Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senfrom Michigan has 'vcn.this subject, I have no doubt, a good (Trial of his attention, and I am reall desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the U.S." What does it mean? What is its length and breadth? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojoumer in the U.S.? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from GreatBritain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with im unity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, Iapprehead. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word. It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is era in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. An elector is one who is chosen by the people to perform that function, just the same as an o cer is one chosen by is to exercise the franchisee of an ow, I should like to know, because i we been puzzled for a long while and I n unable to determine exactly, either nversation with those who ought to know, who have gisen this subject their attention, or from the decisions of the Supreme Court, the lines and boundaries which circumscribe that phrase, “ citizen of the U.S." What is it? So far as the courts and the administration of the laws are concerned, I have supposed that every human being within their jurisdiction was in one sense of the word a citizen, that is, a person entitled to protection; but in so far as the right to hold property, particularly the right to acquire title to real estate, was concerned, that was a subject entirely within the control of the States. It has been so considered in the State of Pennsylvania; and aliens and others who acknowledge no allegiance, either to the State or to the general Government, may be limited and circum scribed in that particular. I have supposed further, that it was essential to the existence of soeicty itself, and particularly essential to the existence of afree State that it should have the power, not only (of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the iIonol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pour in in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point. As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the U.S. She cannot forbid his entrance; but unquestionably, if she was likely to be invaded by a flood of Australians or people from Borneo, man eaters or cannibals if you please, she would have the right to say that those people should not come there. It depends upon the inherent character of the men. Why, sir, there are nations of people with whom theft is a virtue and falsehood is a merit. There are people to whom polygamy is as natural as monogamy is with us. It is utterly impossible that these people can meet to ether and enjoy their several rights and privileges which they suppose to be natural in the same society; and, it is necessary, a art of the nature of things, that society shall a more or less exclusive. It is utterly and totally impossible to mingle all the various families of men, from the lowest form of the Hottentot up to the highest Cau casian, in the same society. It must be evident to every man intrusted with the power and duty of legislation, and qualified to exercise it in a wise and temperate manner, that these thin 5 cannot be; and in myjudgment there shoufd be some limitation, some definition to this term “citizen of the U.S.” What is it? Is it simply to put a man in a condition that he may e an elector in one of the States? Is it to put him in a condition to have the right to enter the U.S. courts and sue“! Or is it only that he is entitled as a sojourner to the protection of the laws while he is within and under the jurisdiction of the courts? Or is it to set him upon some pedestal, some positiou. to put him out of the reach of State legislation and State power? Sir, I trust I am as liberal as anybody to ward the rights of all people, but I am unwilling, on the part of my State, to give up the right that she claims, and that she may exercise, and exercise before very long, of expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders; who owe to her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never'perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go, and whose solement is a universal swindle; who delight in it, who boast of it, and whose adroitness and cunning is of such a transcendent character that no skill can serve to correct it or punish it; I mean the Gypsies. They wander in gangs in my State. They follow no ostensible pursuit for a livelihood. They trade horses, tell fortunes, and things disappear mysteriously. Where they came from nobody knows. Their very old! is lost in mystery. No man o day can tell from whence the Zingarn come or whither they go, but it is under stood that they are a distinct people. They never intermingle with any other. They never intermarry with any other. I believe there is no instance on record where a Zingara woman has mated with a man of any other race, although it is true that sometimes the males of that race may mate with the females of others; but I think there is no case in history where it can be found that a woman of that race, so exclusive are they, and so strong are their sectional antipathies, has been known to mate with a man of another race. These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class. If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous. I think the honorable Senfrom Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not know that anybody would agree to that. It is true that our race are not subjected to dangers from that quarter, because we are the strongest, perhaps; but there is a race in contact with this country which, in all characteristics except that of simply making fierce war, is not only our equal, but perhaps our superior. I mean the yellow race; the Mongol race. They outnumber us largely. Of their industry, their skill, and their pertinacity in all worldly affairs, nobody can doubt. They are our neighbors. Recent improvement, the age of fire, has brought their coasts almost in immediate contact with our own. Distance is almost annihilated. They may pour in their millions upon our Pacific coast in a very short time. Are the States to lose control over this immigration? Is the U.S. to deter mine that they are to be citizens? I wish to be understood that I consider those people to have rights just the same as we have, but not rights in connection with our Government. If I desire the exercise of my rights I ought to go to my own people, the people of my own blood and Engage, people of the same religion, people of the same beliefs and traditions, an not thrust myself in upon a society of other men entirely different in all those res acts from myself. I would not claim that right. Therefore I think, before we assert broad! that everybody who shall be born in the U.S shall be taken to be a citizen of the U.S., we ought to exclude others be sides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society t um I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how my honorable friendfrom California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to mana of them as they may see fit, they may be usefu; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the U.S. so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.