as out of it, to hazard the expression of an opin-
ion as to which is regarded as the most valuable
privilege, that of voting for or being voted for,
he should say, that the number was not small,
especially amongst politicians and the pretended
friends of the " dear people," which was so dis-
interested and patriotic as to believe that the lat-
ter privilege is much more valuable and import-
ant than the former.
His friend from Baltimore county, (Mr. How-
ard,) had said that in advocating the proposed
article in the Constitution, he but sustained the
principles for which he, (Mr. D.,) contended,
that there was no difference of opinion between
them. He, (Mr. D,) begged leave to correct
him; there was a very great difference of opin-
ion between them. The article under considera-
tion and the doctrine urged by his friend, (Mr.
Howard,) required a residence in the State of
five years after naturalisation. He, (Mr. D.,)
insisted that it was wholly immaterial whether
the residence immediately preceded or succeeded
the naturalization; that the eligibility was the
same in both cases. His friend from Anne Arun-
del, (Mr. Randall,) had contended for a similar
principle in the construction of an article in the
Constitution relative to the one year's residence
of a voter, he contending that the year's residence
must succeed the naturalisation. This opinion
of his friend, (Mr. Randall,) he, (Mr. D.,) op-
posed and was dissented from by a large majori-
ty of this Convention.
Mr. BOWIE inquired whether the residence for
five years applied to every body, or only to citi-
zens naturalised or coming from another State?
Was there any distinction at all in the bill as re-
ported ?
Mr. DORSEY. I admit that my friend's article
before us as reported, applies in terms to all citi-
zens; but we have decided here that we do not
require the residence to be after naturalization,
for a man who becomes naturalised to entitle
him to vote. If any one, a citizen from the east-
ern States, comes here and resides five years, he
is eligible by my friend's article; but if a foreign-
er comes here and settles among us, having made
his declaration of intention to become a citizen,
pursuant to the Acts of Congress, he must not on-
ly reside here five years before he can become a
naturalised citizen, but five years more before
he can be eligible to the office of judge. Thus
double the time of residence is required for the
naturalised citizen; which is unreasonable and
unjust.
Mr. BOWIE, la a man who has lived here five
years, and who now comes from Boston, fur ex-
ample, a citizen of Maryland ?
Mr. DORSEY. If he is a resident. He maybe
a sojourner; but to be a citizen he must be a bona
fide resident. The foreigner comes here with
the bona fide intention of becoming a citizen of
the United States. He resides here five years
and is naturalised. Does he stand exactly in the
same condition then as a man from the eastern
States who has been a resident lor five years ?
No, sir; the inhabitant from the eastern States
is entitled to be voted for as Governor, judge,
&c., but the naturalised foreigner must stay five |
years longer before he can be voted for. The
foreigner then, is obliged to wait ten years before
he will be eligible. This I wish to avoid, it
was urged in a former debate by my colleague,
(Mr. Randall,) that the naturalised citizen must
have been naturalised one year before he could
vote. But the House decided otherwise, and he,
(Mr. D.,) voted with the majority, if he had
been resident one year, and was then naturalised,
they decided that he would instantly have the
right to vote. He concurred in the propriety of
that decision, and he now only asked that we
may be consistent with it. He now contended
for the same principle that was decided when
the right of suffrage was under consideration, and
the same that was decided upon the gubernatori-
al article of the Constitution, and asked that we
may be consistent in our votes on both subjects.
He desired that no distinction be made between
them. When they have resided here five years,
and have been naturalized, if the people see fit
to elect them, let them do it. They have a right
to do so. We have nothing to fear from this.
This doctrine has been recognised in our Consti-
tution ever since 1776—for 75 years at least—and
no inconvenience has yet resulted from leaving
the judgeship open to every denomination of citi-
zens. We have never had a foreigner placed
there who ought not to have been there. We re-
quire but five years residence for an Eastern
Abolitionist; and he did not think we ought to
give them a preference over naturalized fo-
reigners.
Mr. TUCK said a few words.
Mr. BOWIE. He must be a citizen of the Uni-
ted States, if he is a citizen of the State. It is
therefore surplusage, and I think it would read
very awkwardly.
Mr. DORSEY. It appears to him that the awk-
wardness will be the result of not inserting the
words he had offered as an amendment. A citi-
zen from Massachusetts, for example, came into
this State twenty years ago, and resided for five
years. He comes in again and resides for one
day. By the proposed article of the Constitution,
without this amendment, he would be eligible to
the office of judge the moment he entered the
State, having heretofore resided in the State for
five years. It does appear to him that the amend-
ment proposed by him is necessary to explain the
meaning of the whole passage, and it precludes
the hardship of compelling a foreigner to wait
ten years before he can be elligible to the office
of judge.
Mr. BOWIE. I have already shown that a man
may be a citizen of the United States, without
being a citizen of the State of Maryland; and in
my judgment, that is conclusive. He may be a
citizen of the United States, and not a citizen of
Maryland, even if he resides here.
Mr. DORSEY. If he resides here?
Mr. BOWIE. Yes, sir.
Mr. DORSEY. A bona fide residence?
Mr. BOWIE, Yes, sir, a temporary residence.
Mr. DORSEY. Then he is not a resident.
Mr. BOWIE. I think he would be a resident in
fact and in law; and there we differ altogether
upon the meaning of terms. I prefer infinitely |