CHAPTER XIV

MADISON LETTER NUMBER FIVE-ELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC OFFICE-NATIVE CITIZENS PREFERRED TO FOREIGNERS

AVING presented the views of the American party on the question of naturalization, I proceed now to consider the line of policy which they propose to adopt in regard to elections and appointments to office.

Their general proposition is to give a preference to native citizens over foreigners, for all places of public trust. They do not propose an absolute and entire exclusion of all foreigners, but a mere preference for natives as the general rule. This is obvious from the language of the third article of the platform adopted at Philadelphia. But if doubt remained in the mind of any one as to the true interpretation of that article, it must be removed by a reference to the fifth article which in terms recognizes the selection of officers of foreign birth.

The announcement of this preference of Americans for their own countrymen has been met by the most bitter denunciations by the courtiers of the foreign vote. It has been declared to be unjust, proscriptive, and contrary to the principles of the Constitution; and the whole vocabulary of vulgar abuse has been exhausted, by demagogues of every grade, in giving expression to their sentiments in regard to it. Without being in the slightest degree ruffled by such outpourings of vituperation, let us now inquire:

First. Is there any wrong, as a question of principle, in this preference for natives over foreigners for public stations?

Second. Is there anything in it contrary to the letter or spirit of the Constitution?

Third. What was the opinion of the Fathers of the Republic on the subject?

I. Is it wrong in principle? Here let it be remembered that it is not proposed to legislate on this subject. No one has yet suggested the idea of enacting a law to exclude foreigners from office. All that is contemplated is to awaken and to organize the American sentiment of the country; to create a wholesome public opinion, which will operate, alike on the people and the government to induce them, in the exercise of the elective franchise and the power of appointment, to give a preference to Americans for public stations.

What will be the effect in practice? Every man will be left free to exercise his constitutional right to vote as he may deem right. There will be no legal restraint upon him. His own discretion and sense of duty will be his only guides. Well, if in the exercise of my discretion, I do not choose to vote for a foreigner, has any one a right to complain? Do wrong anybody by voting according to the dictates of my own conscience and judgment? Certainly not. It is of the very essence of freedom that I shall vote according to my own sense of right and duty without dictation from any man. And if I have the right, has not my neighbor, or any number of my neighbors, the same right? And may we not legiti mately compare opinions, talk the matter over together, and agree to vote in the same way? Is not such every day's practice? Is it not the very basis of all party organization, that men who think alike should vote together? Do not Whigs and Democrats consult together in their respective primary meetings, caucuses, and conventions, and agree to vote together so as to accomplish their common objects by concert of action? Do not Whigs agree to vote against Democrats, and Democrats against Whigs, without incurring the censure of any one? And why may not Americans agree to vote against foreigners? Is it not as legitimate to vote together against foreigners as against our own countrymen of the opposite political party? Was it not as legitimate for our fathers to fight against the Hessians as against the

Tories, when they joined in a common warfare on our liberty and independence? And may not Americans of the present day lawfully and rightfully unite their votes against foreigners, as well as against the Democrats who use them to oppress us and deprive us of our constitutional rights?

Oh! but this is proscription! Proscription! It would cause a smile, if it did not provoke a graver feeling, to hear such a word from Democratic lips! Verily, our adversaries should take the beam out of their own eye before they seek to remove the mote from their brother's eye! They talk of proscription! Was it no proscription in them to banish. every Whig from the public service and to put Democrats in their places? Was it no proscription to deny to 73,000 voters, representing near half a million of Virginians, a single member of Congress, in violation of the Constitution and of the official oaths of the legislators who gerrymandered the districts? It is true we now have one representative, but that is not through their justice, but in defiance of the efforts of the Democracy in the Legislature and at the polls to prevent it! Have not the Democratic organs announced fierce and unrelenting warfare on the American party? Have they not proclaimed that not even a county officer of the American party is to be spared? All, without regard to qualification or public service, are to be doomed to official decapitation! Has Governor Wise ever appointed, or will he ever appoint, one of the 73,000 American voters to any office of trust, honor, or profit? And yet, with facts like these staring them in the face, men professing to be Democrats the guardians of popular rights-have the hardihood to cry out "proscription" against Americans, because they love and trust their own countrymen more than they love and trust the men of other countries!

What is patriotism but the love of our own country? Not merely the love of its broad plains, its beautiful rivers, its lofty mountains, and green hills and fertile valleys, but the love of our countrymen;-of the gallant men and lovely women, who constitute the chief element of the country which we are taught in infancy it is our highest duty to

love, and serve, and, if necessary, to die for! And shall we forget all these lessons of our childhood, shall we obliterate from our minds all the early lessons of patriotism, and at the bidding of demagogues, who are courting foreign votes, to aid in the advancement of their selfish purposesadopt the notion that patriotism is a crime, and that it is a duty to love foreigners as well, or better, than the sons of those who achieved our independence and established our liberties? Long may it be before such sentiments find a response in the hearts of Virginians!

But let us now proceed to inquire whether the American party are seeking to inaugurate a new principle unknown to our fundamental laws, and at war with their spirit.

The principle of preference of natives is imbodied in our Constitutions both Federal and State; and in the latter by the aid of the vote of Mr. Wise himself!

No foreigner can, by the organic law of the United States and of our Commonwealth, be President or VicePresident of the United States, or Governor or LieutenantGovernor of Virginia. This great American principle is to be found in both these instruments.

Now if the principle be wrong, it should be stricken out of both. If injustice has been done to our adopted citizens; if the "cause of civil and religious freedom" has been invaded by those prohibitions, then they ought to be expunged from our fundamental laws!

Not

But who will venture to make the proposition? Governor Wise, certainly, for he helped by his vote to engraft them on the Constitution of Virginia !

It is apparent, therefore, that the principle is not wrong, and the complaint must be not against the principle, but against the extent to which it is proposed to carry it in practice. Every friend of the Constitution as it stands must concede that it is proper to prefer natives for the highest executive offices. The only dispute is whether this preference shall be extended to inferior officers. Or in other words, the question sinks from one of principle into one of expediency. And it therefore necessarily follows, that even

Mr. Wise and his party are Americans in principle,—and the only difference between them and the American party is one not of principle, but of degree. They are not quite so intensely American as we are that is all. They stop at the half-way house while we go to the end of our journey!

The same remark applies with equal force to the subject of naturalization. I presume no member of the Democratic party desires a total repeal of the restrictions imposed by the naturalization laws. No one asks that foreigners immediately on their arrival in this country may be admitted to all the rights of citizenship without some probation. I have yet to meet the man of any party who contends for that proposition. There are few, if any, who think that the present probation of five years is too long. Bearing this in mind, let us pursue the subject further.

The argument against the American party proceeds on the assumption that they propose to do injustice to foreigners. Now if injustice is to be done, it must be by infringing some right that foreigners possess. This leads us to inquire if they have any right whatever to become nautralized, unless we choose to confer it on them by law? No jurist will contend that they have. But if they have such a right, would not that right be as effectually invaded by a restriction of five years as by one of fifteen or twenty-one years? The difference would only be one of degree. The imposition of an illegal tax of five cents on my property is as much a violation of my rights as one of five dollars would be. And so a restriction on my natural rights for five years is as palpably unjust as one of twenty-one years. The one may be more burdensome than the other, but it is no more a violation of abstract right. If, then, the Democracy contend that the rights of foreigners are to be violated by the proposed policy of the American party, they are inevitably driven by their own argument to contend for a repeal of all restrictions. But they will assume no such position, for they know that naturalization is a mere matter of favor, which any government may rightfully grant or withhold at