Page images
PDF
EPUB

to me that we ought to be cautious how we admit foreigners to the other privileges of citizenship, and that for a reason not yet mentioned; perhaps it may allude to the next generation more than to this; the present inhabitants were most of them here when we were engaged in a long and hazardous war. They have been active in rearing up the present government, and feel, perhaps, a laudable vanity in having effected what its most sanguine friends hardly dared to contemplate. There is no danger of these people losing what they so greatly esteem; but the admission of foreigners to all places of government may tincture the system with the dregs of their former habits, and corrupt what we believe the most pure of human institutions."

Here we have the principle of the American party, on this subject, clearly expounded by patriots of the earlier and better days of the republic. The act of 1790 was very short and simple in its provisions. The substance of it is embraced in the clause which enacts, "That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer."

influence had been brought to bear with fearful power on the minds of the people, and nothing but the firmness of Washington and the veneration which was felt for his character, could have stayed the angry storm. This seems to have opened the eyes of Congress.

In 1795, a much more stringent naturalization law was passed, which required the applicant to make, 1st. A declaration, three years before his admission, that it was his purpose to become a citizen-and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject. 2d. He was required, when admitted, to take an oath "that he has resided within the United States five years at least," and one year within the state or territory in which he applied ap and the court was

to be satisfied of the truth of this declaration -and he was required further to swear "to support the Constitution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatsoever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject."

In the progress of the discussion of this bill, many sound American sentiments were expressed, which precisely accord with the sentiments of the American party of the present day.

Samuel Dexter, jun., of Mass. led off in the debate, expressed himself opposed "to the facility with which, under the existing laws, aliens may acquire citizenship." He moved to strike out two years, as provided in the law of 1790.

This act was passed at a time when the population of the United States was but little more than three millions, scattered mainly along the sea coasts, when we had boundless wastes of unsettled territory comparatively John Page of Va., although in general very unexplored, and when along our whole west- friendly to naturalization, said: "He approved aided indeed by the discipline of the revolu- to England, and the other to France. Foreigntion."

of

ern frontier we were exposed to the incursions savage enemies, who required a strong force to keep them in check. There was then every motive to extend inducements to foreigners to emigrate to this country, to strengthen us against foreign and domestic enemies, and to subdue and bring into cultivation our wild and unsettled domain. It is not a matter of surprise, therefore, that the law was so loosely drawn as not even to require a renunciation by the applicant of his allegiance to his native sovereign.

A very few years, however, sufficed to show the mistake that had been committed. In 1793, citizen Genet, the representative of French Democracy, came to this country, and commenced a series of intrigues and proceedings, in violation of our obligations of neutrality, and intended to involve us in a war with England. By his artifices he raised up a strong French party in the country, and when Gen. Washington and Mr. Jefferson interfered to arrest his unlawful proceedings, he boldly denounced them both, and threatened to "appeal from the President to the people." Much excitement ensued, for foreign

the design of the mover, because he thought nothing more desirable than to see good order, public virtue, and true morality constituting the character of citizens of the United States, for without morality, and indeed a general sense of religion, a republican government cannot flourish, nay, cannot long exist, since, without them, disorders will arise which the strong arm of powerful governments can alone correct or retrieve."

Mr. Dexter said:

"America, if her political institutions should on experience be found to be wisely adjusted, and she shall improve her national advantages, had opened to her view a more rich and glorious prospect than ever was presented to man. She had chosen for herself a government which left to the citizens as great a portion of freedom as was consistent with a social compact. All believed the preservation of this government in its purity indispensable to the continuance of our happiness. The foundation on which it rested was general intelligence and public virtue; in other words, wisdom to discern, and patriotism to pursue the general good. He pride, and gloried in it, in believing his countrymen more wise and virtuous than any other people on earth; hence he believed them better qualified to administer and support a republican government. This character of Americans was the result of early education,

people seemed to lose sight of their own affairs in their anxiety about the questions which agitated Europe to its centre. There were two great parties in the public councils, and amongst the people; one of which was partial

[blocks in formation]

"Much information [he said] might be obtained by the experience of others, if, in despite of it, we were not determined to be guided only by a visionary theory. The ancient republics of Greece and Rome [said he], see with what jealousy they guarded the rights of citizenship against adulteration by foreign mixture. The Swiss nation [he said], in modern times, had not been less jealous on the same subject. Indeed, no example could be found, in the history of man, to authorize the experiment which had been made by the United States. It seemed to have been adopted by universal practice as a maxim, that the republican character was in no way to be formed but by early education. In some instances, to form this character, those propensities which are generally considered as almost irresistible, were appeased and subdued. And shall we [he asked] alone adopt the rash theory, that the subjects of all governments, despotic, monarchical, and aristocratical, are, as soon as they set foot on American ground, qualified to participate in administering the sovereignty of our country? Shall we hold the benefits of American citizenship so cheap as to invite, nay, to almost bribe, the discontented, the ambitious, and the avaricious of every country, to accept them?"

