Mr. SHELLABARGER. Mr. Speaker. I do not rise because 1 have anything very important to say, or because I am disposed to participate in the discussion on this bill. Buta few moments ago ii remark or 2 dro ped from the Gentfrom Wisconsin [Mr. LDRIDGlfl which has induced me to make a sucation or 2 in regard to the 1st section of t ie bill. I understand it to be claimed by those who oppose this bill that it is not proper for congress to naturalize by law or treaty any class of individuals as a class, but that under the constitutional provision in regard toa uniform rule of naturalization each individual must be naturalized upon his personal act and application; and that there is no other power in the government in regard to naturalization except that which is to be found in that constitutional clause. New sir, a little observation of what has occurred in the histor of our own Government in this regard will, think, relieve this question of all difficulty. I agree with the gentleman on the other side of the House that this bill cannot be passed under that clause of the Constitution which provides that Congress may pass uniform rules of naturalization. Under that clause it is my opinion that the act of naturalization must not only be the act of the GOvernment, but also the act of the individual alien, by which he renounces his former allegiance and accepts the new one and that proposition and distinction will be fouql, I think, in all judicious arguments upon tesubject; certainly in Wheaton on International Law. The next remark I proused to make is this: that there is another c pass of persons well recognized, not only in our constitutional history. but also by the law of nations, as will be found by reference to a very eminent. work of Puffendorf on the law of nations, as well as to other works on the subject; there is a class of persons who are not citizens of a given country, and yet who are not foreigners, who occup an intermediate position, and that intermediate position is de ned by the law of nations by the word “subjects.” Subjects are all persons who, being born in 0. iron country and under. a given Government, O not owe an allegiance to any other Government. To that class in this country, according to the decisions of our own courts hitherto, belong American Indians and slaves, and according to the Dred Scott decision, persons of African descent whose ancestors were slaves. All these were subjects by every pnnciple of international as well as of settled constitutional law in this country. Now, then, to that class belong the persons who are naturalized by this bill. If they were not indeed citizens hitherto, they were at least subjects of this Government by reason of their birth, and by reason of the fact that they owed no foreign allegiance. That brings me to the next remark, and it is this: that these subjects not owing any foreign allegiance, no individual not of theirs is required in order to their naturalization, because they owe no foreign allegiance to be renounced by their individual acts and because, moreover their being domiciled in our own country and continuing here to reside is the individual election of each member of the tribe or race or class collected in any judicious work on to accept our nationality; therefore no additional individual not of the subject is required in order to his citizenship. That being proved, it is competent for the nationality, or for the Government, wherevei that subject may reside, to iiaturalize that class of persons by treaty or by general law. as is proposed by the amendment of the Gentfrom NewYork, [Mr. RAYMONIL] It is the act of the severeigii alone that is requisite to the naturalization of that class of persons, and it may be done either by a single act naturalizing entire races of men, or by adopting the heads of families out of those races, or it may be done to any extent, greater or less, that may lease the sovereign. For this proposition refer gentlemen who desire to examine this subject to the authoritjcs that may be found public law, and they will find them very fully collected certainly in the notes to Wheaten. Now, then, what power may do that act of naturalization, and iiow may it be exercised? That is also answered by these same authorities. It. may be done in this country either by an act of Congress, or it may be done by treaty. It has been done again and again and again in both ways in this country. It was done once in the case of the Choctaw Indians, as you will find in the Statutes at Largc, where in case the heads offamilies desired to remain and not to remove to the West, it was provided by the treaty of September 27, 1830, that those families should be naturalized as a class. It was done a in, as you may remember, in the case of the herokees in December, 1835. There again a class was naturalized by treaty. Then, again, it was done in the other way, by an act of congress, in the case cited by my learned friendfrom Iowa, [Mr.WiLsox] in the case of the Stockbridge Indians. Iwill reada simple clause from that law in order to see how exactl it harmonizes in language and in etfect with this bill. In the act of bongress of March 3, 1843, it is provided: “ That the Stockbridge tribe of Indians and each and everyone of them shall be deemedto be and areherebydeclaredtobe, citizensof the U.S. to all intents and purposes, and shall be entitled to all the rights. privileges and immunities of such citizens and shal in all respectsbe subject to the laws of the U.S. " That is an act of Congress. audit was passed during the Administration of Mr. Tyler. That is all I desire to say. There is really, upon a candid and fair investigation of this question, no difficulty in voting for the bill proposed by the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. lianioxn] for the naturalization of all these people, and I may say that the usefulness of such a measure as that is just as great, as grand, and as profound as it is useful to be an American citizen.