slavery and chains, and come!-Ho, every one of them, come to our country and be free with us! They might forswear 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 alien 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

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?

For

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: "Once 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

his laws were first binding him. The United States say-true, he was born under your laws, but he had a right to expatriate himself; he owed allegiance first to you, but he had a right to forswear it and to swear allegiance to us; your laws first applied, but this is a case of political obligation, not of legal obligation; it is not for any crime or debt you claim to bind him, but it is for allegiance; and the claim you set up to his services on the ground of his political obligation, his allegiance to you, which we allow him to abjure and renounce, is inconsistent with his political obligation, his allegiance, which we required him to swear to the United States; he has sworn fidelity to us, and we have, by our laws, pledged protection to him.

Such is the issue. Now, with which will the Know-Nothings take sides? With the king of Prussia against our naturalized citizen and against America, or with America and our naturalized citizen? Mark, now, Know-Nothingism is opposed to all foreign influence-against American institutions. The king of Prussia is a pretty potent foreign influence-he was one of the holy alliance of crowned heads. Will they take part with him, and not protect the citizen? Then they will aid a foreign influence against our !aws! Will they take sides with our naturalized citizen? If so, then upon what grounds? Now, they must have a good cause of interposition to justify us against all the received dogmas of European despotism. Don't they see, can't they perceive, that they have no other grounds than those I have urged? He is our citizen, nationalized, owing us allegiance and we owing him protection. And if we owe him protection abroad, because of his sworn allegiance to us as a naturalized citizen, what then can deprive him of his privileges at home among us when he returns? If he be a citizen at all, he must be allowed the privileges of citizenship, or he will not be the equal of his fellow-citizens. And must not Know-Nothingism strike at the very equality of citizenship, or allow him to enjoy all its lawful privileges? If Catholics and naturalized citizens are to be citizens and yet to be proscribed from office, they must be rated as an inferior class—an excluded class of citizens. Will it be said that the law will not make this distinction? Then are we to understand that Know-Nothings would not make them equal by law? If not by law, how can they pretend to make them. unequal, by their secret order, without law and against law? For them, by secret combination, to make them unequal, to impose a burthen or restriction upon their privileges which the law does not, is to set themselves up above the law, and to supercede by private and secret authority. intangible and irresponsible, the rule of public, political right. Indeed, is this not the very essence of the "" Higher Law" doctrine? It cannot be said to be legitimate public sentiment and the action of its authority. Public sentiment, proper, is a concurrence of the common mind in some conclusion, conviction, opinion, taste or action in respect to persons or things subject to its public notice. It will, and it must control the minds and actions of men, by public and conventional opinion. Count Mole said that in France it was stronger than statutes. It is so here. That it is which should decide at the polls of a Republic. But, here is a secret sentiment, which may be so organized as to contradict the public sentiment. Candidate A. may be a native and a Protestant, and may concur with the community, if it be a Know-Nothing community, on every other subject except that of proscribing Catholics and naturalized citizens; and candidate B. may concur with the community on the subject of this proscription alone, and upon no other subject; and yet the Know-Nothings might elect B. by their secret sentiment against the public sentiment. Thus it attacks not only American doctrines of expatriation, allegiance and protection, but the equality of citizenship, and the authority of public sentiment. In the affair of Koszta, how did our blood rush to his rescue? Did the Know-Nothing

side with him and Mr. Marcy, or with Hulseman and Austria? If with Koszta, why? Let them ask themselves for the rationale, and see if it can in reason abide with their orders. There is no middle ground in respect to naturalization. We must either have naturalization laws and let foreigners become citizens, on equal terms of capacities and privileges, or we must exclude them altogether. If we abolish naturalization laws, we return to the European dogma: "Once a citizen, always a citizen." If we let foreigners be naturalized and don't extend to them equality of privileges, we set up classes and distinctions of persons wholly opposed to Republicanism. We will, as Rome did, have citizens who may be scourged. The three alternatives are presented-Our present policy, liberal, and just, and tolerant, and equal; or the European policy of holding the noses of native born slaves to the grind-stone of tyranny all their lives; or, odious distinctions of citizenship tending to social and political aristocracy. I am for the present laws of naturalization.

As to religion, the Constitution of the United States, art. 6th, sec. 3, especially provides that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The state of Virginia has, from her earliest history, passed the most liberal laws, not only towards naturalization, but towards foreigners. But I have said enough to show the spirit of American laws and the true sense of American maxims.

3rd. Know-Nothingism is against the spirit of the Reformation and of Protestantism?

What was there to Reform?

