on any individual who may reside here for two or three years become a naturalized citizen-and then command our offices? There are very many of these immigrants who know nothing of political privileges in their own country before they immigrate to this. The word is unknown to them, or if they hear it at all, they hear of it as something in which they have no participation. Is not this the fact? Sir, we all know that it is; we know that very many of these immigrants never enjoyed any political privileges themselves that they have no knowledge of them—and, least of all, have they any knowledge of our people, our government, or our institutions. The acquirement of this knowledge is not the work of a day. They have no sympathy in common with us; they have no gratifications to render them fit recipients of these high political privileges. If any of us chose to pass over to England, Ireland or France, and to settle ourselves there, what do we gain by the change-I mean in a political point of view? Nothing; we lose all. We are not suffered to acquire any political privileges such as we bestow upon them. There is no reciprocity--the advantage is all on one side; and whatever we may give to them, we ourselves can acquire nothing of the kind. Why should this be so? Or, if the adoption of such a system was necessary at one time, why should it still be adhered to, when every thing in the form of necessity has long since passed away? I can discover neither wisdom nor policy in so doing. The idea, Mr. President, is simply this I would afford to all foreigners who shall come to this country after the date of my amendment, protection in their person, their property, and all the natural rights which they could enjoy under any civilized or well ordered government. I would permit them to acquire wealth; to pursue objects of their own ambition; I would, in short, allow them to become in all respects equal citizens with us, except only in this one matter of political privileges. All their natural and their civil rights should be amply guarantied and protected; and they should become citizens in common with us in relation to all objects, except voting and holding office. And do we not hold out sufficient inducements for foreigners to make this country their home, even if we take from them these political privileges? Surely, sir, we do such, indeed, as no other nation upon earth can proffer.

But, Mr. President, it is not my design to enter into the discussion of this matter at the present time; and I owe an apology to the convention for having said so much in regard to it. I have a strong feeling on the subject; though I confess that I entertain doubts whether this convention has the power to act. I am well aware of the nature of the provision in the Constitution of the United States, and which has been referred to by the gentleman from the county of Philadelphia, (Mr. Martin.) I would do nothing in contravention of that provision; I merely wish that the question should be referred to a committee, that they may inquire whether this convention has the power to act at all in the premises; and if it has the power, whether it would be expedient to act. I am, however, surrounded by many valued friends whose opinions and judgment I appreciate; and it appears that they are unanimous in thinking that I should withdraw it. I, therefore, yield my own judgment to theirs, and, having explained my views, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Konigmacher, of Lancaster, thereupon renewed the motion previously made by the gentleman from Chester county, (Mr. Thomas)—but by him withdrawn. Mr. K. referred to the situation of the alms-house of the city and county of Philadelphia, of the inmates of which, he said, he had been informed, about seven-eights were foreigners. He also alluded

to certain recent and very gross violations of the quarantine law, which had taken place in certain parts of the State of New Jersey; where many foreign paupers had been clandestinely landed, and absolutely without the means of life. Mr. Brown, of Philadelphia, ridiculed the proposition, and professed to be ignorant of any complaints such as had been stated; whereupon Mr. K. withdrew his amendment, and the subject was never again brought under discussion. See Debates Pennsylvania Convention, vol. v., p. 441–51.

In November, 1844, Daniel Webster addressed a meeting of the Whigs of Boston, in Faneuil Hall, in which he thus took ground in favor of an alteration of the naturalization laws. See Niles' Register, vol. lcvii., p. 172:

Fellow-citizens, it would be at this moment a useless task for me to attempt to investigate the causes of this change. It may not be proper to investigate them at all. But why, we may ask, why should two free white States, New York and Pennsylvania, go against us, if they so have done? There can be but one cause, and that so conspicuous and prominent that no one can shut his eyes to it, no one but must deplore its effect. I approach the subject at once, for it is useless to try to keep it back. And I say that in my mind there is a great necessity for a thorough reformation of the naturalization laws. (Cheers, loud and long continued.) The result of the recent elections, in several States, has impressed my mind with one deep and strong conviction; that is, that there is an imperative necessity for reforming the naturalization laws of the United States. The preservation of the government, and consequently the interest of all parties, in my opinion, clearly and strongly demand this. All are willing and desirous, of course, that America should continue to be the safe asylum for the oppressed of all nations. All are willing and desirous that the blessings of a free government should be open to the enjoyment of the worthy and industrious from all countries, who may come hither for the purpose of bettering their circumstances, by the successful employment of their own capital, enterprise, or labor. But it is not unreasonable that the elective franchise should not be exercised by a person of a foreign birth, until after such a length of residence among us, as that he may be supposed to have become, in some good measure, acquainted with our Constitution and laws, our social institutions, and the general interest of the country; and to have become an American in feeling, principle, character, and sympathy, as well as by having established his domicile amongst us.

