usurpations, &c. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends."

There is proof, too, that Nativism can't always be relied on to help one's own countrymen, and that brethren, and kindred, and consanguinity, will fail a whole people in trouble, just as kinship too often fails families and individuals in the trials of life.

"And," lastly, "for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

There was tolerance, there was firm reliance on the same one God; there was mutuality of pledge, each to the other, at one altar, and there was a common stake of sacrifice-"lives, fortunes and honor." And who were they? There were Hancock the Puritan, Penn the Quaker, Rutledge the Huguenot, Carroll the Catholic, Lee the Cavalier, Jefferson the Free Thinker. These, representatives of all the signers, and the signers, representatives of all the people of all the colonies.

Oh! my countrymen, did not that "pledge" bind them and bind us, their heirs, forever to faith and hope in God and to charity for each other-to tolerance in religion, and to "mutuality" in political freedom? Down, down with any organization, then, which "denounces" a "separation" between Protestant Virginia and Catholic Maryland-between the children of Catholic Carroll and Protestant George Wythe. Their names stand together among "the signatures," and I will redeem their "mutual" pledges with my "life," my "fortune," and my "sacred honor," "so far as in me lies-so help me, Almighty God!"

I think that here is proof enough that "foreigners" and Catholics both entered as material elements into our Americanism. But before the 4th day of July there were laws passed of the highest authority, to which this secret organization is opposed.

On the 12th of June, '76, the Convention of Virginia passed a "Declaration of Rights." Its 4th section declares: "that no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge to be hereditary."

Now, does the Know-Nothing organization not claim for the "native born" "set of men" to be entitled to exclusive privileges from the community as against naturalized and Catholic citizens; and thus, by virtue of birth, to inherit the right of election to the offices of magistrates, legislator or judge, which are not descendible? They set up no such claim for the individual person native born, but they do set up a quality for nativity, to which, and to which alone, they claim, pertains the privileges of eligibility to offices.

Again:-Does this organization not violate the 7th section of this declaration of rights, which forbids "all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, as injurious to their rights, and which ought not to be exercised?" When the laws say, and the representatives of the people say, that Catholics and naturalized citizens shall be tolerated and allowed to enjoy the privileges of citizenship, and eligibility to office, have they not organized a secret power to suspend these laws and to prevent the execution of them, by their sole authority, without consent of the representatives of the people? This declaration denounces it as injurious to the rights of the people and as a power which ought not to be exercised.

Again:-Does not this organization annul that part of the 8th section of this declaration, which says: "That no man shall be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers?" This don't apply alone to personal liberty, the freedom of the body from prison, but no man shall be deprived of his franchises of any sort, of his liberty in its largest sense, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, the trial by jury. Has, then, a private and secret tribunal a right to impose qualifications for office, and to enforce their laws by test oaths, so as to deprive any man of his liberty to be elected?

Again: Is this organization not an Imperium in Imperio against the 14th section of this declaration, which says: "That the people have a right to uniform government, and, therefore, that no government separated from or independent of the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof." It is not a government, but does it not, will it not, politically govern the portion of the people belonging to it, differently from what the portion of the people not belonging to it, are governed by the laws of Virginia?

Again :-It does not adhere to the "justice and moderation" inculcated in the 15th section of the declaration. And lastly, it avowedly opposes the 16th section, which declares, "that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other."

44

But this organization not only contravenes the rules of our Declaration of Independence and Rights, but it is in the face of a positive and perpetual statute, now made a part of our organic law by the new Constitution-the Act of Religious Freedom, passed the 16th of December, 1785. Against this law, this Know-Nothing order attacks the freedom of the mind, by imposing "civil incapacitations;" it "attempts to punish one religion and to propagate another by coercion on both body and mind;" it "sets up its own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible;" it makes our civil rights to have a dependence on our religious opinions;" it "deprives citizens of their natural rights, by proscribing them as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon them an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless they profess or renounce this or that religious opinion;" "it tends to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;" it lacks confidence in Truth, which is great and will prevail," if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to Error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; it withdraws errors from free argument and debate, and hides them in secret, where they become dangerous, because it is not permitted freely to contradict them.

