U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/Naturalization Laws
NATURALIZATION LAWS.
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, this bill has
been discussed so elaborately and so ably that
but very little remains for me to say. I do not
look upon this measure as a party question at
all. Our Democratic friends in this Chamber
have assured us that they love the immigrant,
and I am very glad to know it. I am sure, also,
that the Republicans highly esteem those who
come from foreign countries to cast their lot
with the natives of this Republic. If they did
not, I should not be here. So upon that point
I suppose we are all agreed.
Neither do I think that the honorable Senator from New York who has presented to the Senate this substitute for the House bill is in any way hostile to the foreign-born population. On the contrary, I know that he is not. He simply wants to remedy some crying evils in New York. I believe, however, that in devising means to remedy those evils he has gone a little too far.
That those evils exist in the city of New York I have no doubt. Everybody knows it. On that point I agree perfectly with him. Those abuses are gross, outrageous, dangerous. I agree with him also that something ought to be done to remedy them. But that something ought not to be such as to obstruct naturalization in those parts of the country that are not affected by the evils complained of.
It must be remembered that naturalization frauds, as such, are almost unknown in the great West; at least they are of such unfrequent occurrence as to make themselves hardly felt, and yet the very same measure that is to repress the evil existing in the city of New York is to operate over the whole extent of the United States, to which the complaint does not apply. Hence the difficulty.
How obstructive the amendment brought forward by the Senator from New York is has already been very ably shown. It has been stated that the registers in bankruptcy are but very few in number; that in the western States there is about one to every congressional district; that those congressional districts there are very large; that it would render it necessary for the immigrants who want to be naturalized to travel in some cases fifty, sixty, one hundred, or two hundred miles to reach one; all of which is true. It has also been mentioned that one provision in this bill makes the very possession of a naturalization paper a dangerous thing. Section eight provides —
That whenever the district attorney in any district shall be informed, in and by the affidavit of a credible person, setting forth the grounds of the belief of the affiant, that some person therein named has in his or her possession or power a certificate of naturalization, or a paper purporting to be evidence that such person, or any person, has been admitted a citizen of the United States, and purporting also to have been issued by some commissioner or court, State or national, holding his or its session within the judicial district for which such attorney acts, and that he verily believes that such certificate was knowingly procured or obtained contrary to the true intent and meaning of the laws existing at the date thereof, or that the same is false, forged, or counterfeit, it shall be his duty to apply to one of the courts of the United States for such district for an order on the party holding such certificate or paper to appear before said court on some convenient day, to be named by the judge thereof, and produce such certificate or evidence of naturalization, &c.
A provision like this would make every naturalized citizen at once look into his desk with alarm to ascertain whether his naturalization paper is in good order. There might possibly be some mistake and irregularity, and to have a naturalization paper would be almost as dangerous as to carry a vial of nitro-glycerine in one's pocket that may explode at any moment, much to the injury and discomfiture of the possessor.
The substitute of the Senator from New York further provides that all the certificates of naturalization issued in a city of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants since the 4th day of July, 1868, must be presumed to be forgeries, and all persons possessing such certificates of naturalization must go before some United States court and prove that they are genuine and correct.
Why, sir, the city in which I live, St. Louis, is a city of over one hundred thousand inhabitants. Almost one half of the population of that city are of foreign origin, and no naturalization fraud has to my knowledge ever been charged there. Now, sir, think of all those who have been naturalized since the 4th of July, 1868, being called upon to prove that they have not been naturalized by forgery; that they did not procure their naturalization by unfair, illegal, criminal means! I am sure that the execution of such a provision cannot take place without producing the most unfortunate state of feeling among that whole population. The Senator from New York must see that it would be almost impossible to enforce such a provision to the extent he proposes — a provision based upon the presumption that all those people are criminals — without creating universal and just indignation.
In fact, going over this whole bill from one provision to another, and I need not repeat what has already been so well said, the immigrant coming to this country will find a formidable machinery staring him in the face, so complicated, so unintelligible to his unsophisticated mind, so difficult and offensive in enforcement, that he will at last come to the conclusion that to become a naturalized citizen of the United States will expose him to all sorts of hidden embarrassments and dangers, and the result will be that very many of those people will find it best for their safety not to become naturalized at all. That is certainly not the intention of the honorable Senator from New York, but it will be the inevitable consequence.
