importation of these classes, but it came to
naught. In 1850 the New Orleans Board of
Health petitioned Congress to tax alien passen-
gers arriving in the United States. In response
to this petition, the House Judiciary Commit-
tee reported a bill for such a tax, the pro-
to Congressional Globe, Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, Appendix, 385.
41 (492) Senate Journal, Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 232; (496) House Journal, 468; (499) House Documents,
Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Session, No. 54.
t
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 265
ceeds to go to authorized state officers for
eleemosynary purposes.42
In 1851-52 a number of petitions were re-
ferred in both houses, and again the Senate
committee was discharged from considering
them further.43 In 1855 a resolution of the
Rhode Island Legislature called for a law to
prohibit the introduction of foreign paupers
and criminals. It was sent to the governors
of the other states for presentation to their
legislatures as well as to Congress.44 The
Senate debated a resolution of inquiry calling
upon the president for information as to the
transportation of foreign convicts and pau-
pers into the United States, and the agency
of governments and municipal authorities
therein; the voluntary immigration of those
classes into the United States; and the leg-
islation necessary. Cooper (Pa.), who in-
troduced the resolution, said that friendly
nations had no right to make of the United
States a penal colony; yet there was scarcely
an emigrant ship not freighted partly with
42 (492) Senate Journal, Twenty-ninth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, " 158, 216; (495) Senate Documents, Twenty-ninth Congress,
Second Session, No. 161.
18 (610) Senate Journal, Thirty-second Congress, First Session
42, 93, 117, 219, 225, 243, 274, 420, 436; (632) House Journal,
Thirty-second Congress, First Session, 103, 237, 280, 292, 327, 385.
66 (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
293; (772) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty-third Congress,
Second Session, No. 19.
266 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
that kind of cargo. The evil had lately
alarmingly increased. One vessel in New
York had recently landed one hundred and
fifty paupers, and fifteen or sixteen convicts
wearing chains. The Sardinian government
had recently shipped thirty-four convicted
criminals. Some years before two hundred
and sixty Hessian convicts, a ship-load, came
to Baltimore with manacles and fetters still
on hands and feet. The mayor detained them
and wrote the secretary of state, who replied
that there was no law to prevent their land-
ing. He gave figures to show that the for-
eign-born paupers in the United States in
1850 were over two thousand more than the
paupers of native birth.
Brodhead replied that it was easier to make
a speech than to introduce a bill to meet the
difficulty that would be conformable to the
Constitution. Cooper had not told the rem-
edy.46 The states had authority and had
acted. New York taxed every foreigner, and
exacted security from ship-owners that immi-
grants would not become a charge. Where
was the jurisdiction in Congress? He was
opposed to immigration, but did not know
how to frame a bill not in conflict with state
authority, state rights, and state jurisdic-
+5 Cooper replied that the resolution showed a practical purpose.
$
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 267
tion.46 A little later, Jones (Tenn.) submitted
a resolution for consideration, in substance
as follows: Whereas, The Constitution con-
fers on Congress the power to establish a
uniform rule of naturalization, and is silent
as to the exercise of any power over the sub-
ject of emigration; and Whereas, The Consti-
tution declares that the powers not delegated
to the United States nor prohibited to the
states are reserved to the states or to the people;
Resolved, That Congress has no power to pass
any law regulating or controlling immigration
into any states or territories. The power to estab-
lish necessary rules belongs to the states or to the
people. Each state may determine for itself
the evils arising from criminal and pauper im-
migration, and apply such remedy as its wis-
dom may suggest or its safety demand.
In the House this question culminated in a
struggle to secure the passage of a bill re-
ported by Wentworth from the Committee on
Commerce. Its opponents succeeded in hold-
ing it back until the very close of the session
(March 3, 1855). Appeals were made to
withdraw it, and charges that it had been
sprung upon the House, although the bill had
46 (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
151, 164; Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 388-91; January 25, 1855.
47 Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
783; February 17, 1855.
47
268 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
been in print for two months. Breckinridge
would not discuss the question of the power
of the general government to prevent states
from allowing the entrance of such as they
chose, but, assuming the power, there was a
cruel exercise of it in the bill. It required
every human being desirous of coming to the
United States to procure a consul's certificate
that he was not lunatic, poor, or blind, and
had not been for five years. At first it had
forbidden bringing the blind child in a man's
family, but it had been patched up with an
amendment so that it did not apply to a mem-
ber of a family with sufficient property for
its support. Any person who was the whole
support of a family and was old, young, rich, or
poor was repelled if blind. He wanted no prop-
erty qualifications for residence in the United
States. It was anti-American, anti-republi-
can, and most odious. The provision to ex-
clude as a pauper a person who had received
aid within a year might exclude one as worthy
as the man who had millions. He knew that
the proscriptive feeling of which he regarded
the bill as one of the fruits, was popular, and
was sweeping like a hurricane from one end
of the country to the other; but it conflicted
with fundamental principles of the govern-
ment, and he was willing to oppose it and
1
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 269
await the reaction in public sentiment that he
knew would come.
Wentworth had been
beaten by the Know-Nothing political society,
and might have introduced that bill to extin-
guish Know-Nothingism.
I would rather trust to the next Congress, full of
Know Nothings, as it is likely to be, to pass a bill upon
this subject, than to take this bill, patched up and thrust
upon us at this late period of the session, with a view to
compromise the question.
Wentworth replied that the bill was started
before he had much knowledge of the exist-
ence of the new ism. His state maintained
two or three thousand foreign paupers. The
whole seaboard was calling for the law. The
Rhode Island Legislature and the New York
Common Council favored it. The Emigrant
Society of New York had been urging a much
more restrictive bill, from which some addi-
tions to this were taken. The Supreme Court
had decided that Congress had power to regu-
late the whole subject, and that the Massa-
chusetts and New York restriction laws were
unconstitutional and void; that Congress
could control the introduction of foreigners,
and that states had no right to legislate in
any way to contravene their introduction or
importation. The
of Gibbons and
Ogden, and the passenger cases had settled
case
270 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
the question. Any necessary legislation must
come from Congress alone. The passenger
laws since 1848 had been equally restrictive
and penal.
No property qualification was
made; for if one were not a pauper, he could
come without a farthing. To a request to
state the constitutional clause under which
power was claimed, he replied that it was
claimed under a decision of the Supreme
Court, and that there was no necessity of
going into the constitutional
constitutional argument.