Let the most bigoted Protestant enumerate what he defines to have been the abominations of the church of Rome. What would he say were the worst? The secrets of Jesuitism, of the Auto da fe, of the Monasteries and of the Nunneries. The private penalties of the Inquisition's Scavenger's daughter. Proscription, Persecution, Bigotry, Intolerance, Shutting up of the Book of the Word. And do Protestants now mean to out-Jesuit the Jesuits? Do they mean to strike and not be seen? To be felt and not to be heard? To put a shudder upon humanity by the Masks of Mutes? Will they wear the Monkish cowls? Will they inflict penalties at the polls without reasoning together with their fellows at the hustings? Will they proscribe? Persecute? Will they bloat up themselves into that bigotry which would burn non-conformists? Will they not tolerate freedom of conscience, but doom dissenters, in secret conclave, to a forfeiture of civil privileges for a religious difference? Will they not translate the scripture of their faith? Will they visit us with dark lanterns and execute us by signs, and test oaths, and in secresy?

Protestantism! forbid it!

If anything was ever open, fair and free-if anything was ever blatant even-it was the Reformation. To quote from a mighty British pen: "It gave a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and enquiry, agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices throughout Europe. The effect of the concussion was general. but the shock was greatest in this country" (England.) It toppled down the full grown intolerable abuses of centuries at a blow; heaved the ground from under the feet of bigoted faith and slavish obedience; and the roar and dashing of opinions, loosened from their accustomed hold, might be heard like the noise of an angry sea, and has never yet subsided. Germany first broke the spell of misbegotten fear, and gave the watchword; but England joined the shout, and echoed it back, with her island voice, from her thousand cliffs and craggy shores, in a longer and a louder strain. With that cry the genius of Great Britain rose, and threw down the gauntlet to the nations. There was a mighty fermentation; the waters were out; public opinion was in a state of projection; Liberty was

.

held out to all to think and speak the truth; men's brains were busy; their spirits stirring; their hearts full; and their hands not idle. Their eyes were opened to expect the greatest things, and their ears burned with curiosity and zeal to know the truth, that the truth might make them free. The death blow which had been struck at scarlet vice and bloated hypocrisy, loosened tongues, and made the talismans and love tokens of Popish superstitions with which she had beguiled her followers and committed abominations with the people, fall harmless from their necks."

The translation of the Bible was the chief engine in the great work. It threw open, by a secret spring, the rich treasures of religion and morality, which had then been locked up as in a shrine. It revealed the visions of the Prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired teachers to the meanest of the people. It gave them a common interest in a common cause. Their hearts burnt within them as they read. It gave a mind to the people, by giving them common subjects of thought and feeling. It cemented their Union of character and sentiment; it created endless diversity and collision of opinion. They found objects to employ their faculties, and a motive in the magnitude of the consequences attached to them, to exert the utmost eagerness in the pursuit of truth, and the most daring intrepidity in maintaining it. Religious controversy sharpens the understanding by the subtlety and remoteness of the topics it discusses, and braces the will by their infinite importance. We perceive in the history of this period a nervous, masculine intellect. No levity, no feebleness, no indifference; or, if there were, it is a relaxation from the intense activity which gives a tone to its general character. But there is a gravity approaching to piety, a seriousness of impression, a conscientious severity of argument, an habitual fervor of enthusiasm in their method of handling almost every subject. The debates of the schoolmen were sharp and subtle enough; but they wanted interest and grandeur, and were besides confined to a few. They did not affect the general mass of the community. But the Bible was thrown open to all ranks and conditions "to own and read," with its wonderful table of contents, from Genesis to the Revelations. Every village in England would present the scene so well described in Burns' "Cotter's Saturday Night.' How unlike this agitation, this shock, this angry sea, this fermentation, this shout and its echoes, this impulse and activity, this concussion, this general effect, this blow, this earthquake, this roar and dashing, this longer and louder strain, this public opinion, this liberty to all to think and speak the truth, this stirring of spirits, this opening of eyes, this zeal TO KNOW—not nothing —but the truth, that the truth might make them free. How unlike to this is Know-Nothingism, sitting and brooding in secret to proscribe Catholics and naturalized citizens! Protestantism protested against secresy, it protested against shutting out the light of truth, it protested against proscription, bigotry and intolerance. It loosened all tongues and fought the owls and bats of night with the light of meridian day. The argument of Know-Nothings is the argument of silence. The order ignores all knowledge. And its proscription can't arrest itself within the limit of excluding Catholics and naturalized citizens. It must proscribe natives and Protestants both, who will not consent to unite in proscribing Catholics and naturalized citizens. Nor is that all; it must not only apply to birth and religion, it must necessarily extend itself to the business of life as well as to political preferments. The instances have already occurred. Schoolmistresses have been dismissed from schools in Philadelphia, and carpenters from a building in Cincinnati. 4th. It is not only opposed to the Reformation and Protestantism, but it is opposed to the faith, hope and charity of the gospel. Never was any triumph more complete than that of the open conflict of Protestants against the Pope and priestcraft. They did not oppose proscription because it was a policy

"