It seems to me, therefore, that the effect of the bill now before the Senate will be most unfortunate in many respects; and I may say here to my party friends, although I do not look upon this as a party measure, and certainly it cannot be regarded as such, the passage of such a bill as this will have a very disagreeable effect upon public opinion, as far as the foreign-born population is concerned; it will quite seriously injure the popularity of the party that will stand responsible for it.
I do not say this as if I wanted to have nothing at all done for the purpose of affording a remedy for the evils that are justly complained of. On the contrary, I am very anxious that relief be afforded. I highly value the honor and the immunities of American citizenship; I am proud of them. I think also that the foreign immigrant coming into this country should not object to a little trouble or inconvenience to acquire that honor and those privileges. Neither would I shrink from such measures as would secure the necessary fairness in all the proceedings of naturalization; but I insist that those means should not be unnecessarily obstructive.
I am indeed anxious to have fraud prevented, or, if not altogether prevented, adequately punished. But what can it be? What can we do at the present moment? I suppose it is known to most Senators on this floor what stages the naturalization bill has run through already in the House of Representatives. Three or four bills have been introduced and discussed there, not one of them as severe and restrictive as this is, and they have all fallen, have been laid on the table, have been referred back to committees, until finally the House bill, which is now before the Senate, was agreed upon. It is frequently said that what the House of Representatives may think or do upon a measure is no argument in the Senate. It may not be under ordinary circumstances, but I submit that at the present moment it is an argument.
Mr. EDMUNDS, (in his seat.) It is a very improper thing to allude to.
Mr. SCHURZ. It is what?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I did not intend to interrupt my friend; but I will repeat what I said. According to all proper principle, and according to parliamentary law, it is a very improper thing to allude to, even, as influencing the action of this body.
Mr. SCHURZ. I did not mean to reflect upon the action of the House, which would be improper. I merely desired to refer to it in order to make a statement of fact. We are now within a very few days of the adjournment of Congress. If we want to do anything the House and the Senate will have to agree upon that thing very soon. It has already been shown that bills similar to this cannot pass the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives has sent us a bill punitive in its character, which will remedy to a certain extent the evils complained of. In my humble opinion we can do nothing better than to take that bill just as it stands and let it become a law.
I agree that it would be a very proper thing, citizenship being a matter of national concern, to make the act of naturalization a national act. I wish, also, that some machinery could be devised by which that act would not be made obstructive. My colleague has introduced an amendment to the substitute before us, an amendment which I vastly prefer to the proposition offered by the Senator from New York. I myself have drawn up some amendments which I might have offered on this occasion but for the reason which I have just stated. If we want to have anything done, I think the only thing that can be done is to accept the bill as it comes from the House of Representatives; and so I call upon the Senate not to load themselves, not to load the party down with an obstructive, offensive, and therefore unpopular measure, but to take the good thing that has been offered to us, and the effect of which will certainly go far to remedy the evils which the Senator from New York so justly makes war upon.
Mr. CONKLING. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion to him before he sits down?
Mr. SCHURZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. CONKLING. Without expressing any opinion upon the propriety of introducing into debates here real or supposed positions or opinions in the other House, it is very clear that such positions may properly influence committees and members of this body individually, privately. In that view, I suggest to the Senator, that as the truth is in regard to the tax bill and many other bills, so it may be in reference to this, that if the Senate shall adopt a substitute or amendments entirely different from the proposition of the House, even if the House non-concur, and the measure goes to a committee of conference, we are quite likely, as experience has shown, especially at this state of a session, to do very much better than we could hope to do by attempting to reconcile otherwise differences that there may be between the two branches of the Legislature.
Mr. SCHURZ. I think there is a difference between the bills. There are some which absolutely must be passed, and agreement upon which is, therefore, imperative. There are other bills, the passage of which is not quite so necessary, or at least not considered so by many of our associates in Congress; and to the latter class belongs the bill now before us. It may be a very useful one, but there are a good many Republicans who believe it is by no means an absolutely necessary one; and so there may be great difficulty in agreeing in a conference committee upon a bill that will be perfectly satisfactory to both Houses. I therefore repeat as my opinion that the best, safest, and only sure thing we can do, in order to obtain at least some remedial legislation, is to take the House bill as it stands.