Mr. ELDRIDGR. Yes, now we are even. The Gentfrom Pennsylvania bases his argument also upon the power given to congress by the Constitution to establish a uniform system of naturalization. Iwas surprised that that position should have been assumed by the able Gentfrom Pennsylvania, for I look upon him as one of the ablest lawyers in this House. What does naturalization mean 1 Does it relate to persons born in this country? The Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. RAYMOND] well suggested that doubts might arise upon the decisions of the courts. They have held expressly in several cases which are referred to in the decision from which I will read in a moment, that the right of naturalization under the Constitution referred only to persons of foreivn birth, that it had no reference topersonslaorn in the U.S. a Justice Curtis, in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case, a gentleman who, I believe, is authority with the other side of the House. even if Chiet Justice Tauey is not, held this language: “Among the powers expressly granted to Congress is the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. It is not doubted that this is a powerto prescribe a rule for the removal of disabilities consequent on foreign birth. To hold that it extends further than this would do violence to the meaning of the term naturnlization. fixed in the common law and in the minds of those who concurred in framing and adopting the Constitution. It is in this sense conteriing on an alien and his issue the rights and powers Of native born citizen that it is employed in the DeclarIndep. It is in t iis sense it is expounded in the Federalist, it has been understood by Congress, by the judiciary, and by commentator: on the constitution." Several authorities are cited by Justice Cur tis to sustain his views. It apears then that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship is conhned to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth. The opinion of the majority of the court, delivered by Chief Justice Taney, is to the same effect. So far as I am aware, no decision in the U.S. has ever conflicted with that decision. Upon what ground, then, can it be claimed that naturalization can be conferred upon persons born in the U.S.?