further study of his profession; and prepares him-
self in court to such an extent, and exhibits such
an ability as to call the attention of his fellow
citizens to him, as one deserving to be placed
upon the judicial bench. And then he is told—
although in every other regard you are perfectly
competent; although you are a man of eminent
talent; although you have distinguished yourself
at the bar, and put yourself at the head of your
professional brethren; although the people of your
district most particularly desire you to assume
the judicial functions, and although you have
been here five entire years, which is all that is
required of citizens from the other States, yet
you shall not be placed upon the bench for the
reason that you are a naturalized citizen, and
five years more are required of you by the terms
of our Constitution, Where, sir, is the ground
for this distinction? What is the reason of it?
Can you nut trust to the intelligence of the people?
Will you not allow them to discriminate be-
tween a mere tatterdemallion and a deep-read
and accomplished lawyer, though he may be of
foreign birth. Is not five years enough to enable
him to acquire a knowledge of the institutions of
our Slate, even if he comes here fresh and green?
Unquestionably, sir, I am not, and I never have
been, able to discover wherein the distinction ex-
ists, unless you mean to draw an invidious line
between those who perilled life and everything
for you and me, and all of us, who are now en-
joying the fruits of their exertions.
Sir, I have pointed out to you on other occa-
sions what was done by him who stands upon
now upon my right, represented on that canvass,
General Lafayette, for the liberties we enjoy. I
have pointed out to you the enumerable services
which have been rendered by our foreign popu-
lation, and by their ancestors. I have shown you
that in the days of darkness, difficulties, troubles,
and trials, they have been our fastest friends on
the field of battle.
I have shown you that in the civil walks of
life, they are as accomplished, and more accom-
plished perhaps, than many of our own fellow-
citizens who claim to be infinitely superior to
them; and now that we are constructing a new
organic law, I say it is as ungrateful, upon our
part to draw an invidious distinction between
their descendants and ourselves. And unless it
can be shown, that there is no distinction made
between the native born and the naturalized cit-
izen, of course I shall vote for the amendment to
change the bill of my friend from Prince George's
so as to avoid all distinction.
Now, sir, I concur with my friend from Anne
Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,) and I am glad some-
times to have an opportunity to concur with
him—I would infinitely prefer to put upon the
judicial bench an Irishman, a German, a Po-
lander, a Hungarian, any man from any quarter
of God's earth, than to place there a man who,
though born on our own soil might entertain doc-
trines which would teach the negro to uplift his
arm against the white man's bosom.
You propose to allow a man to come—without
enquiry as to his doctrines—from Connecticut,
from Massachusetts, or from disgraced Vermont |
—disgraced, I mean, by the late proceedings of
her legislature, relating to our fugitive slave law,
unless she wipes off the foul blemish by an act
equally potent; you allow an individual from
any one of those States to come here, and to sit
in judgment upon the life of your fellow-citi-
zens—a man, too, who might perhaps leave your
bench of justice, go out info the community and
urge the negro to arm against the white man.
Are you to draw a distinction against the man
whose ancesters have fought our battles, Irish-
men or Germans, some of whom were led by
the ancester of my respected colleague, (turning
towards Mr. Howard,) on the plains of Eutaw
and Cowpens; and then to admit into your confi-
dence these modern incendiaries who would ded-
icate your wives and your children to the ruffian
rule of negro equality. Such distinctions are
not to be tolerated for an instant. If you are
to draw distinctions, for God's sake do not dis-
criminate in favor of the abolitionist, and against
the Irishman, the German, the Polander or the
Hungarian. The latter would respect your in-
stitutions and would aid you in their defence.
The former would drive you to civil war, and
rend your Union into rags.
Mr. SPENCER. If the discrimination existed
in the bill of my friend from Prince George's,
which has called forth the eloquent appeal of
my friend from Baltimore county, there can be
no doubt that he, as well as I, would be found in
opposition to it. But there is nothing in the
section which makes that discrimination.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Very well, my dear sir. Then
I vote for the section.
Mr. SPENCER proceeded to show that this bill
was in harmony with the Executive bill in this
respect. There was no discrimination but that
growing out of the nature of things; and no
change could be made without discriminating in
favor of the foreigner and against the native
born.
Mr, DORSEY said:
That the gentleman from Queen Anne's, (Mr.
Spencer,) had misapprehended the section, and
read the section from the original bill.
Mr. D, then called for the yeas and nays,
Which were ordered,
And being taken,
Resulted yeas 7; nays 55; as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Dorsey, Wells,
Buchanan, Bell, Welch and Schley—7.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Pres't, pro. tem.,
Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson,
Weems, Dalrymple, Howard, Lloyd, Sherwood
of Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, Hicks, Hod-
son, Goldsborough, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller
Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, Spencer, George, Wright
Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs
Shriver, Johnson, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, Nelson, Stewart of Caro-
line, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore
city, Brent of Baltimore city, Ware, Fiery, Har-
bine, Kilgour, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, Hol-
lyday, Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke and
Shower—55.
So the amendment was rejected. |
