Mr. TRUMBULL. 6th Peters, page 762. This was the only point in the case. and, sir, unless this authority is to be disregarded, the POTUS is mistaken in his law, and it is not true that when a man is made a citizen of the U.S. he is not also a citizen of any State where he may choose to reside. The President next tells us that "The right of Federal citizenship thus to be conferred on the several excepted races before mentioned is nowfor the 1st time proposedto be given by law." This is nota misapprehension of the law, but a mistake in fact, as will appear by references to which 1 shall call the attention of the senate, and which will show that the Presidents facts are as bad as his law. If the Senfrom nd SMr. Joussos] wishes to take a note iorities he will find in Lawrences International Law the various le U.S. referred to upon read from page 897 of that vebeen in O U.S. severalcases 1 nnturalizat n by annexation of terri 3rd article of the 1st convention of vith France, for the cessionof Louis ed that the inhabitants of the ceded ncorporated into the Union of the dmitted. assoon as oasible.ac esof the Federal Constitution of rights. advantages, and ini lio U.S. (Statutes ) A provision to the same of 6th article of the treaty purchaseof the Floridas. e Government, (15. p.256.) B the 8th article of the treaty of1848. with Mexico. those exicans who remained in the territories ceded and who did not declare their intention within one earto continue Mexican citizen) were to be deemed citizens of the U.S. (1b. vol. 9. p. 930.) By the annexation of Texas. under a resolution of Congressof March 1. 1815 and its admissioninto the Union onan equal footingwith the original States.December29.l 84oa.llthe citizens of the former republic became, Without any express declaration. citizens of the U.S. (16. vol. 5. p. 798;vol. 9. p. 108.)" Again, at page 899: “A collective naturalization may also take place of a class of  persons.natives of the country or otherwise and who. without any act on the part of the individuals may he madecitizens." “ In the U.S. itisi neor retcot supposethat alien. as opposedto citizen, implies foreianer as respects the count. Indians are the mbjcclaof the U.S., an thereforeare not, in mereright of homebirth, citizens of the U.S. Nor can they becomecitizens under the existing naturalization laws. but they may be made citizens by some competentact of the General Government, by treaty or otherwise.” “By the treaty of September 27.1830, revision is made for such headsof families of the hoctawsas desire to remain and becomecitizens of the U.S. (Statutes at Largc. vol. 7. p. 335.)There is “ also a provision in the treaty of December29.1835. with the Cherokeesin referenceto such individuals and families as are averseto a removal west of the Mississippi.nndure desirousto becomecitizensof the States where they reside. (10., 483.) By the net of March 3. 1843, it is provided t at. on the completion of certain arrangements for artitioning the lands of the tribe among its memgers.the Stock bridge tribe oflndians, and each and every of them, shall be deemedto be and from that time forth are hereby declared to be. citizens of the U.S. to all intents and purposes, and shall be entitled to all rights, privileges and immunities of such citizens. See Statutes at Large, vol. 5. p. 647.)" By these various treaties, resolutions, and acts ofCongress, it will be observed that French men and Spaniards, Mexicans and Indians. have at diderent times been made citizens of the U.S.; and among them some of the very classes of personsmentioned in this bill; and yet the President tells us that this right of Federal citizenship is now for the 1st time proposed to be given by law. “If, ” says the President, “as is claimed by many, all persons who are native born already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the U.S., the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.” That is true; but is the President to learn new for the 1st time that rule to be found in the very horn books of the law, that an act declaring what the law is, is one of the most common of acts passed by legislative bodies? When there is any question as to what the law is, and for greater certainty, it is the most common thing in the world to pass a statute de claring it. My opinion is, such was the o inion of the AttyGen, such the opinion of the present SecyState, such the o inion of Mr. Lineolns Administration in all its Depts, such I believe to be the prevailing opinion in the U.S., that all native born persons not subject to a foreign Power are by virtue of their birth citizens of the U.S. But some dispute this; and hence for greater certainty it is proper to pass this law, and the fact of its being a declaratory act is now made a reason for disapproving it by a President. “But if such is not the law, ” says the president, “the grave question presents itself, whether, when 11 of the 36 States are unrepresented in congress at the presenttime, it is sound policy to make our entire colored population and all other execepted classes citizens of the U.S.?” T iis is a standing objection in all the veto messages of the President, not urged, it seems, against all bills, for the President tells us in this message that he has signed some 40 bills. Why is it made an objection to this bill? The President does not state it as an objection applicable to this particular bill. It is a general objection which O makes applicable alike to all bills; and if there is an thing in it, no bill can pass the Congress of the U.S. till these States are represented here. Sir, whose fault is it that elhven States are not represented? By what fault of theirs is it that 25 loyal States which have stood by this Uniop and by 7; the Constitution are to be deprived of their right to legislate? If the reason assigned is a good one now, it has been a good one all the time for the last 5 years. If the fact that some States have rebelled against the Government is to take from the Governmentthe right to legislate, then the criminal is to take advantage of his crime; the innocent are to be punis ied for the guilty. Within a few days the President has issued a proclamation, not of peace, as the Senfrom Nevada [Mr. Srnwaar] seemed to suppose, not a proclamation declaring that the rebellion is over, but that in certain States it is over. The President does not tell us that Texas, one of the States that was in rebellion, is in a condition to be represented here; and if we are to wait for these 11 States before legislating, must we not wait for Texas? The same principle would require us to wait for Texas as for the others, and she has not yet reorganized any form of government.