Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I fully share with the POTUS the regret expressed that he was unable to sign the bill “to protect all persons in the U.S. in their civil rights, and secure the means of their vindication.” I regret it on my own account, because the just expectations raised when this bill was presented to the President before its introduction into the Senate have been disappointed. regretit on the Presideuts account, because it is iiIcula ted toOalienate him from those who elevated him to power and would gladly have rallied around is A ministration to sustain him in the principles 11 on which he was elected. But above all), sir, lI regret it for libertys sake, to secure which to ourselves and our posterity this government was founded. Yet, if the bill is unconstitutional or unjust to the whole people, I would not have had the President approve it. That its provisions are not unjust to the whole or any portion of the people, nor unconsti the bill pass, the objections of the President. i agree upon anything on which we can compro. teen be discharged from the further considera, by a a wavy 9 fly a candid f/bf the Presi.ions with the very 1st declare that “all perU.S., and not subject power, eexcluding Indians not ens of the U.S. ", rni as origingly introduced did not conifi this provision. It was bQlieved by myself and many others th. all nativeborn persons since the abolition ot lavery were citizens of the U.S. Th was the opinion of Mr. Bates, the AttyGen during Mr. Lincolns Administration, OdlllllOIJ adopted by his Administration and at upon since by all Depts of the Exeeut incluing the SecyState, who has issued passports to persons of c recognizing them as citizens. It was the opinion expressed by Mr. Marcy when SecyState that all. persons born in the U.S. were citizens of the U.S., not referring, of course, to slaves, slave at that time existing in the country. The resident does not object to this declaration in the bill as unconstitutional. He does, however, say that" It does not purport to declare orconferan} other right of citizenshipthan Federal citizenship. tdoes not purport to give these classesof personsany status as citizens ol States. except that which may result from their name as citizens of the U.S. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusiVely with the several States as the power to confer the right of Federal citizenship is with Congress." We all know tlfat no State has authority to make a citizen of the U.S. The constitution of the U.S. vests in Congress the sole power of naturalization, and it may make a citizen of a foreigner; but is it true that when a person becomes a citizen of the U.S. he is not also a citizen of every State where he may happen to be? On this point I will refer to a decision pronounced by the SCOTUS, deliv ered by Chief Justice Marshall, the most cm ipent jurist who ever sat upon an American bench. In the case of Gassies es. Ballon, reported in 6 Peters, the Chief Justice, in deliv ering the opinion of the court, says: " The defendantin error is alleged in the proceed in s to be a citizen of the U.S. naturalized inkliouisiann and residing there. This is equivalent to an averment that he is a citizen of that State. A ritiren of the U.S. nresiding in any Stateqf the Union 1" a citizen of thatState."