this right arm should wither than be connected with any party whose purpose it is to persecute the Catholics of this great country. Gentlemen talk about the Papal power. The honorable gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Reade] the other day asked the honorable gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens], whether he would vote for a Catholic whose religious opinions he suspected of being hostile to the general interests of this country. What right has that gentleman to challenge the nationality of his peer, his equal, and require him to purge his conscience, before he can hold communion with him on the footing of an American citizen? What right have you to denounce him as a traitor to his country, and compel him to stand before your bar as a criminal-as an individual hostile to the institutions of your country? nothing. And, sir, what can it mean? I be- | against Catholicism; and I would rather that lieve it means nothing. It is a mere abstraction-a mere idle concession to the prejudices of one class of religionists and has no place in a national platform. And I undertake to show to this House, if they will take the declaration of the members of the National American party upon this floor, and if they will examine the eighth article of the Philadelphia platform, that they will find that it means nothing; because the cardinal principle-the great principle, according to my understanding of the American platform, is this; that none but native-born Americans should be elevated to office; therefore, if none but native-born Americans are to be elevated to office, all foreigners are excluded-foreign Catholics are excluded, foreign Protestants are excluded, and foreign Jews are excluded. And they are not excluded on account of their religion, but on account of their birth; therefore, if foreign Catholics are excluded on account of their birth, and not on account of their religion, the only Catholics who remain to be dealt with, and the only Catholics who can come up and be considered as candidates by the American party, are the American Catholics. They are the only Catholics who can be considered as candidates by the American party, because all foreigners are excluded; and, as I said before, foreign Catholics are excluded by coming within that designation. Mr. VALK. I suggest to the gentleman from Louisiana, with great courtesy and kindness to him, that, at this particular stage of the proceedings in the call of the roll, he should be kind enough to suspend his remarks for the present. [Laughter, and cries of "Go on !"] Mr. EUSTIS. I would accept of the gentleman's suggestion, but I beg to inform him that I have but little more to say. The gentlemen whom I am addressing now are not the Democratic party of this House. The gentlemen whom I am now addressing belong to the National American party, and I want them to understand distinctly where I stand. I am no Catholic, and I have been but seldom within the walls of a Catholic church-and that, however, is nothing in my favor. I say I desire that they v should should understand exactly where I stand; and I tell them that by that eighth article of the Philadelphia platform, according to the view I take of it, they either exclude or intend to proscribe American Catholics, or they mean nothing, because gentlemen have stated upon this floor that they did not intend to proscribe American Catholics. Then, gentlemen, if you mean nothing by that article of the platform, in the name of God strike it out, for it is a blot upon the history of our country. Every one knows, who has given any thoughts to the prospects of this American party, that that article has driven thousands from our ranks who coincided with us in other respects. The American people are generous, and you have excited that generosity. They will not agree with you in this crusade I tell you, gentlemen, you have just as much right to put your hands in another man's pocket, to see if the money he has belongs to him, as to take that position towards the Ame rican Catholic-as to dare to presume to ask him whether he entertains opinions hostile to the institutions of this country. Gentlemen ought to recollect that here, in this Congress, there is not a single Catholic priest. And, for my part, I am opposed to all religious interference with our political affairs. I am in favor of maintaining and keeping up the divorce between Church and State which has been established by our great fathers. But, sir, that very same reason which makes me a deadly enemy of Catholic interference with our institutions, makes me blush for my countrymen when I see the Protestant Church soiling its robes by draggling them in the mire of politics. Your legislatures are filled with gentlemen who wear white cravats and black coats. Your Congress has a large proportion of these clerical gentlemen. And I ask you, with all due respect and all due courtesy to gentlemen of the cloth, to show me a Catholic priest or an accredited agent of the Church of Rome in this hall. Gentlemen who talk about the Pope of Rome ought to recollect that that poor old man, who is an object of such terror to them, is now in the custody of a guard of French soldiers. But, Mr. Clerk, I have consumed more time than I desired to have done. I will simply close my remarks by asking the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Reade] where he gets the authority for thus blackballing his peers, his equals, the Catholics?-where he gets the authority for stamping them as the mere tools of the Pope of Rome?