Breckinridge failed in an effort to get the
floor to offer a substitute, and Hendricks
again appealed to the House not to attempt
to pass the bill at that late hour. It was laid
on the table by a vote of 68 to 53.48
The next year 49 the House Committee on
Foreign Relations reported back a bill to
prevent the introduction into the United
States of foreign criminals, paupers, idiots,
lunatics, insane, and blind persons. In a long
report the committee discussed the evils to
be remedied, and asserted that both the gen-
eral and state governments could do much
to stay the tide of immigration of that unde-
sirable population. The states generally had
48 (709) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, First Session,
1802; (776) ibid., Second Session, 137, 139, 574, 582; Congres-
sional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session, 158, 167, 174,
970, 1180-1187.
49 August 16, 1856.
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 271
been as much remiss as Congress. Sugges-
tions were made as to how they could enforce
a truly American policy on all subjects. The
bill did not get beyond the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.50
Resolutions on this subject, one of them
from the legislature of Maine, were before
different Senate committees in 1857, and in
the House in 1858; but nothing more impor-
tant was done with them than the discharge
of some committees having them in hand. 51
In February, 1841, the Senate Committee on
Judiciary reported a bill to declare the rights
of children of citizens of the United States
born abroad. The bill was considered and
passed to third reading, but was then laid on
the table.52 In December, 1844, notice was
given in the House of leave to be asked to in-
troduce a similar bill.53 The bill of the House
Judiciary Committee of 1845, heretofore de-
scribed, provided that such children should
be deemed native.
60 (838) House Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session,
474, 631, (839) 1491; (870) House Reports of Committees, Thirty-
fourth Congress, First and Second Sessions, 359.
81 (917) Senate Journal, Thirty-fifth Congress, First Session,
49, 360, 364, 488; (934) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty.
fifth Congress, First Session, No. 12; (940) House Journal, 131,
54
197.
62 (374) Senate Journal, Twenty-sixth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 183, 214; February 17 and 27, 1841.
88 (462) House Journal, Twenty-eighth Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 104.
84 Sec p. 244.
272 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Three years later Webster was
Webster was given
leave to bring in a bill to extend the benefits
of the naturalization law to the wives and
children of citizens. The bill provided that
all persons then or thereafter born out of the
limits of the United States, of a father or
mother being or having been a natural-born
citizen of the United States, should be en-
titled to all the rights and privileges of citi-
zenship; also that every woman married, or
who should be married, to a citizen of the
United States, should be deemed and taken to
be a citizen. Webster explained that the bill
had a very simple and important object. By
the law of 1812, except by a violent construc-
tion of it, children born abroad of Americans
resident or traveling there, were not to be
deemed citizens. That act said “of parents
who heretofore have been, or now are, citi-
zens of the United States,” but did not say
"hereafter shall be." At the time he was
speaking parents might be forty-six years old
who were not born in 1802, and their children
born abroad were excluded from citizenship
by necessary construction of the act. Story,
Kent, and others thought the act was very
vaguely drawn. Though it was intended to
apply to naturalized citizens, it could not be
construed to do so. To remedy that, making
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED)
273
the act apply to all citizens, was the main
provision of the bill. The Judiciary Commit-
tee reported an amendment, that Webster
indorsed as simplifying the measure. It then
provided that the children of citizens of the
United States, born out of the United States,
should be considered as citizens, provided
that the rights of citizenship should not de-
scend to persons whose fathers never had
been residents in the United States. By sec.
2 every woman married already or thereafter
to a citizen of the United States, and continu-
ing to reside in the United States, should be
deemed and taken to be a citizen. The bill
did not get out of the committee of the
whole.55 An item in Niles Register, March 30,
1844, was as follows:
ALIEN FEMALES. An alien wife should be naturalized.
It was decided by Judge Kent in the New York circuit
court, on Saturday, that a wife, born abroad, and not
naturalized, could not inherit property devised to her by a
husband."
A bill similar to that of Webster passed two
readings at the first session of the following
Congress, and was read early in the second
session, but has no further record;57 and a
58 (502) Senate Journal, Thirtieth Congress, First Session, 382,
390; Congressional Globe, Thirtieth Congress, First Session, 827,
834, 844; June 12, 13, 15, 1848.
60 Niles Register, LXVI, 80.
07 (566) House Journal, Thirty-first Congress, First Session,
284, 523; Congressional Globe, Thirty-first Congress, First Session,
86
24.
274 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
58
Senate bill with the same object was amended
by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1852.
At length the Thirty-third Congress suc-
ceeded in legislating upon these subjects by
devoting to them some time at both sessions.
The House and the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tees were each instructed, on the same day,
to inquire as to any necessary legislation to
secure the rights of citizenship to children of
American citizens born abroad. Seward sub-
mitted the resolution in the Senate. The
House resolution had directed a report by bill
or otherwise, at as early a day as possible.
A bill was reported on January 13, and passed
the same day.59 Cutting explained for the
committee that it was one eminently neces-
sary to correct a lamentable defect in the law,
and deserved immediate action. It provided
that all persons born out of the United States,
whose fathers 60 were citizens of the United
States, should be deemed citizens, provided
that the rights of citizenship should not de-
scend to children whose fathers never resided
in the United States. Any woman, not a citi-
zen, when married to a citizen should be
deemed a citizen. The act of 1790 had pro-
08 December 20, 1853.
68 (709) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, First Session,
117, 199.
60 Webster's bill had said “fathers or mothers.'
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 275
vided for such children, but that of 1802 had
left them aliens if their parents were born
after 1802. The difficulty did not manifest
itself for nearly fifty years; but was noticed
some ten or twelve years before. The Sen-
ate bill of 1841 seemed to have been forgotten.
A later House bill unfortunately went to the
receptacle of all things that were to be lost-
the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union. If this went there,
the chances were against its being reached.
The woman section was taken, nearly in exact
words, from the English act of 1844. There
could be no objection to it, because women
possessed no political rights. There was no
good reason for putting women to the pro-
bationary term, and the trouble and expense
of naturalization. Being a citizen, she would
train her children properly. New York had
passed special acts for five or six years past to
guard against escheat of property that should
descend to certain children born abroad, but
the state could not regulate their political
rights. An effort to refer this bill to the com-
mittee of the whole, in the interest of other
desired amendments to the naturalization
law, failed.61
In the Senate petitions against its passage
61 Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, First Session,
169; January 13, 1854.