Mr. Wm. Vans Murray of Maryland, declared :

"He was quite indifferent if not fifty emigrants came into this country in a year's time. It would be unjust to hinder them, but impolitic to encourage them. He was afraid that coming from a quarter of the world so full of disorder and corruption, they might contaminate the purity and simplicity of the American character."

Mr. Ezekiel Gilbert of New York said :"The terms of residence, before admitting aliens, ought to be very much longer than that mentioned in the bill."

Mr. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts said:

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ers flocked to our shores and openly attempted to control the politics of the country.

Under circumstances like these, the law of 1795 was found to be inefficient, and it was deemed necessary to frame one better adapted to the exigencies of the times, -extending the term of residence before naturalization to fourteen years, and requiring the applicant at the time of making his declaration to enter on the record a description of his person, age, occupation, nativity, &c., so as to establish his identity, and to prevent imposition by a fraudulent use of his papers. This certificate was to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State.

This bill was fully discussed by many distinguished men, but having devoted so much space already to this branch of the subject, I cannot extract largely from that debate. There is one speech, however, which contains so able an exposition of the principles of the American party, that I cannot forbear from giving a paragraph or two from it. I allude to the speech of Robert Goodloe Harper. He said :"He believed that it was high time we should recover from the mistake which the country fell into, when it first began to form its constitutions, of admitting foreigners to citizenship. This mistake, he believed, had been productive of very great evils to this country, and unless corrected, he was apprehensive these evils would greatly increase. He believed the time was now come when it would be proper to declare that nothing but birth should entitle a man to citizenship in this country. He thought this was a proper season for making a declaration. He believed the United States had experience enough to cure them of the folly of believing that the strength and happiness of the country would be promoted by admitting to the rights of citizenship all the congregations of people who resort to these shores from every part of the world. Under these impressions, which, as he supposed they would have the same force upon others as upon himself, he should not detain the committee by dilating upon,-he proposed to amend the resolution by adding to it the following words, viz.: 'that provision ought to be made by law for preventing any person becoming entitled to the rights of a citizen of the United States, except by birth.' Mr. Harper said he was for giving foreigners every facility of acquiring property, of holding property, of raising their families, and of transferring their property to their families. He was willing they should form citizens for us; but as to the rights of citizenship, he was not willing they should be enjoyed, except by persons born in this country. He did not think even this was desirable by the persons themselves. Why, he asked, did foreigners seek a residence in this country? He supposed it was either to better their condition or to live under a government better and more free than the one they had left. But was it necessary these persons should at once become entitled to take a part in the concerns of the government? He believed it was by no means necessary, either to their happiness or prosperity, and he was sure it would not tend to the happiness of this country. If the native citizens are not indeed adequate to the performance of the duties of government, it might be expedient to invite legislators or voters from other countries to do that business for which they themselves are not qualified. But if the people of the country, who owe their birth to it, are adequate to all the duties of the government, he could not see for what reason strangers should be admitted; strangers, who, how

dency, he relaxed his opposition to foreigners to a very considerable extent, and that after his election he recommended a change in the law of 1798, which had been passed under the administration of his great rival and political antagonist, John Adams, so as to reduce the term of residence to five years.