“ Those States which have undertaken to reorganize have not ct been recognized as having a RFG entitling them to representation. he Representatives chosen by most of them are persons fresh from the rebel conress or from the rebel armies, men who could not take the requisite oath to entitle them to admission to seats. Are we to abstain from allnce essa legislation for the nation until these States shall be admitted to representation, which asorganized refuse to send Representatives entitled to admission, and insist on thrusting into Congress men whose hands are dripping with the blood of loyal men? Is the VEEP of the rebel confederacy, is his colleague, one of the senators in the rebel congross, to come here to legislate for the loyal people of this country? rethe men who organized a government that carried on a 4 years war against us, as the result of which this nation has had to expend more than 3000 million dollars, and as a consequence of which more than a quarter of a million of patriotic heroes have laid down their lives upon the battle field and in Am hospitals are those men to come here to legislate for the loyal people of this country? Sir, States can only be represented throu by State organizations. The members of this bo y can only be elected by State Legislatures. Members of the other House can only be elected in pursuance of State laws. Hence, as prelim inary to any representation of a State in either House of Congress, it must 1st be determined whether there is a State government, whether there is a State Legislature having authority to elect Senators, having authority to provide laws under which Representatives may be elected. There certainly was a time when there were no such Legislatures in any of these 11 States. There was a time when the only organized government in either of them was hostile to the U.S., when ever otheer in it had abured his allegiance to the U.S. an sworn allegiance to a government hostile thereto. Will anybody pretend that while the State government was in such hands it was entitled to representation in either House of Congress? If not, shall we not inquire whether ithas passed out of such hands and into the hands of loyal men? and who but Congress is competent to make this inquir I Mr. Lincoln, in the lust speech he ever may e, alluding to his plan of reconstruction, said: “I distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be aeecptable: and I also du tincth protested thattheEzectdice claimed noright to my irlirn or whethermembers should he admitled to"all in Conpreufrom web Stolu." Sir, this proposition that no bill is to be passed because certain States are unre presented, when their being unre presented ist eir own fault, would ifsanctione and acted upon be utterly destructive of the Government. But the President tells us that “the bill, in effect, proposes a discrimination against large numbers of intelligent, worthy, and patriotic foreigners, and in favor of the negro.” Is that true? What is the bill? It declares that there shall be no distinction in civil rights between any other race or color and the white race. It declares that there shall be no different punishment inflicted on a colored man in consequence of his color than that which is inflicte on a white man for the same offense. Is that a discrimination in favor of the negro and against the foreigner a bill the only effect of which is to reserve equality of rights? gut perhaps it may be replied to this, that the bill proposes to make a citizen of every person born in the U.S., and there ore it discriminates in at respect against the foreigner. Not so; foreigners are all upon the same foot ing, whether black or white. The white child who is born in the U.S. a citizen, is not to be presumed at its birth to be the equal intellectually with the worthy, intelligent, and patriotic foreigner who emigrates to this country and as is suggested by a Senator behind me, even the infant child of a for einer born in this land is a citizen of the U.S. long before his father. Is this therefore a discrimination against foreigners? The President also has an objection to the making citizens of Chinese and Gypsies. I am told that but few Chinese are born in this country, and where the Gypsies are born I never knew. [Laughter] Like Topsy, it is questionable whether they were born at all, but “just come.” [Laughter] But, sir, perhaps the best answer to this objection, that the bill proposes to make citizens of Chinese and Gypsies, and this reference to the foreigners, is to be found in a speech delivered in this body by a Senator occupying, I think, the seat now occupied across the Chamber by my friendfrom Oregon, WILLiAns] less than 6 years ago, in repytro. a message sentto this ha y by Mr. Buchanan, the then POTUS, returning, with his objections, what was known as the homestead bill. On that occasion the Senator to whom I allude said: "But this idea about poor foreigners, somehowor other. bewilders and haunts the imagination of a ro"atI ammancoyn", stralinedOto saUy thaUt I liook uOponi thisl objection to the bill as a mere quibble on the part of the President and as being hardressed for some excuse in withholdinujg approva of the measure: and his allusion to foreigners in thise connception looks to mo more like the adeaptnnrlumof the merepol itician or deinagoguo, than agrave and sonnd reason to be adored by the POTUS in I. veto message upon so important a measure as the homestead bill."