276 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
was in-
without amendment were received,
, 62 and
Seward soon after presented other petitions
against the passage of the bill.43 Apparently
it was the second section, providing that an
alien woman, when married to a citizen,
should become a citizen, that had prevented
action on the subject before, and that caused
the opposition of the petitioners. The Sen-
ate Judiciary Committee recommended that
this section be struck out. Nearly a year
later, Bayard explained that the committee
had revised its opinion, and he
structed by it to propose, instead of its for-
mer amendment, to insert after "woman” the
words "who might be lawfully naturalized
under existing laws." He said that it was
considered both necessary and proper that the
wife should not become a citizen unless she
could be naturalized under existing laws. 64
The bill passed with this amendment, and the
House accepted it after placing “lawfully”
before instead of after "be." 65
The amendment would prevent the citizen-
ship of negro, Indian, or Chinese women. It
02 One of these was from "Horatio Seymour and others."
08 (689) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, First Session,
53, 119, 130, 170.
04 Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
92; December 20, 1854.
68 Ibid., 632.
NATIVE AMERICANISM (CONTINUED) 277
seems to require moral character and attach-
ment to the principles of the Constitution.
Perhaps it is an open question whether five
years' residence is also required by it. The
bill became a law on February 10, 1855.
CHAPTER XIV
THE KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
Returning to the agitation for twenty-one
years' residence as a prerequisite to naturali-
zation, note at the outset that petitions do
not assume the importance henceforth that
they did in the earlier Native American move-
ment. Party lines are more tightly drawn,
and there is little use of asking political oppo-
nents for votes in Congress.
On January 23, 1850, Levin gave notice of
a bill for the protection of the ballot box by
an extension of the naturalization law to
twenty-one years and by a capitation tax.1
This was perhaps the last act in the old agi-
tation. The new began at the opening of the
second session of the Thirty-third Congress
in December, 1854, when Taylor (Tenn.) in
the House, and Adams (Miss.) in the Senate,
gave notice of bills, the one to repeal or modi-
fy the naturalization laws, and the other to
amend the Naturalization Act of 1802. Tay-
lor's bill was introduced by unanimous con-
sent, but did not get out of the hands of the
Judiciary Committee. The Senate bill met
i Congressional Globe, Thirty-first Congress, First Session, 219.
3 (776) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
40, 259.
278
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
279
a similar fate, but Adams made a speech upon
it before it was referred. He explained that
the twenty-one years' residence to be required
was entirely prospective. All inhabitants of
the United States at the time of the passage
of the bill were to have the benefit of the
existing law. He gave the growth of the
population since 1800 as about 33 per cent.
every ten years. At that rate they would
number about 101,000,000 by 1900.
The
natives would need the whole country, but im-
migration was increasing alarmingly. He re-
ferred to riots and mobs, the recent hanging
of an American senator in effigy,; and the
formation of the German Progressive Repub-
lican Party, with one of its objects to abolish
the sabbath. If five years had been a proper
time in 1802 for the "then" class of immi-
grants (only seven thousand a year, and scat-
tered) to become acquainted with the govern-
ment, twenty-one years was not too long for
the class of people coming now, three hun-
dred and seventy thousand a year, in large
bands, settling whole neighborhoods and com-
munities, and keeping their own language.
He believed that public opinion demanded
the proposed change, and the safety of the
government required it. The new party had
8 Douglas, chairman of the committee on territories, had been
hanged in effigy by foreigners, called a German mob.
280 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
had great success in the last election. He
did not belong to the Know-Nothing organi-
zation, and had twice advocated similar views
in the House before its successes were made,
when he had favored the entire repeal of the
naturalization laws. He was told that states
possessed and exercised control over the suf-
frage. His answer was that the states, having
conferred the right of naturalization on the
general government, should, in all good faith
to the general government and to each other,
conform the qualifications of voters to the
laws of naturalization. Many of them had
done so, and recent changes in public opin-
ion justified the belief that nearly all would
conform to the principles of his bill. He was
not tenacious about twenty-one years, but
thought it the proper and favorite time. No
man in the United States could complain of
injustice by the bill.4 A petition was received
from the Rhode Island Legislature, asking,
among other things, for a new naturalization
law requiring twenty-one years' continuous
residence, and that all processes and oaths be
taken in a United States circuit or district
court, and before the judge in open court.
• Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
15, 24-26.
o See p. 265.
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
281
This was laid on the table by the Senate, and
referred by the House.?
A number of speeches, pro and con, on
Know-Nothingism were made during this
session of Congress. N. P. Banks defended
the right of the Know-Nothings to organize
secretly. Their object made such organiza-
tion a popular movement and not a conspir-
acy. He stated that the ground of their oppo-
sition to Roman Catholic naturalization was
that their allegiance was claimed by the pope.
There had been great growth in immigration,
and Old World conditions would increase it.
Chinese immigration to Japan had been lim-
ited; many Chinese were already in Califor-
nia. With steamers crossing the Pacific in
ten or twelve days, who could prophesy its
outcome? Or who could check it? The Su-
preme Court had decided that the states could
not. If they came, they would be admitted.
Should they be naturalized in five years? An
organized minority of foreign-born had great
power, for which there was no remedy except
that union that was understood to be a chief
object of the Know-Nothings. A change in
the naturalization laws would not remedy
• (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
293; (772) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty-third Congress,
Second Session, No. 19.
? (776) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
423; February 21, 1855.
282
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
seem
that evil. Yet extending the term of resi-
dence required, and more stringent execution
of the laws, might be justified. Whether the
term should be twenty-one, twelve, or ten
years
he would leave for others to say.8
Barry (Miss.) said that the Know-Nothing
purposes were unknown-as set forth they
were contradictory. Prejudice and hostility
to foreigners were greater inversely as the
degree of civilization of a nation. The Know-
Nothings sought to justify themselves by
claiming that there are secret foreign organi-
zations, but these they dignify by imitating.
Know-Nothing purposes to be: (1)
the exclusion of all foreigners from office;
(2) the extension of the naturalization law
to twenty-one years or other period; (3)
the entire repeal of naturalization laws; (4)
the exclusion of Roman Catholics from office.
