Page images
PDF
EPUB

may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he shall have resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of the first section of the act to which this is an addition, three years previous to his admission; Provided, such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his or her admission; and shall further declare, on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for three years next preceding, it has been the bona fide intention of such alien to become a citizen of the United States; and shall, in all other respects, comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That no certificates of citizenship of naturalization, heretofore obtained from any court of record within the United States, shall be deemed invalid, in consequence of an omission to comply with the requisition of the first section of the act entitled "An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization," passed the twenty-second day of March, one thousand eight hundred and sixteen.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the declaration required by the first condition specified in the first section of the act, to which this is an addition, shall, if the same has been bona fide made before the clerks of either of the courts in the said condition named, be as valid as if it had been made before the said courts, respectively.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That a declaration by any alien, being a free whit person, of his intended application to be admitted a citizen of the United States, made in the manner and form prescribed in the first condition specified in the first section of the act to which this is an addition, two years before his admission, shall be a sufficient compliance with said condition; any thing in the said act, or in any subsequent act, to the contrary notwithstanding.

In 1828, another act was passed, the passage of which was urged by James Buchanan, who said:

The existing laws require, in addition to these provisions, that the alien should produce a certificate that he had gone before a court of record, and registered himself; and this certificate is to be the evidence of the time of his arrival within the United States. The act of the 22d of March, 1816, further requires, that this certificate of registry shall be recited in the certificate of naturalization. What has been the consequence? By a correct construction of these laws, no alien can be naturalized without a registry. This is the only evidence which the court can legally receive of the time of his arrival. In those courts, therefore, in which this practice prevails, if an alien has been ten years in this country, though his residence were notorious during all that time, still, if he has neglected to register himself, he cannot be naturalized until five years after his first application to the court. This neglect is common, nay, almost universal; because aliens do not know the law, and would not, for some time after their arrival, conform to it, even if they did. But this law, like every other unreasonable one, is evaded. It sets up an arbitrary standard of evidence, to defeat the spirit of its own provisions. The consequence is that some courts do, and others do not, carry this part of it into execu tion. In 1824, Congress yielded this provision so far as to declare, that a certificate of naturalization, theretofore obtained, should be good, notwithstanding it did not recite this registry. The Committee on the Judiciary believed that it would be better at once to dispense with this registry. They thought it would simplify the law. The second section provides for another class of cases. Every alien who has arrived in this country, since the 14th of April, 1802, must exhibit a certificate of the declaration of his inten

tion to become a citizen, made two years before his application to be naturalized. It was believed by the committee, that, if an alien could establish, by clear and indifferent testimony, that he had arrived in the country previous to the late war, (viz., the 18th June, 1812.) and continued to reside in it ever since, this condition might, in such case, with propriety, be dispensed with. We had reason to believe that there were many persons in the country, particularly Irishmen, who served as soldiers during the late war, who have hitherto neglected to make a declaration of their intention to become citizens; and we thought it right to provide for this class of cases, more especially as such persons must prove, by clear and indifferent testimony, that they have since resided within the United States. It is now nearly sixteen years since the declaration of war.

The act was approved May 24, 1828. It repealed the second section of the act of April 14, 1802, and the first section of the act of 22d March, 1816, and provided further, as follows:

That any alien, being a free white person, who has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, between the fourteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and two, and the eighteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and who has continued to reside within the same, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, without having made any previous declaration of his intention to become a citizen: Provided, That whenever any person, without a certificate of such declaration of his intention, shall make application to be admitted a citizen of the United States, it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the court, that the applicant was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the 18th day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and has continued to reside within the same, or he shall not be so admitted; and the residence of the applicant within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, for at least five years immediately preceding the time of such application, shall be proved by the oath or affirmation of citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses; and such continued residence within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, when satisfactorily proved, and the place or places where the applicant has resided for at least five years, as aforesaid, shall be stated and set forth, together with the names of such citizens, in the record of the court admitting the applicant; otherwise, the same shall not entitle him to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States.

To meet a supposed defect in the act of 1802, an act was passed, February 10, 1855, providing that persons born, or hereafter to be born. out of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be, at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, shall be deemed citizens, but that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States; and also that a woman, who might be naturalized under existing laws, who is married, or who shall be married, to a citizen, shall be deemed a citizen.

There have been, also, several cases of collective naturalization. By the third article of the first Convention of April 30, 1800, with France, for the cession of Louisiana, it is provided that the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States,

and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. U. S. Laws, vol. viii., p. 202. A provision to the same effect is to be found in the sixth article of the treaty of 1819, with Spain, for the purchase of the Floridas. Ibid., p. 256. By the eighth article of the treaty of 1848, with Mexico, those Mexicans who remained in the territories ceded, and who did not declare their intention, within one year, to continue Mexican citizens, were to be deemed citizens of the United States. Ibid., vol. ix., p. 930. By the annexation of Texas, under a resolution of Congress, and its admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, all the citizens of the former republic became citizens of the United States. Ibid., vol. v., p. 798; vol. ix., p. 108.

CHAPTER XX.

EFFORTS TO AMEND NATURALIZATION LAWS.

DURING the second session of the twenty-fifth Congress, several memorials were presented in the House of Representatives, praying Congress to pass an act repealing the naturalization laws then in force, or so to modify them as to secure more effectually to the native citizens the right of government, among which was one presented by John M. Patton, of Virginia, from the Native American Association of Washington city, signed by nearly a thousand persons. See Congressional Globe, 1837-8, p. 187. At the same session, a Select Committee was appointed on the subject, of which David Russell, of New York, was made chairman; and he, as chairman, reported a bill, at the close of the session, to amend the naturalization laws, which was read twice and committed, and no further action was had thereon. See Congressional Globe, 1837-8, p. 489. Nor was the bill considered or acted on during the third session of that Congress, though a memorial was presented by Henry Johnson, of Louisiana, signed by several thousand citizens of that State, soliciting the entire repeal of the acts providing for the naturalization of foreigners, which was ordered to be printed, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. Congressional Globe, 1838-9, p. 178.