Let it not be said that this is a restraining statute upon government, and is a prohibition to "legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical." If they even are restrained by this law, a fortiori, every private organization, or order, or individual, is restrained. The Know-Nothings will hardly pretend to do what the government itself, and legislators, and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, dare not do. If such be their pretensions they claim. to be above the law, or to set up a higher law-then, sic volo, to compel a man to frequent or support any religious worship, and to enforce, restrain, molest, or burthen him, or "to make him suffer" on account of his religious opinions or belief; or to deprive men of their freedom to profess, and by

argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and to make the same diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. No, when our Constitutions forbid the legislators to exercise a power, they intend that no such power shall be exercised by any one.

Not only is the law of Virginia thus liberal as to religion, but also as to naturalization.

So far as "Know-Nothingism" opposes our naturalization laws, it is not only against our statute policy, but against Americanism itself. In this it is especially anti-American. One of the best fruits of the American Revolution was to establish, for the first time in the world, the human right of expatriation. Prior to our separate existence as a nation of the earth, the despotisms of the old world had made a law unto themselves, whereby they could hold forever in chains those of mankind who were so unfortunate as to be born their subjects. In respect to birthright and the right of expatriation, and the duty of allegiance and protection, and the law of treason, crowned heads held to the ancient dogma: "Once a citizen always a citizen." If a man was so miserable as to be born the slave of a tyrant, he must remain his slave forever. He could never renounce his ill-fated birthright-could never expatriate himself to seek for a better country-and could never fors wear the allegiance which bound him to his chains. He might emigrate, might take the wings of the morning and fly to the uttermost parts of the earth, might cross seas and continents, and put oceans, and rivers, and lakes, and mountains between him and the throne in the shadow of which he was born, and he would still "but drag a lengthening chain." Still the despotism might pursue him, find and bind him as a subject slave. If America beckoned to him to fly to her for freedom, and to give her the cunning and the strength of his right arm to help ameliorate her huge proportions and to work out her grand destiny, the tyrant had to be asked for passports and permission to expatriate. But they came-lo! they came! Our laws encouraged them to come. Before '76, Virginia and all the colonies encouraged immigration. It was a necessity as well as a policy of the whole country. Early in the revolution, the king's forces hung some of the best blood of the colonies under the maxim, "Once a citizen, always a citizen." They were traitors if found fighting for us, because they were once subjects. Washington was obliged to hold hostages, to prevent the application of this barbarous doctrine of tyranny. At last our struggle ended, and our independence was recognized. George III. was compelled to renounce. our allegiance to him, though we were born his subjects. But still, when we came to our separate existence, we were called on to recognize the same odious maxim, still adhered to by the despots of Europe: "Once a citizen, always a citizen." Subjects were still told that they should not expatriate themselves, and America was warned that she should not naturalize them without the consent of their monarch masters. Spurning this dogma, and the tyrants who boasted the power to enforce it, the 4th power which the Convention of 1787, that formed our blessed Constitution, enumerated, is: "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." "

The meaning of this was, to say by public law to all Europe and her combined courts, "Your dogma, 'once a citizen always a citizen,' shall cease forever as to the United States of North America. We need population to smooth our rough places, and to make our crooked places straight; but, above and beyond that policy, we are, with the help of God, resolved that this new and giant land shall be one vast asylum for the oppressed of every other land, now and forever!" That is my reading of our law of liberty. Those born in bondage might raise their eyes up in hope of a better country! They might, and should if they would, expatriate themselves, fly from

slavery and chains, and come!-Ho, every one of them, come to our country and be free with us! They might fors wear their allegiance to despots, and should be allowed here to take an oath to liberty and her flag, and her freedom, and they should not be pursued and punished as traitors. When they came and swore that our country should be their country, we would swear to protect them as if in the country born, as if natives-i. e., as naturalized citizens, and they should be our citizens and be entitled to our protection. And this was in conformity to the only true idea of "Naturalization," which, according to its legal as well as its etymological sense, means, "when one who is an alien is made a natural subject by act of law and consent of the Sovereign power of the state." The consent of our sovereign power is written in the Constitution of the United States, and Congress, at an early day after its adoption, passed the acts of naturalization. The leading statute is that of April 14th, 1802. It provided that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise :

1st. That he shall have declared on oath or affirmation before the supreme, superior, district or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territorial districts of the United States, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years (two years by act of May 26th, 1824,) at least before his admission, that it was his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, whereof such alien may at the time be a citizen or subject.