-where he gets the authority for considering them as unworthy of participating in the great councils of this country ountry? Does the gentleman find his authority, or will he find it, in the Constition of the United States? Will the gentleman find it in the treaty between France and the United States, by which the territory of Louisiana was ceded to this country, and by which the religious rights of its inhabitants were guarantied to them? Will the gentle- | can interests-or, in other words, a fervent which is so often quoted by the orators of the kindred batch of wild enthusiasts, who would I closed my first number by stating what I Let us now consider what are the measures to the colony of Maryland-to that colony Mr. Clerk, the American party of Louisiana I thank the House for the indulgence which Madison Letters. DEFENCE OF THE AMERICAN PARTY. The contents under this caption contain the No. 1. mutual forbearance and concession must and For the present, I will refer to the action 2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, 3d. Americans must rule America, and to to all the the 4th. Persons born of American parents re- recognise the federal and state constitutions 6th. The unqualified recognition and main- 7th. The recognition of the right of the The vital principle of the American party state. 8th. An enforcement of the principle that no state or territory ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the right of suffrage, or of holding political office. 9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twentyone years, of all not hereinbefore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners. 10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no interference with religious faith, or worship, and no test oaths for office. 11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public expenditures. 12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial authority. These propositions may be classed, for greater perspicuity, under three heads. I. Those that relate to reforms in the naturalization laws which require legislation. II. Those that relate to the appointment and election of officers, which are purely ministerial. III. Those that refer to the general policy of the party in the management of the government, which appeal both to the legislative and executive departments. I intend to discuss these subjects in the order in which they are stated. It is proposed to modify the naturalization laws in four particulars: 1. To make them prescribe uniform rules of naturalization throughout all the states and territories. 2. To exclude convicts and paupers from the country. 3. To extend the period of residence of the applicant for naturalization, so that he may have time to understand our language and become acquainted with our laws and institutions, before he is intrusted with the right to participate in their administration. 4. To guard against fraudulent abuses of the right of naturalization. provides in terms "that Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Article I. Section VII. clause 4. This provision has repeatedly been the subject of judicial consideration and interpretation, and although the opinion was at one time expressed by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, that the power was concurrent in the state and federal governments, that opinion has long been overruled, and it is now held by Judge Iredell, in U. S. v. Fellato, 2 Dallas, 370: Judge Washington in Gordon e. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 313; by Judge Marshall, in Chirae v. Chirac, 2 Wheaton, 269; by Judge Story, in Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 40; by Chancellor Kent, 1 Comm. 423; and by Judge Taney, in Norris v. Boston and Smith v. Turner Howard, that the exclusive power is in Congress. The remarks of C. J. Taney are so clear, not only in regard to the power, but also as to the policy of exercising it, that I readily adopt his argument, as far more satisfactory than any I could offer. He says: "It cannot be necessary to say anything upon the article of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. The motive and object of this provision are too plain to be misunderstood. Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and no state would be willing that another should determine for it, what foreigner should become one of its citizens, and be entitled to hold lands and vote at its elections. For without this provision, any one state could have given the right of citizenship in every other state; and as every citizen of a state is also a citizen of the United States, a single state, without this provision, might have given to any number of foreigners it pleased, the right to all the privileges of citizenship in commerce, trade, and navigation, although they did not even reside among us. "The nature of our institutions under the federal government, made it a matter of absolute necessity that this power should be confided to the government of the Union, where all the states were represented, and where all had a voice; a necessity so obvious, that no statesman could have overlooked it. The ar ticle has nothing to do with the admission or rejection of aliens, nor with immigration, but with the rights of citizenship. Its sole object was to prevent one state from forcing upen all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens, whom they were unwilling to admit as such." I am aware that there is a very prevailing idea that Congress has no constitutional power Another subject of kindred