The real danger was in foreigners congregat-
ing alone, and proscription tended to cause
that. They might even get complete control
of some northwestern state. He admitted
the duty of excluding paupers and criminals.
If the evil from them was as great as was
charged, it was remarkable that they had been
allowed to come so long. If the naturaliza-
tion laws were repealed, the states would
8 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-third Congress, Second
Session, 49-52; December 18, 1854.
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
283
then legislate. Naturalization gave nearly
all rights, and yet the states could bestow
nearly all without naturalization. They gave
full suffrage, holding real estate, and state
office. Other states did not recognize these
rights, and a law of Congress was necessary
to give the privileges and immunities of citi-
zens in the several states. A state could even
deny suffrage to all who were not natives of
it. Not a voter in the Union derived his
power from the federal government." His
state (Miss.) had one foreigner to sixty popu-
lation, while some states had one to eight or
ten. The problem differed, and states dealt
with it as they found it. This movement at
the North was a combination of all the isms,
abolitionism, free-soilism, Whig-, woman's
rights-, social-, and anti-rentisin. Seward was
against Know-Nothingism, for he had com-
mitted himself against foreign voters, and he
had sagacity. It was the universal opinion
in political circles that the movement was for
a brief day. The discordant elements would
dissolve it, if no other causes did. This new
ism was the old alien law and Native Ameri-
canism. The old unlaid spirit of federalism
was abroad. It was hostile to democracy.10
• This would need qualification as to inhabitants of territories.
10 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-third Congress, Second
Session, 53.
284
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Sollers (Md.), a pro-slavery southerner,
defended Know-Nothingism. The immigra-
tion, only one hundred and twenty thousand
for the first twenty years, had swelled to an
ocean stream that would sweep away gov-
ernment, laws, institutions, and the very name
of American. Its character also had totally
changed. It was the domestic policy of for-
eign governments to send over the refuse of
their jails and prisons, and their paupers also.
As to Know-Nothing secrecy, the Boston
Tea Party was secret, and he held in his
hand at that moment a call for a secret Demo-
cratic caucus.
He denied that the principles
of the Native American party were secret.
Also, it warred against no religion, but
against the union of church and state, against
the mingling of religion with politics, and
against allegiance to a foreign prince or po-
tentate combined with American citizenship.
He denied that Know-Nothingism had first
appeared in the House in the person of Banks,
of Massachusetts—he himself had first intro-
duced a proposition to exclude foreigners
from the army and navy. Look at the vic-
tories of the party. It had swept over Penn-
sylvania like a whirlwind, and failed in New
York only because it knew not its own
strength. It was victorious in New Jersey
t
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
285
and Delaware. In Massachusetts it had an-
nihilated all its opponents.
He could not
doubt its triumphant success, and that none
but "Americans shall govern America.” 11
W. R. Smith (Ala.) referred to proposi-
tions in both houses to repeal or modify the
naturalization laws. It was becoming the
great question of the age. The voice of the
people would force the legislatures to take a
stand, and all mere party organizations would
have to retire before it. The vituperations
of the press were leveled against the move-
ment, but he felt no apprehensions. They
presented the simple proposition—the purifi-
cation of the ballot box; and proposed only
to exclude unnaturalized foreigners, and to
check immigration by wholesome laws. They
had some radical propositions, but no bill, be-
cause nobody could suppose that that Con-
gress would favor this reformation. They
could not expect that an adininistration so
distinctly committed in favor of foreigners
and foreign influence as the existing one
would take the back track. He did not sup-
pose that the bill before them would receive
any serious attention. There was no law to ex-
clude a foreigner, and no effectively adminis-
tered one requiring a passport. No other coun-
11 Loc. cit., 83.
286 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
try on earth was so situated. No immigrant
should land without taking a solemn oath re-
nouncing allegiance to all foreign powers and
declaring bona fide intention to become an in-
habitant of the United States. A passport
from a consul should be required, and both
captain and passport should inform him of
the requirements here. England, France,
Russia, and all governments in the East re-
quired a passport. A foreign power could
land on their shores any number of soldiers
before committing any hostile act. How easy
it would be for Russia to land a hundred
thousand in a month, and they could equip
themselves after landing ! Consuls should
investigate and give passports only to suit-
able persons. A modification of the naturali-
zation laws should prevent all foreigners from
voting who were not naturalized already or
had not taken steps to become so, except that
boys under ten, or even fifteen, immigrating
with their parents, should be considered citi-
zens in, every respect at the age of twenty-
There had been fraud, negligence, and
corruption from the foundation of the govern-
ment in the administration of the naturali-
zation laws. Of three hundred thousand im-
migrants landed in New York alone during
1854 only five thousand applied for naturali-
one.
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
287
zation or swore allegiance to the country. In
five years more there would be a million a
year coming. There was no law to prevent a
pagan Chinese from appearing in Congress
with power to mingle in its councils.12
L. M. Keitt (S. C.) said that the country
had recently been anazed by the successes
of a novel political organization which dis-
paraged the dignity of American character
by threatening it with subjection to a secret
order. It was argued that the power to nat-
uralize enabled Congress to regulate the con-
stituency. But for what did Congress make
a citizen of the United States? The Consti-
tution answered: The citizens of each state
shall be entitled to all the privileges and in-
munities of the citizens in the several states.
Since many states affixed a property quali-
fication, and perhaps all required a term of
residence, how could privileges and immuni-
ties refer to the right to vote? They referred
to property and personal rights, and not po-
litical. The discussion in the convention had
shown a clear purpose to leave the control
of suffrage to the states. The Know-Noth-
ing movement looked to the consolidation of
12 Loc. cit., 94.
The last statement would be true only of a
naturalized Chinaman, twelve years a resident. The question of
naturalizing Chinese was an unsettled one then, or one hardly yet
raised.
288
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
the government; and, if consolidated, he
asked: Was it then worth preserving ?13
Witte moved a suspension of the rules that
he might offer resolutions that the existence
of such a secret, oath-bound political organi-
zation was inconsistent with republican in-
stitutions and hostile to the genius of the gov-
ernment. The attempt to proscribe citizens
for religion, or to favor or injure a religious
denomination, was a direct violation of the
spirit of the Constitution. Careful and strict
administration of the naturalization laws was
a solemn duty; yet interference with the
rights of naturalized citizens was inconsistent
with the plighted faith of the nation, and must
diminish its growth and prosperity. The vote
on this motion was 104 to 78, lacking eighteen
of the necessary two-thirds.14 Three similar
resolutions were
were proposed in the Senate
shortly before,18 but were dropped without
being acted upon.16 Opposition was further
shown by a resolution of the Legislature of
Wisconsin, presented by Senator Dodge, de-
claring that they were opposed to any altera-
18 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-third Congress, Sec-
ond Session, 66.