2d. That he shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. 3rd. That the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year, at least; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; Provided, That the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.

4th. That in case the alier applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application shall be made, which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court: Provided, That no alien who shall be a native, citizen, denizen, or subject, of any country, state, or sovereign, with whom the United States shall be at war at the time of his application, shall then be admitted to be a citizen of the United States.

The act has other provisions, and has since been modified from time to time. This statute had not operated a legal life time before Great Britain again asserted the dogma: "Once a citizen, always a citizen!" The base and cowardly attack of the Leopard on the Chesapeake, at the mouth of this very bay, in sight of the Virginia shore, was made upon the claim of right to seize British born subjects from on board our man-of-war. The star-spangled banner was struck that day for the last time to the detestable maxim of tyranny:-"Once a citizen, always a citizen." It must not be

For

forgotten that it was upon this doctrine of despots that the Right of Search was founded. They arrogated to themselves the prerogative to search our decks on the high seas, and to seize those of our crews who were born in British dominions. In 1812, we declared the last war. For what? "Free Trade, and Sailors' Rights" That is, for the right of our naturalizedcitizen-sailors to sail on the high seas, and to trade abroad free from search and seizure. They had been required to "renounce and abjure," all "allegiance and fidelity" to any other country, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to the country, state, or sovereignty under which they have been natives or citizens, and we had reciprocally undertaken to protect them in consideration of their oaths of allegiance and fidelity to the United States. How protect them? By enabling them to fulfil their obligations to us of allegiance and fidelity, by making them free to fight for our flag, and free in every sense, just as if they had been born in our country. Fight for us they did; naturalized, and those not naturalized, were of our crews. They fought in every sea for the flag which threw protection over them, from the first gun of the Constitution frigate to the last gun of the boats on Lake Pontchartrain, in every battle where

"Cannon's mouths were each other greeting,

And yard arm was with yard arm meeting."

That war sealed in the blood of dead and living heroes the eternal, American principle:-"The right of expatriation, the right and duty of naturalization-the right to fly from tyranny to the flag of freedom, and the reciprocal duties of allegiance and protection." And does a party-an order or what not, calling itself an American party, now oppose and call upon me to oppose these great American truths, and to put America in the wrong for declaring and fighting the last war of independence against Great Britain? Never! I would as soon go back to wallowing in the mire of European serfdom. I won't do it. I can't do it. No; I will lie down and rise up a Native American, for and not against these imperishable American truths. Nor will any true American, who understands what Americanism is do otherwise. I put a case :

A Prussian born subject came to this country. He complied with our naturalization laws in all respects of notice of intention, residence, oath of allegiance, and proof of good moral character. He remained continuously in the United States the full period of five years. When he had fully filled the measure of his probation and was consummately a naturalized citizen of the United States, he then, and not until then, returned to Prussia to visit an aged father. He was immediately, on his return, seized and forced into the Landwehr, or militia system of Prussia, under the maxim: "Cnce a citizen, always a citizen!" There he is forced to do service to the king of Prussia at this very hour. He applies for protection to the United States. Would the Know-Nothings interpose in his behalf or not? Look at the principles involved. We, by our laws, encouraged him to come to our country, and here he was allowed to become naturalized, and to that end required to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to the king of Prussia, and to swear allegiance and fidelity to the United States. The king of Prussia now claims no legal forfeiture from him-he punishes him for no crime-he claims of him no legal debt-he claims alone that very allegiance and fidelity which we required the man to abjure and renounce. Not only so, but he hinders the man from returning to the United States, and from discharging the allegiance and fidelity we required him to swear to the United States. The king of Prussia says he should do him service for seven years, for this was what he was born to perform; his obligations were due to him first, and