character, if not to provide by law, that the rules of naturali- indeed falling under the same head, will also zation shall be the same in all the states; and doubtless engage the attention of the party, dual states can admit to the elective franchise (N. Y.) The increase of crime here can be with a view to see if the Constitution does not supply the means of redressing an evil which is of the most flagrant character. I allude to the want of uniformity in the state constitutions in regard to the right of suffrage by foreigners. By the constitution of Virginia, none but citizens of the United States can vote, and as no one can legally become a citizen of the United States unless he has been a resident of the country for five years, it follows that no one can be a voter in Virginia, who has not been a resident of the United States for five years. But by the constitution of Illinois, it is provided (Art. 2, s. 27), "that in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, having resided in the state six months next preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector." Now as the vote of every man cast in Illinois for members of the legislature which elects U. S. Senators, for members of Congress, and for Presidential electors, has a direct bearing on the interests of Virginia, it is well worthy of inquiry whether Virginia is, under the Constitution, to be governed by the votes of aliens. It is a new and a grave question. There is certainly a difference in form between the question of elective franchise and the question of naturalization. But is not this system of allowing aliens to vote before they are naturalized an abuse, if not an evasion of the Constitution? A sensible writer on the subject has well remarked, "if indivi pass such a law imposing a penalty of £50 on masters of vessels who should land convicts in this state. In 1836, the matter was brought to the attention of Congress by Mr. Davis of Massachusetts, who made a long and able speech to the Senate, on presenting certain resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts on the subject. In 1838, Mr. Van Buren, in reply to a call of the House, sent a message to Congress, accompanied by many documents. A bill was reported to correct the evil, but amidst the press of business it was overslaughed. See Congressional Globe 1837-'38, page 489, and 1838-'39, page 168. In 1845, Mr. Berrien made an elaborate re port on the subject, accompanied by a great mass of testimony establishing in the most conclusive manner the certainty and magnitude of the evil. See Sen. Doc. 173, 28th Cong. No final action, however, was taken. In 1847, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, adopted measures to obtain information on the subject, and a report was made by Mr. A. D. Mann, on the 13th September, 1847. On 1st January, 1855, Mayor Wood, of New York, addressed a strong letter to President Pierce, invoking his aid. He says: "It has long been the practice of many governments on the continent of Europe to get rid of paupers and convicts by sending them to this country, and most generally to this port, those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the federal power over naturalization becomes a nullity, but a minority of actual citizens, by the aid of aliens, may control the government of the states, and, through the states, that of the Union." Who will deny that this is a crying abuse, and that all the constitutional powers of the government ought to be brought into requisi tion to correct it? our 2. It is proposed to exclude by state and federal authority, convicts and paupers from landing on our shores, to corrupt the morals of citizens, to plunder our property, to fill our penitentiaries and alms-houses, and to burden people with taxation for their support. This is no new policy, and it will at once commend itself to the favorable regard of all reflecting men. It is an evil which attracted the attention of the founders of the republic at an early day, and has from time to time been pressed upon the attention of the government, but thus far no adequate measures of prevention have been adopted. On the 16th of September, 1788, the Continental Congress, then about to close its labors, adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, that it be, and it hereby is recommended to the several states to pass proper laws to prevent the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the U. S."— Journal, page 867. On the 13th November, 1788, Virginia did traced to this cause, rather than to defect in criminal laws or their administration. An examination of the criminal and pauper records, shows conclusively that it is but a small proportion of these unfortunates who are natives of this country. One of the very heaviest burdens that we bear, is the support of these people, even when considering the direct cost, but when estimating the evil influence on society, and the contaminating effect upon all who come within the range of their depraved minds, it becomes a matter exceedingly serious and demanding immediate and complete eradication."