same conditions as citizens of the United States born in or belonging to
other States of the Union.


It is well known that according to the Constitution of the United States
a citizen of one State may hold lands in any other State; and States
have, sometimes by general, sometimes by special, laws, removed the
disabilities attaching to foreigners not naturalized in regard to the
holding of land. But this is not supposed to be a power properly to be
exercised by the President and Senate in concluding and ratifying a
treaty with a foreign state. The authority naturally belongs to the
State within whose limits the land may lie. The naturalization of
foreigners is provided for by the laws of the United States, in
pursuance of the provision of the Constitution; but when, under the
operation of these laws, foreigners become citizens of the United
States, all would seem to be done which it is in the power of this
Government to do to enable foreigners to hold land. The clause referred
to, therefore, appears to me inadmissible.

The fourth clause of the same article provides, among other things, that
citizens of Switzerland may, within the United States, acquire, possess,
and alienate personal and real estate, and the fifth article grants them
the power of disposing of their real estate, which, perhaps, would be no
otherwise objectionable, if it stood by itself, than as it would seem to
imply a power to hold that of which they are permitted to dispose.

These objections, perhaps, may be removed by striking out the second
clause of the first article and the words "and real" in the fourth
clause. An amendment similar to the last here suggested was made by the
Senate in the convention between the United States and the King of