33D CONG....2D SESS.

an almost feminine beauty: He devoted a life to the study of financial and statistical science. He was foremost among the advocates of commercial and personal freedom; and he supported the monetary policy of Jackson, at a time when giants only could tread in his footsteps. As a reformer, he was the Romilly of the New World. His life was one of unequal, though not of fruitless, contest. The diamond of his intellect broke in the effort to engrave upon the hardened surface of Eastern politics, truths, now universally received; and he died, not without tears, but, except by this House, and his immediate neighborhood, almost without notice.

Such influences as these, reach all classes of society. They touch one man in his fortune, another in his credit, another in his ambition, another in his religion, and another in his means of livelihood. All interests succumb to it; and even the trenchant blade of Webster was turned before it. We talk of the patronage of the Federal Government! What is it compared with such elements of power?

It is but a few years since we asked for a secret or independent ballot, in virtue of the right of every man to give a vote, not only uncontrolled by, but unknown to, other men. It only perfected the right of citizens to vote by ballot, for the ballot itself is a secret institution; but no proposition could have excited greater commotion than this. Other difficulties were not of rare occurrence; that element of power which is now exciting such attention throughout the country, which seems to have hitherto held a balance of power in nearly all communities, and to have decided nearly every contested election, upon a policy dictated by its leaders, was not without its power among us; and a recent, and most important contest, so decided, has impressed a seated grief upon many thousand hearts. I mean the influence of foreign votes.

All these causes, some operating on one mind and some upon another, have produced discontent among men of all parties. It was not to be expected that ordinary men could rise superior or be wholly indifferent to them. Nor is it a recent nor sudden ebullition of feeling. For many years indications of revolt have been noted. New combinations have appeared and disappeared. One by one, men have abandoned their former organizations, with more or less success, but not in such strength as to give courage to the timid or security to the weak; and the masses of men remained in camp, waiting only a fitting opportunity to escape party drill. At length it came. In that mysterious manner so aptly described by the eloquent gentleman from Mississippi, somebody constructed a covered way, a sort of subterranean passage, a low browed cavernous avenue, by which men could pass from one point to another and one camp to another, seeing nobody, knowing nobody, and saying nothing to anybody. Sir, you should have seen them go. Eighty thousand men, of every pursuit and opinion, in the brief space of three months, attested their belief in its efficiency and necessity. And was it not their right? Who will say that the people-the sole depositories of political power-discontented with existing parties, may not, even in this mysterious manner, make new combinations for the transaction. of their own affairs, and erect new standards of policy for themselves? Is it not their right? Who says no! Their justification stands not so much upon their necessities as their convenience; and who can point out a more effectual or natural method of doing what they have done-the transposition of the rank and file of all parties into a new organization, excluding nobody but the leaders, taking everybody inside that desires to come, and leaving nobody outside but the driver? Who will say it is not the right of THE PEOPLE? Does the gentleman from Mississippi complain of their secrecy? Is it secrecy that makes the wrong? Sir, secrecy is their right. It belongs to them. No man and no power can justly take it from them. What have they done? As yet they have done nothing. You cannot punish men for that. The gentleman from Mississippi, I think, intimated that there were to be some indictments, and a friend of his suggested that a Pennsylvania judge had charged a grand jury against the "KnowNothings." Well, sir, these men have done nothing yet, except to carry an election here and

American Politics-Mr. Banks.

there, and that is not treason, even though a Pennsylvania judge did charge a jury that certain things could not be done, or ought not to be done, or were criminal in point of law. Sir, it is the people who are passing through these avenues, those who make judges and district attorneys, and they will take care of them all. They will take care of the juries and sheriffs as well as judges.

Let me again ask you, Mr. Chairman, if there may not be a necessity that would justify this action, and its short limit of possible secrecy? I do not propose to say whether it was justifiable in Massachusetts or not.

Mr. WALSH. Has this avenue you have been speaking of any connection with the "underground railroad?" [Laughter.]

Mr. BANKS. It has not. It is altogether another line of business. I own no stock in that corporation. [Renewed laughter ]

HO. OF REPS.

far, I say, its policy should be changed; and therefore I voted-as 1 think my friend from Mississippi did not vote-for an exposition of what our friends and diplomatic agents were doing in the congress of Ostend.

Mr. BAYLY, of Virginia. Oh, let that alone. Mr. BANKS. Yes, if the committee will report soon. [Laughter.]