* Mayor Wood being a Democrat and in no way attached to the Ame rican party, I presume he will be regarded as good authority, and I will here rest this branch of the subject, and I hope I may console myself with the reflection, that as far as we have Foreign do Native criminals Foreign do.. In the free states there were 10,822 native criminals and 12,988 foreign. In the slave states there were 2,166 native criminals and 1,902 foreign. : progressed in the examination of the propositions of the American party, nothing has yet been discovered in conflict with "the cause of civil and religious freedom." No. 3. high importance to the respectability and character of the American name; the veneration he had for, and the attachment he had to this country, made him extremely anxious to preserve its good fame from injury. He hoped to see the title of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as a citizen of old Rome. I am clearly clearly of opinion that rather than have the common class of vagrants, paupers, and outcasts of Europe, that we had better be as we are, and trust to the natural increase of our population for inhabitants. If the motion made by the gentleman from S. C. should obtain, such people will find an easy which, in most countries, both ancient and much too easy for the interests of the people modern, was and is conferred with great cau- of America. Nay, sir, the terms required by tion. Among the Romans it was a mark of great distinction, prized as of the highest value; and the simple announcement by an individual, "I am a Roman citizen!" was a passport to respect throughout the world. In The boon of citizenship is one of the highest privileges which any country can bestow on the subjects or citizens of another. It carries with it rights and duties of the gravest character. It imposes on the person naturalized the obligation of obedience to the laws, and it confers on him the right to protection, in his person and property, by the whole power of the government. It is a privilege admission indeed to the rights of citizenship; the bill on the table are, in my mind, too easy. I think before a man is admitted to enjoy the high and inestimable privilege of a citizen of America, that something more than a mere residence among us is necessary. our country this privilege has been granted I think he ought to pass some time in a state more freely than in any other, and I think of probation, and at the end of the time be there is a growing conviction in the public able to bring testimonials of a proper and demind that it has been rendered too cheap. I have had neither the time nor means to make a complete investigation of the subject of naturalization by the colonies and states, before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. But I will furnish a few striking incidents. The 42d section of the constitution of New York, adopted in 1777, conferred power on the legislature of that state to naturalize foreigners, but with the following restriction: "Provided, all such persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in, and become subjects of this state, shall take an oath of allegiance to this state, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and state, in all mat ters ecclesiastical as well as civil." See Kent Com. v. 2, p. 73. From this clause it will be seen that New York, at that early day, went a bow-shot beyond the American party-she requiring a renunciation of ecclesiastical and civil allegiance, whilst the Americans demand only a renunciation of civil or temporal allegiance. By act of 1779, Maryland required the applicant for naturalization to subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion, and to take, repeat, and subscribe an oath of fidelity, and that "I do not hold myself bound to yield allegiance or obedience to any king or prince, or any state or government." The first law of the United States on this subject of naturalization, was approved 26th March, 1790. The bill was without any opposition in either House of Congress, but a number of members availed themselves of the opportunity to express sentiments which are almost identical with those of the American party of the present day. James Jackson of Ga. said: cent behavior. No man, who would be a credit to the community, would think such terms difficult or indelicate; if bad men should be dissatisfied on this account, and should decline to immigrate, the regulation will have a beneficial effect, for we had better keep such out of the country than admit them into it." Theodore Sedgwick of Mass. in the same debate said:- * * "He was against the indiscriminate admission of foreigners to the highest rights of human nature, upon terms so incompetent to secure the society from being overrun by the offcasts of Europe; besides, the policy of settling the vacant territory by immigration is of a doubtful nature. The citizens of America preferred this country, because it is to be preferred; the like principle he wished might be held by every man who came from Europe to reside here; but there were at least some grounds to fear the contrary; their sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and aristocratical governments, may deprive them of that wish for pure republicanism, which is necessary, in order to taste its beneficence with that magnitude which we feel on the occasion. Some kind of probation, as it is termed, is absolutely necessary to enable them to feel and be sensible of the blessing-without that probation, we should be sorry to see them exercise a right which we have so gloriously struggled to attain." Michael J. Stone of Md. said: "A foreigner, who comes here, is not desirous of interfering immediately with our politics, nor is it proper that he should. His immigration is governed by a different principle: he is desirous of obtaining and holding property. I should have no objection to his doing this from the first moment he sets his "He conceived the present subject to be of foot on the shore in America; but it appears |