But it will be seen that Mr. Jefferson's calm judgment in 1781, when he wrote his Notes on Virginia, and his practice whilst President, as I shall hereafter have occasion to show, conformed to the doctrines of the American party. In his Notes on Virginia, he says:"Every species of government has its specific principl Ours are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these

ever acceptable they may be in other respects, nothing can be more opposed than the maxims could not have the same views and attachments of absolute monarchy-yet from such we are with native citizens. Under this view of the to expect the greatest number of immigrants. subject, he was convinced it was an essential They will bring with them the principles of policy, which lay at the bottom of civil society, the government they imbibed in their early that no foreigner should be permitted to take youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be a part in the government. There might have in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, been, Mr. H. acknowledged, individual excep- passing, as is usual, from one extreme to antions, and there might be again, to this rule, other. It would be a miracle were they to stop but it was necessary to make regulations precisely at the point of temperate liberty. general, and he believed the danger arising These principles, with their language, they from admitting foreigners, generally, to citi- will transmit to their children. In proportion zenship, would be greater than the inconveni- to their numbers, they will share with us the ences arising from debarring from citizenship legislation. They will infuse into it, warp

the most deserving foreigners. He believed it would have been well for this country, if the principle contained in this amendment had been adopted sooner; he hoped it would now be adopted."

It will be perceived that Mr. Harper went further than the American party now propose to go, and that too, at a time when the practical evil was not of one-tenth the magnitude it has now attained. Yet who questions his patriotism? Who dreamed that he was arrayed against the "cause of civil and religious freedom?"

In the same debate Wm. Craik, of Maryland, said:

"He was disposed to go much further than is proposed in the bill, in restricting aliens from becoming citizens of this country. He should have no objection to say that no foreigner coming in this country after this time shall ever become a citizen."

James A. Bayard, of Delaware, said :"Aliens cannot be considered as members of the society of the United States. Our laws are passed on the ground of our policy, and whatever is granted to aliens is a mere matter of favor, and if it is taken away they have no right to complain."

Upon the general principle of discouraging excessive immigration, I will, on this branch of the question, quote but one other authority, and that is from the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

Candor compels me to admit that, when Mr. Jefferson became a candidate for the Presi

I

and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, and distracted mass. may appeal to experience during the present contest for a verification of these conjectures. But if they be not certain in event, are they not probable ? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven years and three months longer for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceful, more durable? Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here."

In 1797, Mr. Jefferson was quite as emphatic and much more practical in his opposition to foreigners. In a petition to the legislature of Virginia, which he prepared in that year, he said: "And your petitioners further submit to the two Houses of Assembly, whether the safety of the citizens of this commonwealth, in their persons, their property, their laws and government, does not require that the capacity to act in the important office of a juror, grand or petty, civil or criminal, should be restrained in future to native citizens of the United States, or such as were citizens at the date of the treaty of peace which closed our revolutionary war, and whether the ignorance of our laws, and natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not reasonable

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

causes for declaring this to be one of the rights incommunicable in future to adopted citizens." -Jefferson's Writings, v. 9, p. 453.

How does this sound in the ears of Democracy?

What would Mr. J. have thought if he could have seen the day arrive when, instead of an aggregate of half a million of foreign population, there would be an annual influx of that number, of the worst classes of Europe?

Then, indeed, would he have uttered, with increased earnestness, the sentiment which we find in one of his letters:

"I hope we may find some means in future of shielding ourselves from foreign influencepolitical, commercial, or in whatever form attempted. I can scarcely withhold myself from joining in the wish of Silas Dean, that there were an ocean of fire between this and the old world!"

How it must horrify the Anti-Americans of the present day to find that the first and most eloquent teachers of the doctrines of the American party were the sages of the Revolution and the framers of our Constitution!

quiring record instead of parol proof of actual residence for the time prescribed by law.

No man at all familiar with the proceedings of courts of justice, can have failed to be impressed with the facility with which such proof is now obtained, and to be shocked with the perjury in such cases which is hardly disguised. Gangs of men come to the witnessbox and swear for each other, with as much readiness as they would go through any other mere matter of form.

But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the existence of fraud of this character. We all remember the celebrated case of the Plaquemine frauds, when 1044 votes were cast in a district which contained but 400 voters. We also remember the other frauds of 1844, which became the subject of investigation before the Senate of Louisiana on an impeachment of Benj. C. Elliott, judge of the City Court of the city of Lafayette. Upon the trial it was discovered that the judge had fraudulently issued 1748 false certificates of naturalization, and, being duly convicted, he was removed from office.

Similar frauds have been practised to a very great extent in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York.

at dif

In 1844 the subject was brought to the attention of Congress, and on the 27th January, 1845, Mr. Berrien, from the committee on the Judiciary, made an elaborate report accompanied by voluminous testimony taken ferent points, to establish the frauds. This report will be found in Sen. Doc. 173, 2d session of 28th Congress. Five thousand extra copies of the report were ordered to be printed, and it is a singular circumstance that the printing of the extra copies of the report was ordered by a strictly party vote-every Democrat in the Senate voting against it!