14 (776) House Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Ses-
sion, 314.
10 January 25, 1855.
18 Congressional Globe, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
391.
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
289
17
tion of the naturalization laws, and directing
their members to oppose any law extending
the time of residence for naturalization.1
The prolonged contest over the speaker-
ship in the House in 1855, and the presiden-
tial campaign of 1856, each caused debates
in which political parties and Know-Noth-
ingism were much discussed. In the speaker-
ship contest, Cox (Ky.) said that he consid-
ered none to be Americans who did not ac-
cept the twelfth section of the Philadelphia
platform. All others were apostates or bolt-
ers. The American Council had declared that
agitation of slavery was not a question of im-
portance in the order—that it was not a ques-
tion at all. This was an expression of the in-
tention of the party to be national, to abide by
existing laws, and to throw out of Congress
all agitation on that subject for the future.
17 (745) Senate Journal, Thirty-third Congress, Second Session,
231; (772) Senate Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty-third Congress,
Second Session, No. 12.
18 'The section referred to, adopted at Philadelphia, June, 1855,
was in part as follows: "The National Council has deemed it the
best guarantee of common justice and future peace, to abide by and
maintain the existing laws on the subject of slavery, as a final and
conclusive settlement of that subject in spirit and in substance.
It further declared that Congress had no power to legislate upon
the subject in the states, or to exclude any state because its consti.
tution did or did not recognize slavery; and that Congress ought
not to legislate upon the subject in the territories nor interfere
with it in the District of Columbia. The new platform adopted in
February, 1856, inade no mention of slavery. It was asserted in
Congress that Fillmore would not have accepted the presidential
nomination on the former platform (Congressional Globe, Thirty-
fourth Congress, First Session, Appendix, 1152).
18
290 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
The position taken by the Democratic party
on that question was identical with that of
the Americans. He wished to make a gulf
impassable between Americans and abolition-
ists. The Democratic members of the House
had passed a resolution, which he quoted, giv-
ing congratulations on the triumph in vari-
ous places of the doctrines of civil and religious
liberty which had been so violently assailed by a
secret order, known as the Know-Nothing party.
The position of the administration and these
resolutions of the Democratic caucus disabled the
Americans from bringing support to elect a Dem-
ocratic speaker. He could not carry with him
enough Native Americans to elect a Democrat if
he would; but let the Democrats come to the
Americans, and they would elect a speaker
and defeat northern sectionalism. The
American party wanted no disturbing legisla-
tion; it asked only for peace.
Some time after the election of Banks as
speaker, Smith (Tenn.) read the names of 120
out of 234 members of the House, whom he
declared to have been elected as Know-Noth-
ings or Americans. He called all who had
received Know-Nothing support Know-Noth-
ings, and said that they were elected by
Know-Nothings. Seventy-five of them, he
19 Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-fourth Congress, First
Session, 34-41; December 21, 1855.
19
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
291
said, had voted for Banks, who had been the
champion of their order in Congress.
Twenty-eight abolitionists had voted for him,
and not a Democrat.20 Elliott said that the
Know-Nothings had carried a majority of
the House, thirty from the South and ninety
from the North, according to the undenied
count of Smith, of Tennessee, and then had
permitted the election of Banks.
The war
on the Democratic party by southern Know-
Nothings was much fiercer than that on the
Black Republican, or northern wing of their
party.21
Marshall (111.) said:
Another wing of this allied army engaged in unholy
warfare against the Democratic party is the southern
branch of the Know Nothing party; the northern branch,
with very few exceptions, having been swallowed up and
completely identified with the Black Republican movement.
Born of bigotry and intolerance, that secret,
oath-bound organization had sprung up full-
grown in a night time for a brief career; with
the frosts of November it would have passed
from the earth. The blackest page in the his-
tory of those times would be the record of
ingratitude of the Southern Know-Nothings
to the northern Democratic party. The great
20 Ibid., 352; April 4, 1856.
21 Ibid., 1152.
292 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
abolition sea had swelled and rolled-these
men had battled against it in the face of os-
tracism; but from Maine to California not
one Know-Nothing member had been on the
side of the Constitution in the contest.22
Talbott (Ky.), in showing that the Know-
Nothing proposition that no state or terri-
tory should give the suffrage to unnaturali-
zed foreigners was impracticable and uncon-
stitutional, quoted from a speech of Hon.
Garret Davis, “one of the ablest jurists of
Kentucky,” in the Kentucky constitutional
convention. Davis had no doubt of the com-
petency, the right, and the duty if for good,
of Kentucky to require twenty-one years'
residence for suffrage. It appeared to him
wholly fallacious and untenable that states
could not add to the requirements of the nat-
uralization law of Congress for suffrage. The
states could confer the elective franchise upon
foreigners and make them eligible to office
before naturalization; and they had
doubted power to exclude them after natur-
alization. Their citizenship conferred upon
them only rights conceded by the federal
Constitution, and not a single one under any
state government. States could wholly deny
both suffrage and office to naturalized per-
un-
22 Loc. cit., 1228,
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
293
sons, or could confer both fully or with re-
strictions as they would. Talbott added that
nearly half of the states allowed foreigners
to vote in from nine months to two years.
Power in Congress over the suffrage by nat-
uralization meant power to control property,
age, and other qualifications for suffrage.23
In February, 1856, Adams (Miss.), whose
naturalization bill had been suppressed in a
Senate Committee, in the previous Con-
gress,24 introduced a new bill.25 It provided
that no alien arriving after its passage should
become a citizen, unless on his application
he should declare on oath, and prove to the
satisfaction of the court, twenty-one years'
continuous residence in the United States.
Declaration of intention should not be per-
mitted until the alien had resided at least ten
years in the United States. Any alien free
white person, having proved twelve months'
residence in the United States, should be
entitled to all the protection of the government, and be
allowed to inherit, and hold, and transmit real estate, so
long as he remains within the limits of the United States,
in the same manner as though he were a citizen. 20
23 Ibid., 1233; July 28, 1856.
24 See p. 278.
25 (809) Senate Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session,
84.