At the first session of the twenty-sixth Congress, Augustus C. Hand, of New York, introduced a bill in the House of Representatives, to

establish an uniform law of naturalization, and to repeal all acts then in existence, which was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and no further action was had upon it during that session. At the second session, he again introduced the bill, and moved its reference to the Committee of the Whole, which was negatived, on a call of the yeas and nays, by a vote of 96 yeas, 99 nays, and then referred to the Judiciary Committee; and that ended the matter for that session. See Congressional Globe, 184041, pp. 23, 36, 41.

On the first of August, 1842, James P. Walker, of Wisconsin, asked leave to introduce in the Senate a bill to reduce the term of residence, required by law for the naturalization of foreigners, from five to two years. William S. Archer, of Virginia, resisted this motion, and moved to lay the motion for leave on the table. Mr. Walker urged his motion in a speech of some length, to which Mr. Archer replied, and among other views expressed the following:

"The honorable gentleman had railed against his opposition to the introduction of this bill, as if he was desirous of repelling foreigners. He (Mr. A.) certainly did not desire that, upon their arrival in this country, they should at once be entitled to all the privileges of citizens; but he would not prevent them from acquiring property, and preparing themselves for the enjoyment of those political rights and privileges which belong to the citizens of this country. He did not believe that any good man ever entirely renounced his attachment to the soil upon which he was born. Would it then be proper, in any sense, to admit at once a large class of persons, having foreign attachments and feelings averse to ours? He repudiated such a doctrine altogether, and for the purpose (if the honorable gentleman would allow him to say it without offence) of stigmatizing the proposition by its immediate rejection, moved that the honorable gentleman's proposition be laid upon the table."

Mr. Archer's motion prevailed by a vote of 21 yeas to 18 nays, Messrs. Berrien, Clayton, Dayton, Graham, Conrad, and Preston, being among those in the affirmative, and Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, King, Mangum, and Woodbury, in the negative; Mr. King remarking, however, at the time he voted, that he did so without reference to the merits of the bill, and only in courtesy to the mover of it. See Congressional Globe, 1841-42, p. 817.

During the first session of the twenty-eighth Congress, a number of petitions were presented in both branches, praying for such alteration in the naturalization laws, as to require all foreigners to reside twenty-one years in the country before admitting them to the same privileges as native citizens, all of which were referred to the Judiciary Committee. In the Senate, on the first of June, 1844, James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, presented one of these memorials, numerously signed by citizens of Philadelphia, in presenting which he said, however, that "he felt himself conetrained by a sense of duty to declare that he could not advocate the

prayer of the memorialists," and that "he was opposed to any change in the naturalization laws, and could not consent that a foreigner should be compelled to remain in this country so long a period as twenty-one years, after declaring his intention to become a citizen of the United States, before he could carry his intention into execution." Dr. Daniel Sturgeon, also from Pennsylvania, and Col. Thomas H. Benton, expressed similar views. On the seventh of June, 1844, William S. Archer, of Virginia, in presenting a similar petition, expressed himself thus:

"This was a subject which, he was sorry to say, had not yet sufficiently attracted the attention of the people of the United States. There was, he thought, a growing combination of circumstances, which furnished ample ground for the conclusion, that the great mass of uneducated foreigners, wholly ignorant of the nature and value of our institutions, annually pouring into the country, could not, within the short period of five years, fixed by the present law, become fit to exercise, with a due sense of their value and responsibility, the rights and privileges of native born citizens. The premature exercise of such rights had grown to an evil of great magnitude, of which there had, unhappily, but too recently, been a painful demonstration."

Several weeks afterwards, Mr. Archer presented eleven other petitions of similar import, on which occasion a brief conversational debate took place between him, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Berrien, and Mr. Allen, of Ohio, from which the following extracts are made:

Mr. Archer said it was proper that the memorialists should know that the time was too short before the adjournment to admit of the possibility of decided action by the Judiciary Committee, upon their memorials. He did not, therefore, concur in the opinion of the Senator from Pennsylvania, that that committee should act upon so important a subject in so short a time; and he would take that opportunity to say that, when an occasion proper should arise, if no one in that body more competent to the task should move in the matter, he would put himself forward to make the motion necessary to secure the object of the petitioners.

Mr. Buchanan. Do I understand the Senator from Virginia to say that the Committee on the Judiciary would not act upon the memorials this session?

Mr. Archer could not speak for that committee, but expressed the opinion that, from the shortness of time, it would be impossible for that committee to act this session.

Mr. Buchanan remarked that he had urged action upon the memorials at the instance of the memorialists. He had received several letters urging him to endeavor to procure action upon the subject this session.

Mr. Archer said it was not that he was adverse to action on the memorials this session, if it could be had, which had induced him to make the remark; but he wished it to go abroad, without presuming to indicate it as the excuse of the committee, that the time was too short to decide upon a question of such magnitude this session. If the committee should find time, he presumed the subject would be attended to. If not, the reason should be known. It was not necessary to show that there was no indifference on the part of the Senate to the subject of memorials.

Mr. Allen. The senator of Virginia, [Mr. Archer] if I understand him aright, declared that he agreed with the memorialists; that the laws ought so to be altered as to require all native born citizens of other countries, who come to reside among us, to remain dis

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »