A week or two afterwards, on presenting a petition of like import as Mr. Johnson's resolution,

Mr. Buchanan said he had also received, with this memorial, a request from a respectable citizen of Philadelphia, that he should express his opinion on this subject at the time of the presentation of the memorial. He did not consider this a proper time to enter into a discussion of this great question. At the same time, he had no objection to state that he was against extending the time of residence of foreigners beyond the period of five years, which was now necessary to acquire the rights of citizenship. He entertained the same opinions now, upon this subject, that he entertained when he formerly presented memorials of this nature; but if it should be established that the present naturalization laws were not a sufficient guard against frauds, and if it should be established that frauds had been committed to any thing like the extent mentioned, he should go with him who went farthest so to amend the naturalization laws that fraud would not be the consequence of this system; and he believed that every citizen of the country, whether native or naturalized, was deeply concerned in suppressing these frauds. Mr. Archer said he was glad to know, at so early a period, what was the state of feeling here. He was glad that it had been announced in that debate, to the people of this country. Gentlemen were going to find, before two years passed over their heads, that this enormous abuse, which he had almost heard denied on this floor yesterday, would no longer be endured; the people were not going to be contented with observing the effect of remedies, or any cutting off of what his honorable colleague [Mr. Rives] termed "excrescences."

Mr. Rives observed, from his seat, that he had made use of no such expression.

He [Mr. Archer] understood him so; however, it was implied in the remarks of his colleague. He was going to do him full justice. He was very sure his honorable colleague, like himself, was most desirous to find a remedy for the abuses which had been brought before the Senate; but he [Mr. Rives] did not seem disposed to go to the extent that he [Mr. A.] was disposed to go to-not in stripping off branches of this abuse, but in going directly to the root. Let him tell his honorable colleague he should have his sincere participation in that object; but it was not in stripping off branches of the abuse which he [Mr. Rives] spoke of yesterday with a great many expressions of qualification, that this great abuse was to be reached. He had expected to find in him, and the honorable senator from Maryland [Mr. Merrick], cordial and zealous allies in the object which he, for one, would never lose sight of-an effectual eradication of the root of the evil. As to the sentiments of the honorable senator from New York [Mr. Foster], he asked the attention of the country to them. After that honorable gentleman had finished his remarks, he [Mr. A.] really did not know whether he would be at liberty to make any distinction between indigenous citizens of this country and those off-scourings of a foreign population who were to come here and enter into the practical operation of our institutions, if not to assist in framing them, while wholly ignorant of their value and import, or reckless of the consequences. He was told that, if we undertook to form any distinction between foreigners and native Americans, it would be invidious. He was told that one man who had lived five years in the United States was just as good as another, and just as much entitled to exercise the elective franchise in the United States. He was told you must look, not to distinctions made by residence or time, but those distinctions made by morals. And what next? That it was very difficult to detect or enforce distinctions depending upon morals. And all this amounted to what? To the fact that, whilst all were ready to admit that the most nefarious

abuses (and we had just as well undertake to deny that the sun shines as to deny this) had occurred at the late Presidential election, nevertheless, there was no distinction to be made between native born citizens and those who were from a foreign country. Let him tell the Senate and the country that such anticipations were not going to be realized. If the members of this and the other body did not take the matter into their hands, the people of the country would take it into their own hands, and adopt a more effectual guard against these frauds than any which had been proposed here for the redress of this public grievance. He moved the reference of the memorial to the Committee on the Judiciary.

At the first session of the twenty-ninth Congress, Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, presented in the House of Representatives the following resolves passed by the General Assembly of that State:

Whereas, The purity of the ballot box is indispensable for the security of the rights and the free and full expression of the will of the people; and whereas, experience has clearly demonstrated that the naturalization laws of the United States are loose and defective affording opportunities for the perpetration of gross frauds, destructive alike to the rights and morals of our citizens and the stability of our institutions :

Resolved, That the rights, interests and morals of the people demand an immediate and thorough revision of the naturalization laws; and we regard it as an imperative duty of Congress so to amend those laws, that, while a liberal and just policy shall be adopted towards such foreigners as are or may come among us, the rights and privileges of our countrymen shall be kept inviolate, and the ballot box permanently guarded against every improper influence.

Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress are hereby especially requested to use their utmost exertions forthwith to procure such amendments in the naturalizatian laws as shall carry out and perpetuate, as far as possible, the principles indicated in the foregoing resolve.

When these resolutions were presented, Lewis C. Levin, of Pennsylvania, made a motion that they be referred to a Select Committee, and Richard Brodhead, of the same State, moved to refer them to the Judiciary Committee. A long and animated debate ensued, in which a great number of members participated, and during which Messrs. Levin, Campbell of New York, and Woodruff, expressed themselves in favor of material modification of the naturalization laws; Messrs. Stanton of Tennessee, Owen of Indiana, Darrah of Pennsylvania, Rathbun of New York, Yancey of Alabama, Baker of Illinois, and others, were in favor of the reference to a Select Committee, but opposed to any additional obstacles being interposed to enable foreigners to become citizens; while Messrs. Brodhead, Douglas of Illinois, Hunt of New York, Payne of Alabama, Faran of Ohio, Dixon of Connecticut, Bowlin of Missouri, Chipman of Michigan, Maclay of New York, took decided and unqualified ground for a change of those laws, and favored the reference of the subject to the Judiciary Committee, and at the close of the debate it was so referred; which committee, through Mr. Rathbun, made a report thereon, concluding with a resolution, "that no alteration of the naturalization

laws is necessary for the preservation of the rights, interests and morals of the people, or for the guarding of the ballot box against every improper influence." See Congressional Globe of 1845-46, p. 52 to 353.

During the first session of the thirtieth Congress, John D. Cummins, of Ohio, introduced a bill in the House of Representatives, declaratory of the rights of naturalized citizens, and to protect them in the peaceful exercise and enjoyment of their rights and privileges against the acts and influence of foreign governments and their diplomatic agents, which he desired referred to a Select Committee, but which was committed to the Judiciary Committee, and no further action was had thereon. See Congressional Globe of 1847-48, p. 805-18. At the same session, Daniel Webster introduced a bill in the Senate, providing that persons born out of the limits of the United States, of a father or mother who was a natural born citizen of the United States, should be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship; and, also, that every woman married, or who shall be married, to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed a citizen, &c. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which reported favorably thereon, but no further action seems to have been had during the session. See Congressional Globe of 1847-48, p. 834-44.

On the 13th of February, 1850, James Thompson, of Pennsylvania, introduced into the House of Representatives, from the Committee on the Judiciary, a bill entitled "An act to extend the benefit of an act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the subject of the wives and children of citizens," which was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. See Congressional Globe 1849-50, p. 325. At the next session the bill. came up in order, but the House refused to consider it. See Congressional Globe 1850-51, p. 24. At the session of 1854-5, a bill similar in its provisions was passed.

CHAPTER XXI.

NATURALIZATION FRAUDS.

On the 27th of January, 1845, Mr. Berrien, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a bill to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. It did not extend the probationary period beyond five years' residence in the United States, and one year in the State, but proposed addi

tional guards and restrictions to enable a foreigner to become a citizen, It was ordered to be printed, but was not considered or acted upon during the remainder of the session. See Congressional Globe 1844-45, p. 194. On the 3d of March following, the same gentleman, from the same Committee, made another report on the subject of frauds committed upon the naturalization laws, 5000 copies of which, embracing an abstract of the testimony taken, were ordered to be printed by a strict party vote, the Whigs voting in the affirmative and the Democrats in the negative. See Congressional Globe 1844-45, p. 389-90. The following is an extract from the Report, Senate Document, No. 173, 28th Congress, 2d Session:

The committee, in the fulfilment of the duty assigned to them, would now proceed to examine these several subjects in detail, and to submit their views to the Senate in relation to them; but that justice to themselves, to the Senate, and especially to the grave and momentous subject referred to them, required that this examination, and the consequent submission of their views to the Senate, should be the result of a careful consideration of the evidence which they were authorized to seek by the personal examinaion of witnesses, or by commissions to take their testimony.

In obedience to the command of the Senate, commissions were issued to New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans-the three former having been returned, but at so late a period as to render it entirely impracticable for the several members of the committee to examine them with the care and attention which their importance demands. The advanced period of the session at which these commissions were returned, the pressure of other important subjects on the attention of the Senate, and the consequent 'mpracticability of obtaining any legislative action in relation to the naturalization laws at the present session of Congress, have, in the judgment of the committee, necessarily limited their duty to the presentment to the Senate of the testimony which has been obtained in such a form as might aid the legislation. of future Congress, and render the facts which it discloses in the mean time accessible to the public.

They have accordingly caused abstracts of this testimony to be made, which they herewith submit as part of this Report; and they recommend that the additional evidence which may be furnished, by the return of the commission which has not yet been received, may also be made part of the same by an abstract thereof, to be made under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate.

In obedience to the instructions contained in the resolutions above referred to, commissions were issued to the following-named gentlemen: to John C. Hamilton, John Lloyd, and Alexander Bradford, Esquires, of the city of New York; to William B. Reed, Samuel Badger, and John M. Scott, Esquires, of the city of Philadelphia; to Charles H. Pitts, Samuel Barnes, and George A. Spreekelsen, Esquires, of the city of Baltimore; and to William L. Hodge, William Christy, and Randall Hunt, Esquires, of the city of New Orleans-authorizing and empowering them to summon witnesses for the purpose of giving true answers to certain interrogatories.

In the report of the commissioners appointed to take testimony at New Orleans, they complain of not being able to secure the attendance. of witnesses who were subpoenaed. They say:

"The commissioners have endeavored to execute the duties confided to them, free from all party bias or prejudice. They subpoenaed indiscriminately persons belonging to both the great political parties, who they thought could give information either on the subject of the abuse of the naturalization laws, or of frauds and violence at elections, as contemplated by the third interrogatory from the Judiciary Committee. They regret that those thus subpœnaed, belonging to the democratic party, have generally omitted or refused to attend, to give rebutting or explanatory testimony in relation to alleged frauds committed by that party, or to bring forward' and sustain by testimony any similar charges against the opposite party."

The commissioners at Philadelphia also certify that the attendance of two persons, Richard Palmer and Isaac R. Diller, who might have probably made important disclosures in relation to some matters which were the subjects of investigation, whom they desired to examine, could not be procured. Sufficient testimony was, however, procured to show that enormous frauds and abuses had been practiced, as the following abstract from the testimony accompanying the Report of the Senate Committee proves :

FRAUDS IN LOUISIANA.

Among the testimony furnished by the commissioners at New Orleans is a certified copy of the proceedings of the Senate of that State, sitting as a high court of impeachment, for the trial of Judge Elliott, in 1844, from which the following abstract is made:

ARTICLE II." That the said Benjamin C. Elliott, judge as aforesaid, reckless of truth and duty, and contrary to the sacred obligation of his oath, by which he stood bound faithfully and impartially to discharge all the duties imposed upon him, unlawfully and corruptly caused and permitted seventeen hundred and forty-eight certificates, purporting to be certificates of naturalization, or judgments entered in legal form on the records of the said court, to be issued, under the seal of the said court of the city of Lafayette, by Abner Phelps, the clerk thereof, from the 2d day of March, 1841, to the 4th day of January, 1844, in fraud of the naturalization laws of the United States, to the subversion of the policy of the United States, and to the great danger of the liberties of the people-he, the said Benjamin C. Elliott, judge as aforesaid, well knowing the said pretended certificates to be false, and that there was no minute or judgment entered on record in said court, to authorize or warrant the issue of said certificates."

The yeas and nays were taken on the above article, and

Messrs. Garcia, Armant, Bernard, Carter, Downs, Dupre, Livaudais, Morse, Slidell, and Sparrow, voted that he was guilty of the issuing some of the said certificates, as charged, but not all, (10 yeas;) and

Messrs. Davidson, Lacoste, Ledoux, and Walker, voted that he was not guilty, because they believed that the question could not be divided, (4 nays.)

The third article of impeachment, which was in the following words and figures, was read, viz.:

ARTICLE III." That the said Benjamin C. Elliott, judge as aforesaid, has unlawfully and corruptly permitted and caused Abner Phelps, the clerk of the said city court