for the purpose of making the amendment consistent with the facts and the law as it then stood. offered to amend the bill by substituting the following in place of Farleys amendment: Nothing in this act shall be construed to change the existing naturalization laws so as to admit Chinese persons to citizenship.-Record. part 4. page 3411. Upon which Mr. ED3IUNDS made the following remarks: Mr. President. as this section now stands in the bill. it is the first time in the history of this nation that Congress has undertaken to make prohibitions against naturalization. The Constitution provides that Congress may make rules of naturalization. so that no person can be admitted to citizenship without affirmative action by Congress. I do not wish for one to have Congress enact any statute which shall prohibit by affirmative declaration any person from becoming a citizen. lHe can not become a citizen until Congress shall affirmatively provide that he may. and as this section now stands. it Is absolutely unique. probably not only in the history of this country. but of every other. and so I move this change so as to leave the law just as it is now. in order to avoid what hereafter will be a very unhappy precedent. I am afraid. for a good many people. There was nothing in the law as it then stood. and as it still stands. extending naturalization to Chinese. Farleys amendment assumed that there was. and proposed to repeal the laws authorizing the naturalization of Chinese and prohibit their naturalization. which was unlawyerlike. unnecessary. and absurd. The statute on that subject then. and now. is in the following language: The provisions of this title shall applyto aliens being free white persons. and to aliens of African nativity. and to persons of African descent. (Revised Statutes United States. section 2169.) As early as April 29. 1878. the United States circuit court of California. on the application of Ah Yup to be admitted as a citizen. decided that there was no law under which Chinese could be naturalized. (See 5 Sawyer. page 155.) This decision was followed by all the United States courts and was binding on the State courts as a construction of the statutes of the United States. The United States is under no obligation to naturalize any one. and none can be naturalized without express and affirmative law. There being no such law General Harrison was too good a lawyer to vote to repeal a law which did not exist. The Senator from Missouri states that in 1876 seven Chinamen were naturalized in the State superior court at Indianapolis on motion of Mr. Miller. law partner of General Harrison. The Senator made this statement upon the representation of the delegation from Indiana. Whether the information be correct or not is immaterial. The State court had no right to naturalize these Chinese. and made a very absurd mistake if it did so. But this mistake was made before the United States courts had declared the law. as I have already shown. No lawyer will now say that there was a particle of authority for such naturalization. and it is not pretended that General Harrison himself had any knowledge of the transaction. General Harrison voted for the lawyerlike and accurate amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont. . the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. and against the incongruous amendment offered by Senator Farley for the manifest purpose of embarrassing the bill. For doing this a labored effort is made to misrepresent him and to make it appear that he was in favor of the naturalization of Chinese. Grovers amendment was entirely useless and could not by any possibility improve the bill. but was manifestly intended to impede its passage. It is as follows: The words "Chinese laborers." wherever used in this act. shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers. and Chinese employed in mining.record. part 2. pages 1480. 1750.
Keywords matched
naturalized naturalization naturalize