Those already naturalized have, of course, their rights secured: but I can conceive no reasonable objection to the different provision in regard to future cases. It is absolutely necessary, also, in my judgment, to provide new securities against the abominable frauds, the outrageous, flagrant perjuries which are notoriously perpetrated in all the great cities. There is not the slightest doubt, that in numerous cases different persons vote on the strength of the same set of naturalization papers; there is as little doubt that immense numbers of such papers are obtained by direct perjury; and that these enormous offences multiply and strengthen themselves beyond all power of punishment and restraint by existing provisions. I believe it to be an unquestionable fact that masters of vessels having brought over immigrants from Europe, have, within thirty days of their arrival, seen those persons carried up to the polls, and give their votes for the highest offices in the National and State Governments. Such voters of course exercise no intelligence and indeed no volition of their own. They can know nothing either of

the questions in issue, or of the candidates proposed. They are mere instruments used by unprincipled and wicked men, and made competent instruments only by the accumulation of crime upon crime. Now it seems to me impossible, that every honest man, and every good citizen, every true lover of liberty and the Constitution, every real friend of the country, would not desire to see an end put to these enormous abuses. I avow it, therefore, as my opinion, that it is the duty of us all to endeavor to bring about an efficient reformation of the naturalization laws of the United States. I am well aware, gentlemen, that these sentiments may be misrepresented, and probably will be, in order to excite prejudice in the mind of foreign residents. Should such misrepresentations be made or attempted, I trust to my friends to correct it and expose it. For the sentiments themselves I am ready to take to myself the responsibility, and I will only add that what I have now suggested, is just as important to the rights of foreigners, regularly and fairly naturalized among us, as to the rights of native born American citizens. (The whole assembly here united in giving twenty-six tremendous cheers.) The present condition of the country imperatively demands this change. The interest-the real welfare of all parties-the honor of the nation—all require that subordinate and different party questions should be made to yield to this great end. And no man who esteems the prosperity and existence of his country, as of more importance than a fleeting party triumph, will or can hesitate to give in his adherence to these principles. (Nine cheers.)

Gentlemen, there is not a solitary doubt, that if the elections have gone against us it has been through false and fraudulent votes. Pennsylvania, if, as they say, she has given 6,000 for our adversaries-has done so through the basest fraud. Is it not so? And look at New York. In the city there were thrown 60,000 votes, or one vote to every five inhabitants. You know that fairly and honestly, there can be no such thing on earth. (Cheers.) And the great remedy is for us to go directly to the source of true popular power, and to purify the elections. (Twenty-six cheers.) Fellow-citizens, I profess to be a lover of human liberty-especially to be devoted to the grand example of freedom set forth by the republic under which we live. But I profess my heart, my reputation, my pride of character, to be American.

In the New Hampshire Convention, held in 1850, to amend the Constitution of the State, Mr. Cass, a member of the Democratic party, offered the following resolution: "Resolved, That an article be inserted in the Constitution, as follows: 'No one who is bound by the oath of allegiance to any monarchial or foreign power whatever, or who is bound by his religious faith to put down free toleration, shall at any time hold any office of trust or profit in the State.'" This proposition seems to have aimed not only to require aliens, when naturalized, to renounce and abjure all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign power, ecclesiastical as well as civil, but also to exclude native born citizens from office, who acknowledge ecclesiastical allegiance to a foreign power. The motion failed, but Mr. Cass made a speech on the occasion, from which the following extracts are made:

Mr. Cass asked: "Was it safe to elect a man Governor who was sworn to the Pope of Rome, and believed that all Protestants were heretics, and should be persecuted unto death? He would not have it left open, so that persecutors could come in and take the helm of government. He thought it right to put up the bars. Was it ever known that

*

Catholics gained the power over any people, and got the government into their own hands, that they did not persecute, even unto death, all that were opposed to them? And was it not their religion, though they might be bound by all the oaths that could be imposed on them, that they might be absolved by the Pope? And were they not striving for conquest every where, and to set up their religion of Church and State? Were not nunneries and Catholic schools springing up all around us? And were they not teaching the children that we are all heretics? * And should Ireland be free from England to-day, would she sustain a republic? No. Let Ireland be free from England, and the Pope would have the power. And would he sustain a republic? Look to Mexico," &c.