26 Quoted from a summary of the bill.
294 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Aliens should be admitted only in a United
States circuit or district court in some state or
territory. The penalty was to be five hundred
dollars for a ship bringing in any immigrant
without an authenticated consular certificate,
deposited with the master, that the person
was of good character, had never been con-
victed of a criminal offense, and never had
been a pauper.27 Toombs, from the Judiciary
Committee, returned the bill without amend-
ment, but with the report that it ought not
to pass.
Several special orders were made for its
consideration in committee of the whole, to
accommodate Adams, who finally made a
two-hour speech upon it. It appears that no
one else cared to discuss it,28 and nothing
more was done with it. Adams said that, as
mercy at the expense of justice became
cruelty, so liberality to aliens at the expense
of the morals, security, and rights of citizens
was inexcusable, if not suicidal. He quoted
largely to show opinions and abuses. Twenty
years would double the population without
immigration, and it would then be as dense
as was consistent with their welfare. He was
told that they would take Mexico when they
27 Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session,
979; April 21, 1856.
28 Ibid., 1414.
f
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
295
needed more room, but he was opposed to a
deliberate plan to supply by robbery and mur-
der wants created by a permanent policy of
inviting the hordes of Europe to come and
partake of the bounty derived from their an-
cestors. Except for immigration, the South
would have gained upon the North in in-
fluence in Congress. Already five state legis-
latures had nullified a constitutional law of
Congress.29 Division and anarchy were inevi-
table unless they checked immigration. He
was told there was no danger, as the immi-
grants voted the Democratic ticket. But let
them crush out the American party, as it was
said the next election would do, and, with the
contest between Republicans and Democrats,
how would the northern foreigners vote?
Seward, Giddings, and Greeley could tell
them. Nine-tenths of them would vote the
Republican ticket, for their whole education
and prejudices were against slavery.30
A year later a bill was introduced in the
House by Whitney to establish a uniform rule
of naturalization, and for the repeal of exist-
ing laws. Late in the summer 31 the Judiciary
29 This probably refers to the passage of personal liberty laws
in the North.
80 (809) Senate Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session,
269, 319, 372, 381; Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress,
First Session, 1409f.
81 July 21, 1856.
296 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Committee reported it, with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute. Hoffman, a
Know-Nothing
member from Maryland,
made a speech upon it. In the next regular
session, in December, a motion to discharge
the committee of the whole from its further
consideration, and instruct that it be reported
to the House and made a special order from
day to day until it was disposed of, was lost
by a vote of 89 to 92.32
Hoffman referred to three dangerous
measures that had recently passed. In spite
of public sentiment, he said, the administra-
tion had brought forward a bill whose whole
object was to open the floodgates wider to a
stream of corruption and commerce in foreign
merchantable votes, and to break down the
guards against it. After days of struggle, a
fusion of administration and abolition forces
had transferred the capital city government
from American to foreign hands. The Dis--
trict being the only place outside of the ter-
ritories where Congress could regulate the
suffrage, the bill was of great magnitude as
regarded principle, line of policy, and prece-
dent. Again, an amendment to the bill for
a convention for organizing Oregon Terri-
32 A two-thirds vote was necessary to carry. (838) House
Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session, 489, 668; (839)
.
1250,
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
297
tory, by which suffrage was to be limited to
citizens of the United States, had been re-
jected by fusion No. 2. Finally, when the
Senate had passed the Kansas pacification
bill, containing a repeal of the permission in
the Kansas organic act for full suffrage and
office-holding to unnaturalized foreigners, a
majority of the Democrats had fused with the
abolitionists against it. This was a gigantic
stride toward denationalization.
The bill before them, while not all that was
desired, had several leading provisions that
were salutary. The period of probation was
left blank, but a majority of the committee
was for not less than seven years.
As was
eminently wise and proper, the bill provided
for a registry law. Commencement of resi-
dence could be indicated by filing a statement
with the clerk of the court, with ages and
other particulars of self and family. Then
the final petition for admission was to be
filed at least twenty days before the com-
mencement of the term of court, and no
hearing on an application could be had with-
in twenty days before an election. It would
be well also to enact that no person or com-
mittee should pay the costs for the person
naturalized. The greatest statesmen had ac-
knowledged the necessity of a change in the
298 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
33
existing system. The bill would destroy the
business of putting through raw material
even on election day.3
Meanwhile, a resolution of the Massachu-
setts Legislature was laid on the table in the
House and referred in the Senate. It urged
that their peculiar system, very distinct in
spirit and principles, presupposed a state of
society and public opinion never yet existing
elsewhere. Republican institutions were es-
pecially adapted to an educated and intelli-
gent people, capable of, and accustomed to;
self-government. Free institutions could be con-
fined safely only to free men—to men free from
ignorance, and personal, religious, and political
despotism. Foreigners could have in general, no
sober appreciation of the principles, character,
and purpose of such institutions. Aliens were, as
a rule, incapable of exercising the franchise with
advantage to themselves or with safety to others.
The legislature recommended these truths to the
consideration of the Massachusetts delega-
tion in Congress; and requested their en-
deavors to extend the term of residence re-
quired for political rights, and their in-
fluence to place the offices of government,
both at home and abroad, exclusively in the
33 Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session,
Appendix, 1212.
!
KNOW-NOTHING PERIOD
299
hands of native-born citizens who were op-
posed to every kind of despotism.34
In the House in January, 1857, Henry
Winter Davis said that the recent election
had developed in aggravated form every evil
against which the American party protested.
Republicans and Democrats had rivaled each
other in bidding for the foreign vote. For-
eign allies, men naturalized in thousands on
the eve of election, had been struggled for by
the competing parties. It was the high mis-
sion of the American party to restore the in-
fluence of the interests of the people. He
called on the Americans of the North to re-
turn from the paths of error to the sound
position of the American party, that of silence
on the slavery agitation.85
Several hopeless efforts to amend the
naturalization laws were made in the House
from 1857 to 1860. A bill by Humphrey Mar-
shall reached the Judiciary Committee.36 No-
tice for leave to introduce bills was given by
Marshall and I. N. Morris. Marshall also
sought to introduce a joint resolution to
84 (838) House Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session,
653; (809) Senate Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, First Session,
114; House Miscellaneous Documents, Thirty-fourth Congress, First
Session, March 7, 1856.
38 Congressional Globe, Thirty-fourth Congress, Third Session,
Appendix, 125.
86 (892) House Journal, Thirty-fourth Congress, Third Session,
251.
300 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
amend the Constitution.37 Finally, a bill by
Morris, to amend the naturalization laws, was
reported by Houston from the Judiciary Com-
mittee, with the recommendation, that it do
not pass; and it was laid on the table.38 Then
came the Civil War, and the end of the
American party.
37 (940) loc cit., Thirty-fifth Congress, First Session, 186, 1045.
88 (995) ibid., Thirty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 115, 260;
Congressional Globe, Thirty-fifth Congress, Second Session, 611;
January 26, 1859.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAMS, HENRY. History of the United States of America.
9 vols. New York, 1889-91.
Writings of Albert Gallatin. 3 vols. Philadelphia,
1879.
ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams.
Edited by CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 12 vols. Phila-
delphia, 1874.
ADAMS, JOHN. The Works of John Adams. With a Life
of the Author by his grandson, CHARLES FRANCIS
ADAMS. 10 vols. Boston, 1856.
American Historical Association, Papers and Annual Re-
ports.
American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and
Executive Folio, 38 vols. Washington: Gales &
Seaton, 1832-61.
Annals of Congress.
Aurora.
BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the Formation of the Con-
stitution of the United States of America. 2 vols. New
York, 1882.
History of the United States of America.
The
author's last revision. 6 vols. New York, 1885.
BASSETT, JOHN SPENCER. Slavery and Servitude in the
Colony of North Carolina. Johns Hopkins University
Studies, Vol. XIV, Nos. 4, 5. Baltimore, 1896.
BEAULIEU, PAUL LEROY. The Modern State in Relation to
Society and the Individual. London, 1891.
BLUNTSCHLI, J. K. The Theory of the State. Oxford,
1885.
BURGESS, JOHN W. Political Science and Comparative
Constitutional Law. 2 vols. Boston, 1890.
301
302
NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
Calhoun, John C. Works. 6 vols. New York, 1853–85.
Columbia College Studies in History.
CONWAY, MONCURE D. Life of Thomas Paine.
2 vols.
New York, 1892.
Congressional Globe.
Congressional Record.
CURTIS, GEORGE TICKNOR. Constitutional History of the
United States. Edited by JOSEPH CULBERTSON CLAYTON.
2 vols. New York, 1889-96.
DALLAS, A. J. Life and Writings of Alexander James
Dallas. By his son GEORGE M. DALLAS. Philadelphia,
1871.
Elliott's Debates.
English Statutes at Large.
Federalist, The. Edited by HENRY CABOT LODGE. New
York and London, 1895.
FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN. The Works of Benjamin Franklin.
With a Life of the Author by JARED SPARKS. Io vols.
Boston, 1856.
FREEMAN, EDWARD A. Comparative Politics. London,
1873.
GALLATIN, ALBERT. Writings. Edited by HENRY ADAMS.
3 vols. Philadelphia, 1879.
HALL, W. E. A Treatise on International Law. Oxford,
1895.
HAMILTON, ALEXANDER. The Works of Alexander Hamil-
ton. Edited by HENRY CABOT LODGE. New York and
London, 1885.
HAMILTON, JOHN C. History of the Republic of the United
States of America, as Traced in the Writings of Alex-
ander Hamilton and of His Cotemporaries. Phila-
delphia, 1864.
HARRISON, FREDERIC. Order and Progress. London, 1875.
HENING, WILLIAM WALLER. Statutes-at-Large; Being a
BIBLIOGRAPHY
303
Collection of All the Laws of Virginia (1619-1792).
13 vols. Philadelphia and New York, 1823.
HILDRETH, RICHARD. History of the United States. 6 vols.
New York, 1851–56.
HOLST, Dr. H. von. The Constitutional and Political His-
tory of the United States. 8 vols. Chicago, 1876-92.
House Documents.
House Executive Documents.
House Journals.
House Miscellaneous Documents.
House Reports of Committees.
HUNT, GAILLARD. The American Passport. Department
of State, Washington, 1898.
JAY, John. The Correspondence and Public Papers of
John Jay. Edited by HENRY P. JOHNSON. 4 vols. New
York and London, 1893.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Edited by PAUL LEICESTER FORD. Io vols. New York,
1892-99.
Johns Hopkins University Publications.
Journals of Congress. Printed by John Dunlap. York-
town. 1778.
Kentucky Palladium.
KING, RUFUS. Life and Correspondence of Rufus King.
Edited by his grandson, CHARLES R. KING, M. D. 5
vols. New York, 1894.
LALOR, JOHN J., editor. Cyclopedia of Political Science,
Political Economy, and of the Political History of the
United States. 3 vols. Chicago, 1881-84.
LEWIS, Sir GEORGE CORNEWALL. An Essay on the Govern-
ment of Dependencies. Oxford, 1891.
LOCKE, JOHN. Two Treatises on Civil Government. With
an Introduction by Henry MORLEY. London, 1887.
Lowell. The Hessians in the Revolution.
304 NATURALIZATION IN UNITED STATES
New
5 vols.
MACLAY, WILLIAM. Journal of William Maclay, United
States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791.
York, 1890.
MacMASTER, John Bach. A History of the People of the
United States.
New York, 1883–99.
MADISON, JAMES. Letters and Other Writings of James
Madison. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 1865.
The Papers of James Madison. 3 vols. Washing-
ton, 1840.
Nation, The New York, 1865—.
National Intelligencer.
New England Palladium.
New York Daily Express, 1838.
Niles Register. Baltimore, 1811-49.
Philadelphia Advertiser.
Political Science Quarterly. New York, 1886.
POORE, BEN. PERLEY, compiler. The Federal and State Con-
stitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws
of the United States. 2 parts. Washington: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1877.
Register of Debates in Congress.
RHODES, JAMES FORD. History of the United States from
the Compromise of 1850. 4 vols. New York, 1893–99.
SCHOULER, JAMES. History of the United States of
America. 6 vols. New York, 1894.
Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress.
4 vols. Boston, 1821.
Senate Documents.
Senate Executive Documents.
Senate Journals.
Senate Reports of Committees.
SEWARD, WILLIAM H. The Works of William H. Seward.
Edited by GEORGE E. BAKER. 5 vols. Boston, 1884.