Then I ask the attention of the committee for a moment to the programme which the gentleman from Mississippi exhibited as the proposed operations of what he calls the Know-Nothings. I do not know whether he is right or wrong; but in a paper published in Pennsylvania, I read some months since an exposé of what the purposes of that organization are, and of the means through which they intend to operate. In the first place, I did not see anything there about the naturalization laws; nothing of their repeal nor the limitation of Well, sir, I think I have substantiated my view the term; nor any other matter or topic referring of Government, and of the rights of the people to to that subject. The Pennsylvanian published the act in this way; and I now call the attention of document, and it was copied in our section of the gentlemen here, who are interested in this matter, country, as a full, entire, and perfect expose of the and particularly that of my friend from Missispurposes of the secret association existing in Pennsippi, [Mr. BARRY,] who has presented the ques-sylvania, and having its ramifications throughout tion, from his point of view, in a fair, manly, the country. Therefore, it does not appear that sensible light, to the fact, that in the first instance interference with the naturalization laws is one of those who do the wrong he complains of are the these purposes. I looked carefully to that point, people-the majority of the people of the United but I saw nothing referring to that, nor to the States. Catholic Church or Catholic religion.

In the second place, nothing has yet been done which makes them amenable to prosecution or censure. There is nothing in what they have done, or in what they propose to do, so far as secrecy is concerned, which makes them amenable. If they do not deem it right to give publicity to their views and designs, that is their business, and they may do in that respect as pleases them.

Now, a word upon secrecy in politics! Who made the President of the United States? The people, you will say, have elected him to the office, But who laid the train, to which the people set fire? Sir, there never has been a presidential election in this country which has not been controlled by secret associations and combinations; and let me say, too, by a combination which has no popular elements; which has no popularity in its constitution; which operates through a few privileged members; and it is, in fact, such combinations that control the government of the country. How happens it that Governor Reeder denounces combinations of men to affect the election in Kansas who belong to Missouri, and who are citizens and leading men in that State? Did it not come by means of secret combination and arrangement-a combination and arrangement by which the rank and file were excluded, and the leaders only initiated? Who can undertake to say that the next presidential conventions will not be controlled by coteries of men whose only power is the secrecy with which their plans and purposes are held? Who will deny that it has been ever thus, or that it will be ever thus? Why is that criminal in the people which has been the constant practice of politicians?

But I am for publicity as well as secrecy. I go beyond the gentleman from Mississippi in that respect. I am for publicity when a man assumes to act for other men; but when he acts for himself, I say that no man has a right to require him to divulge his purposes or views. If he choose to wear them on his sleeve, it is his right to do so; and if he choose to keep them in his own breast, and say nothing, and know nothing, [laughter,] it is equally his right. But when a man assumes to act for others, then, sir, he has not the right, as a representative party, to secrecy; and if the original power call upon him for a development of his policy he cannot withhold it.

Mr. BARRY. Will the gentleman allow me to correct him. I read here from the same paper, the Pennsylvanian, and if the gentleman admits this to be an authentic copy of the rules of the body

Mr. BANKS. Sir, I admit nothing. I know nothing. [Laughter.]

Mr. BARRY. I hold in my hand the paper to which the gentleman from Massachusetts refersthe Pennsylvanian-and I find in the oath which the member is required to take, the following

sentence:

"That you will support, in all political matters, for all

political offices, second degree members of this order, providing it be necessary for the American interest; that, if it may be done legally, you will, when elected to any office, remove all foreigners, aliens, or Roman Catholics from office, and that you will, in no case, appoint such to office."

Mr. BANKS. I call the attention of my friend to the fact, that in his speech he used the term "Catholics," he now reads it" Roman Catholics."

Mr. BARRY. Well, in our section of the country, Catholics are understood as Roman Catholics.

Mr. BANKS. I beg the gentleman's pardon if I say that there may be a distinction in the terms. Mr. BARRY. I venture to say that no other gentleman in the House misunderstood me, in speaking of Catholics, except the gentleman from Massachusetts, who might do so on Know-Nothing principles. [Laughter.]

Mr. BANKS. I noticed the distinction, and I purpose to speak of it. I have no objection to any man of the Catholic Church, or faith. Here is our friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CHANDLER,] an amiable, learned, and eloquent man; I might be willing to vote for him, Catholic as he is, in preference, perhaps, to others nearer my political faith than he is. What he thinks of the Seven Sacraments, or how many he accepts, is no concern of mine. To me, it is no objection, that he receives the interpretations of the Council of Trent, as to the doctrines of original sin and justification. It cannot concern me, and it can concern no man, that, as a matter of faith, any person cherishes the doctrine of transubstantiation, accords the full measure of Catholic veneration to sacred relics or images, and accepts every article of the Nicene creed. Each man is accountable I may say here, in passing, that the secrecy for his own faith, as I for mine. And, even which this country has, in some degree, contrib-though my name were appended to the declarauted to fasten on the diplomacy of the world, is an element of power which is doing more to crush the nations of the earth than any other element of oppression. The five millions of men who are this hour in arms, under whose heavy tread the earth shakes, are not doing one tenth part of the wrong to the generations now existing, and yet unborn, which the secret and false diplomacy of the world is producing in its effects upon them; and so far as this country contributes, in any degree, to sustain the secrecy of diplomacy, so

tion, read to us by the gentleman from Mississippi, from the Pennsylvanian, I might still vote for such a man, if otherwise it lay in my way to do so.