The naturalization laws were changed in many particulars by the acts of 1802, 1813, and 1816. The last-named act guarded with peculiar care against abuses, by introducing new provisions, which made the identification of the applicant more certain, and required the proof to be matter of record. This was a most valuable feature in the law. It required that the applicant should, when he made his declaration, file a description of himself so minute as to clearly establish his identity, and when he obtained his certificate of naturalization this description was incorporated into it and constituted part of it. The law also provided that the date of the recorded declaration should be the evidence of the commencement of residence of five years. The effect of this was to exclude parol evi- summoned indiscriminately witnesses of both

dence on this point, and thereby to prevent fraud and perjury.

In May, 1828, this law was altered so as to strike out the provisions requiring the application to be entered of record five years before naturalization. The object was to dispense with record evidence, and to substitute the parol testimony of witnesses to prove residence. This change in the law was made a few months before an exciting Presidential election. One of those who urged the change was Mr. Buchanan, who had, on a private occasion, admonished his countrymen against the dangers of foreign influence. That change was doubtless made to conciliate the foreign vote, and in all probability had that effect. As might have been anticipated, it threw open a wide door for fraud, and it has brought upon the country a train of evils the magnitude of which it would be difficult to conceive.

The commissioners who were appointed to take the testimony reported that they had political parties, but they add, "they regret that those thus subpœnaed belonging to the Democratic party have generally omitted or refused to attend!"

This, to say the least of it, is a significant fact.

With developments like these before us, and when there is reason to believe that the elections in 1844, both in Louisiana and New York, were carried by fraudulent votes, and that the issue of the Presidential election was thereby changed, is it to be wondered at, that the citizens of the United States should be aroused to a sense of the danger and degradation to which they are subjected, by leaving the "whole policy of the country regulated and controlled by the fraudulent conduct of aliens?"

What good man, whether he be a native or adopted citizen, will withhold his aid in correcting abuses like these? It is quite as important to the conservative, law-loving naturalized citizens, as to the natives of the country,

The American party now propose to guard against these frauds, not only by an extension of the time of residence, but by restoring the provision of the acts of 1798 and 1816, re-l and I am persuaded that it is only necessary

to bring the facts to their knowledge, to secure Do I wrong anybody by voting according to their cordial co-operation in the patriotic effort the dictates of my own conscience and judgnow on foot, to guard against similar mischiefs ment? Certainly not. It is of the very esin future.

My next number will be devoted to the consideration of the propriety of giving a preference to native citizens, in the exercise of the power of appointment and election to public offices.

No. 5.

Having 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

sence 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 legitimately 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?

language of the 3d article of the platform Is it not as legitimate to vote together against

adopted at Philadelphia. But if doubt remained on the mind of any one as to the true interpretation of that article, it must be removed by a reference to the 5th article, which, in terms, recognises the selection of officers of "foreign birth."

The announcement of this preference of Americans for their own conntrymen has been met by the most bitter denunciations by the courters 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 :

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

2. Is there anything in it contrary to the letter or spirit of the Constitution? 3. What was the opinion of the fathers of the republic on the subject?

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 1. Is it wrong in principle? Here let it be the legislators who gerrymandered the disremembered that it is not proposed to legislate tricts? It is true we now have one represenon this subject. No one has yet suggested the tative, but that is not through their justice, idea of enacting a law to exclude foreigners but in defiance of the efforts of the Democracy from office. All that is contemplated is, to in the legislature and at the polls to prevent awaken and to organize the American senti- it! Have not the Democratic organs dement of the country, -to create a wholesome nounced fierce and unrelenting warfare on public opinion, which will operate, alike on the American party? Have they not prothe people and the government, to induce claimed that not even a county officer of the them, in the exercise of the elective franchise American party is to be spared? All, withand the power of appointment, to give a pre-out regard to qualification or public pub service, ference to Americans for public stations. are to be doomed to official decapitation! Has

Governor Wise ever appointed, or will he ever appoint, one of the 73,300 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

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 to cry out "proscription" against Americans, foreigner, has any one a right to complain? | because they love and trust their own country

« PreviousContinue »