Snow, FREEMAN. Treaties and Topics in American Diplo-
macy. Boston, 1894.
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
305
Cases and Opinions on International Law. Boston,
1893.
South Carolina Gazette.
The Statutes at Large of the United States of America.
TAYLOR, HANNIS. The Origin and Growth of the English
Constitution. Boston, 1889.
THORPE, FRANCIS NEWTON. A Constitutional History of
the American People, 1776-1850. 2 vols. New York,
1898.
TODD, C. B. Life and Letters of Joel Barlow.
Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the United
States and Other Powers since July 4, 1776. Wash-
ington, 1889.
United States Supreme Court Reports.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Richmond,
1893—
Washington Federalist.
WASHINGTON, GEORGE The Writings of George Washing-
ton. Edited by WORTHINGTON CHAUNCEY FORD.
14
vols. New York and London, 1889.
WEBSTER, PRENTISS. A Treatise on the Law of Citizenship
in the United States. Albany, N. Y., 1891.
Law of Naturalization in the United States of
America and of Other Countries. Boston, 1895.
WHEATON. History of the Law of Nations.
WILSON, WOODROW. The State. Boston, 1889.
WOOLSEY, THEODORE D. Political Science; or, The State
Theoretically and Practically considered. New York,
1886.
INDEX
Convention,
Constitutional,
19 f.
Criminals, 193 f., 221, 226,
263 f.
Declaration of Independence,
I f., 149, 241.
Declaration of Intention,
167 f., 175, 176, 180, 244,
293.
Dicey, Professor, 10 f.
District of Columbia, 296.
Douglas, Stephen A., 254.
Evidence, act concerning,
129 f.
Act concerning evidence, 219f.
Act of 1790, 33 f., 48.
Act of 1795, 49 f., 70.
Act of 1798, 72 f.
Act of 1802, 97 f.
Act of 1813, 117 f.
Act of 1816, 129 f.
Act of 1824, 167 f.
Act of 1828, 178 f.
Adams, John, 8, 72.
Adams, J. Q., 9 f., 161 f., 165,
177, 206, 217, 219 f.
Alien enemies, 117–28.
Alien landholding, 33, 35, 37,
39, 42, 54, 66, 182, 254, 293.
Aliens, 73 f., 170 f., 176,
181 f., 212, 294.
Amendment to the Constitu-
tion, 147, 300.
Bancroft, George, 5, 15.
Banks, N. P., 281.
Bibliography, 301.
Buchanan, James, 178, 215.
Calhoun, John C., 132f., 161f.
Certificates, 130, 178 f., 228,
234, 245.
Children born abroad, 271 f.
Cicero, 139, 146.
Citizenship, 2, 4 f., 9 f., 14,
67, 76, 78 f., 260 f.; state,
Expatriation, 50, 54 f., 115 f.,
120, 134 f., 241 f.
Federalist, 14.
France, 146.
Franklin, Benjamin, 12, 28 f.
Gallatin, Albert, 83, 87.
Giddings, Joshua R., 249.
Great Britain, 9, 141, 143,
153, 164, 186 f.
Hamilton, Alexander, 3, 22,
98–105.
Harrison, William Henry,
203 f.
93, 260 f.
Hessians, 5 f.
Immigration, 3, 38, 81, 167,
184 f., 264 f., 279, 286,
295
Intercitizenship, 9 f., 12 f.
Investigations, 227.
Jefferson, Thomas, 6, 97 f.,
134 f.
Clay, Henry, 151.
Codification, 131, 181, 242. .
Committee: of Detail, 21, 26,
30; on Style, 21, 30.
Confederation, Articles of,
12 f., 31.
Congress : Continental, I, 2,
5, 8; Confederation, 13.
Constitution, 32.
Kansas, 297.
Know-Nothings, 278 f. (See
also Native Americanism.)
Levin, Mr., 248, 258, 263, 278.
Loughborough, Lord, 9.
307
308
INDEX
Louisiana, 207.
Maclay's Journal, 43 f.
Madison, James, 14, 18f., 23f.,
27, 30, 36, 40, 49, 53 f., 57,
59, 61, 63, 118, 119.
Massachusetts, 188, 247, 269,
298.
Michigan, 163 f.
Minors, 167, 202, 237, 244,
286.
Missouri, 206.
Moral character, 53.
Native Americanism, 184 f.,
255, 269; national conven-
tion of, 247; Philadelphia
platform of
of, 289. (See
also Know-Nothings.)
Native citizens, 131 f., 258,
271, 299.
Naturalization: by England,
89 note, 161; by France, 55
note, 241 ; by Hebrews, 220 ;
by special act, 169; by
states, 18, 85, 87, 102 note,
126, 134, 258 f.; colonial,
17; fees for, 174, 229, 232f.,
245 ; fraudulent, 222 f., 242,
245, 256 f.; methods of,
227 f., 243; of Chinese,
287; political committees
of, 230 f.; progressive, 36,
39 f., 66; wholesale, 224,
Niles Register, 185 f.
Oath of allegiance, I, 2.
Oregon, 296.
Paupers, 193 f., 226, 263 f.
Petitions, 110 f., 122, 171 f.,
192 f., 204, 215, 217 f.,
247, 264 f., 277.
Pinckney, Charles, 139.
Pinckney's plan, 20.
Polacre Ship "Adams," case
of, 139.
Privileges, 60, 287.
Publishing, 131, 205.
Randolph, Edmund, 18 f., 28.
Repatriation, 54 f., 159.
Revolutionary War, 5.
Rhode Island, 265, 280.
Seward, William H., 274, 276.
Slavery, 61f., 249, 289f., 295..
Suffrage, 37, 41, 76, 79, 253f.,
280, 287, 292 f.
T. C. of Northumberland, 141.
Territories, 68 f.
Titles, 56 f.
Tories, I, 3.
Twenty-one years' residence,
198, 203, 215 f., 219, 247,
256, 278 f., 293.
Vattel, 140.
Virginia, 134, 136, 150, 162.
Washington, George, 33, 66.
Webster, Daniel, 272.
Williams, Isaac, case of, 138f.
Women, 244, 272 f.
Wisconsin, 288.
229 f.
Naturalization Society of New
York, 231.
New York, 260, 266, 269.
0
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 07344 0763
!
i
7
ܝ ܂
܂
ܘܝ܀
܀