But there is another branch of this subject. It is a current belief that the Pope, the head of the Roman Church, who stands as the Vicar of God, and is invested with his attributes of infallibility, is not only supreme in matters of faith, but has also a temporal power, that can not only control Governments, but, in fitting exigencies, may ab

33D CONG....2D SESS.

solve his disciples from their allegiance. I am aware, sir, that this is disputed ground. But it is a well attested historical fact, that often, in times past, the claim to secular power has been made; and I am yet to learn that by the Pope, or any general council speaking with his acquiescencethe only authorized exponents of the true faiththat this claim has ever yet been disavowed. It has not been done in England. The power was asserted in England under Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and it has never been disavowed there, nor in Spain, nor in any other land, Catholic or Protestant, by the authority of the Roman Church. My name is not appended to the exposé read to us here, nor do I know much about it; but I will say that if it be true, that the Pope is held to be supreme in secular, as in sacred affairs, that he can absolve men from their relations with others not of the true faith, it is not strange that men should hesitate in support of his followers. I would not vote for any man holding to that doctrine, and, I doubt not, other gentlemen here would concur with me in that feeling.

And then again, as to our foreign population. I bear no enmity towards foreigners. In my political action, I have always endeavored to be just to all men. I have my own faith, I make my own creed, I stand upon my own platform, and I have never yet refrained from expressing my honest convictions, whenever I have had occasion to state them. I have been just, so far as I have been able, to all classes of men, and to all sections of the country. I have defended the South, so far as my conscience would permit, and I have stood by the adopted citizens of my own State, without any distinction of person whatever, whether they were high or low, rich or poor. But if they hold as the supreme head of secular power the Pontiff of Rome, and consider that he can in any case absolve them from their allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or to the United States, why they have no claim whatever upon any man for support. If they understand that their interests are separate from those of American citizens, if they take direction from their spiritual guides in political matters, and by preconcerted and private arrangements, form associations, and make parties of their own, seeking to obtain and hold the balance of power, throwing their weight first into one scale and then into the other, as they may understand their own interest to dictate, they will force upon American citizens the alternative, either to make similar combinations against them, by refusing to divide upon the ordinary maxims of party policy, or to abdicate the seats of political power. A balance of power, under such circumstances, is absolute power, and the direction of public affairs is in the hands of those who wield it.

Now, I understand the breaking up of preëxisting organizations, that were based upon the minute differences of opinion upon past questions, thus throwing an unfailing balance of power into the hands of a small minority of citizens, not of national origin, and possibly of only quasi national interests, to be the purpose and object of the American organizations, that have been so vigorously denounced. Of course I must admit that the necessity of such combinations to guard against the public dangers, arising from causes I have stated-obedience to ecclesiastical direction in political affairs, and the silent assumption of that position which gives to a small number of men a despotic balance of power-is denied. But I hesitate not to say that, in my own State, many thousand people entertain the belief that there is cause of fear, and my experience in its recent political history forces upon me a participation in that conviction..

I repeat, sir, I bear no hostility to foreigners, as such, and I desire to do them no wrong. I am honored with the friendship of one among my colleagues, who was born under the jurisdiction of Great Britain-a man eminent in his profession, distinguished by attainments that would do honor to any statesman, whose character gives to him power both to serve and adorn every circle of life, public or private, and constitutes him an honorable and useful member of this House, esteemed here as at home; and I would as cheerfully vote for him for filling political station as for my friend who sits near me, from the Worcester county district, though born within the jurisdiction of Mas

American Politics-Mr. Banks.

sachusetts, [Mr. DE WITT.] But if my friend from the Essex county district gave me reason to believe that he accepted direction in political affairs from ecclesiastical authorities, acknowledged allegiance to a foreign ecclesiastical court, whose claims to temporal power were of undefined and doubtful extent; if he invested its chief with vicarious attributes of Deity; if he professed no fixed political theories, voting sometimes with one party, and at other times with another party, and always falling silently into that position which secured the balance power and a victory to him and his friends; if such were his policy, as 1 know well it is not, he could not challenge of me, nor of any man, support; nor denounce opposition as based upon the narrow and selfish prejudice against men not of native origin. Such is the distinction I make, and, under the circumstances I have suggested, that distinction involves questions of great importance.