Mr. Richardson, of Hanover, followed Mr. Cass, and spoke against the resolution, but took occasion to have a fling at the Catholics. He said: "It was idle to suppose that a narrow-minded Jesuit should be elevated to office. In this country, with its liberalizing influence, we had no reason to fear any thing from Catholics."

* * #

The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, of July, 1850, held such language as the following on the subject:

"These European reformers are flocking hither by thousands, bringing with them the pestilent products of the worn-out soil of the Old World—which, it would seem, when ever it falls into labor, produces nothing but monsters. They bring with them a host of extravagant notions of freedom, or a plenty of crude, undigested theories, which are utterly irreconcilable with obedience to laws of our own making, and from a constitution of our own adopting. They come with their heads full of a division of property, to a country where it is already divided in a manner most salutary to the general welfare, by existing laws and institutions, allowing every man an equal chance, and placing no artificial obstructions in the way of any. It is not here that idleness, profligacy and extravagance are shielded from their otherwise inevitable consequences-poverty and contempt by laws and institutions expressly devised for that purpose. It is not here that property is perpetuated for ages in one family, and that the laboring classes are forever excluded from their share. But it is here that industry, economy, prudence and enterprise receive their due rewards; and by being left to themselves, produce that general diffusion of comfort, as well as that salutary distribution of property, which can never be brought about, or at least perpetuated, by any other means.

"The socialists, however, who are come and coming among us, either from not comprehending that they have got into a new world altogether different from the old, or from a wild and reckless spirit of innovation, are silently making an impression on the people of our great cities, where all the sweepings of the country are gathered into one great mass of ignorance and corruption. They are instilling into them principles at war with society, and have attracted the attention of the several leaders, who begin to nibble at them, and discover evident symptoms of a design to enlist them in their great army of rag-tag and bob-tail, clothed in the many-colored patches of anti-masonry, anti-mailism, abolitionism, socialism, Fourieriteism, St. Simonianism, and heaven only knows what besides."

The reader will bear in mind that the above was written by democratic authority. It was uttered five years ago, before the organization of the American party-so called-and before the country had been aroused to the importance of the American movement. Subsequent events have de

monstrated anew the necessity of a change in our naturalization laws, as well as the equally pressing necessity of Americanizing ourselves.

And this feeling is even justified by writers of foreign as well as American journals, as may be seen by the following, taken from the London and Loyd's Weekly Register, edited by Douglas Jerrold :

"All things considered, the Know Nothings are the most impressive development of American life. Hitherto America has been a refuge for the outcasts of all nations—the home of all who had fled from debt, from tyranny, from starvation, from justice. It has received all-rejected none. This was a gránd experiment, but has only partially succeeded.

Some of the immigrants-especially the Irish-brought mischiefs with them—evil passions and bad habits; and, as all were admitted to public power-to vote at elections-public men had to stoop to their baseness, to get support; and hence, a lower style of public morals became the rule in large towns.

The Know Nothings, who comprise the most intellectual and prosperous men of the American democracy, say this evil must be stayed. Their cry is, America for Americans!' And surely this cry is as reasonable as Italy for the Italians,' or‹ Hungary for the Hungarians.' The new party is a protest against Irish political profligacy, and against Jesuit influence in America. They seek to deprive the immigrant hordes of the means of mischief. Their motto is, Protection to all-power exclusive to the American born.""

CHAPTER XL.

AMERICAN NATIONALITY.

Ir was the proud boast of the ancient Roman that the watchword, "I am a Roman citizen," would secure him personal respect throughout the world; and so now it may be said, with equal truth, the salutation, "I am an American citizen," is the best and safest passport a stranger can have to the yeomanry of foreign lands. But the causes which insure this respect to the American throughout the civilized world, are widely different from those which commanded it for the ancient Roman. It was the dread of the Roman power which secured it for its countrymen; but no such sentiment protects the American abroad. It is not fear of the American Government, but admiration for its institutions, which commands respect. America is a land known and admired every where, as that of peace and plenty, of virtue and safety, of freedom and equality, whose people have solved the problem, so long disputed, and proved that man is capable of self-government. It is not regarded as cosmopolitan, but has a distinctive national character of its own, and that is one emi