Can it be denied that there are those interested in public affairs to whom this description, in some degree, applies? Can it be denied that the power to control governments in other lands has been assumed and exercised by the Roman Church, that is so much dreaded by a portion of our citizens? And is it not true that, amid repeated instances of attempted exercise of temporal power in the last thousand years, it has never once been disavowed or disclaimed by any pontiff, or general council, acquiesced in by the Pope? I ask the honorable gentleman from Mississippi to point to any historical fact, from an authorized source, proving such disavowal or disclaimer.

Mr. BARRY. I understand that application. was made to various Catholic universities, within the last century, to assert such a power, but the expounders of ecclesiastical law denied that power, and affirmed their independence of the Pope in all temporal matters. I agree with the gentleman, fully, in the position he takes, that any man who is bound in such temporal obedience, has no right to citizenship.

Mr. BANKS. I plant myself upon the ground that the Pontiff of Rome has never, in any authoritative form, so disavowed the right to control the members of the Roman Catholic Church in secular matters. I know the universities of France and Spain have disclaimed that power. The gentlemen says that his Catholic friends have disclaimed it to him. So my Catholic friends have disclaimed it to me. But they have not the right to private opinion, much less the right to determine the faith of their Church. That is the right of Protestants. The Roman Church has never disclaimed it. I am told that the Pontiff stands upon my ground, and that he has a right to keep his own affairs to himself. Undoubtedly he can do as he pleases in Rome, where he has political power; but he cannot in the United States, where he has no political jurisdiction.

Now, sir, as to the subject of naturalization, to which the attention of the committee has been directed, not so much by members of the new party, as by other gentlemen, for certainly, so far as this session of Congress is concerned, those gentlemen who have distinctly presented it for legislative action, have especially disclaimed that connection.

Ho. OF REPS.

to make of this. It is enough to say that it is so ordered by Providence. I would not shut down this swelling tide of emigration had I the power, if it came only to add to the industry and prosperity of the country. Let me call attention, however, to a single fact. Since 1850, there have been arrivals, from foreign ports, to the number of one million eight hundred and seventy-nine thousand persons, exclusive of citizens of the United States-making an average of nearly three hundred and seventy-six thousand each year. Should this emigration continue, without increase, for three years, we shall have received, in eight years, as many emigrants from foreign States, within a small fraction, as came to this country in sixty years-from 1790 to 1850. The ordinary increase from year to year since 1850, would make the number much larger. They come to us by millions. In ten years from 1850, foreign emigration will reach nearly, if not quite, four millions of persons. Here are tables I have compiled from Mr. De Bow's Compendium of the Census, and the returns obtained from the State Department for the present year:

234,000

677,152 220,182 296,387

From 1790 to 1820, Professor Tucker's estimate,
From 1820 to 1846, by custom-house returns.... 1,354,305
*Add fifty per cent. for persons arriving by land,
From 1846 to 1847, by custom-house returns....
From 1847 to 1848, fifteen months to Sept. 30...
From 1848, fifteen months to January 1, 1850..
Add twenty five per cent. for passengers arriving
by land......

Number of emigrants in sixty years, from 1790
to 1850......

........

From Jan. 1, 1850, to Sept. 30, 1850, nine months, From Sept. 30, 1850, to Jan. 1, 1852, fifteen months From Jan. 1, 1852, to Jan. 1, 1853, one year.... From Jan. 1, 1853, to Jan. 1, 1854, one year.... From Jan. 1, 1854, to Jan. 1, 1855, one year....

Add for emigrants arriving by land, five per cent. Total in five years—1850 to 1855...

Average each year.......

Total in eight years-from 1850.............

296,938

74,234

3,153,198

209,985

439,437

372,725

368,643 399,523

1,790,313 89,515

1,879,828

375,965 3,007,720

A corresponding increase of emigration for the next three years would make the aggregate for eight years, from 1850, larger than the entite emigration to this country for sixty years, from 1790 to 1850. And has this emigration reached its head? Who can say that? Look at the condition of EastI desire to call the attention of the committee ern and Western Europe, of Asia, of China! The to the present condition of the country, as it earth shakes under the heavy tread of more than regards emigration, and to contrast its results five millions armed men, and every State is sub. with that period when the Constitution and thejected to the general scourge of actual or impendearly statutes of naturalization were adopted.ing war. Who are to bear its accumulating burThen the emigration from abroad, according to the estimate of Professor Tucker, was at the rate of five thousand per annum. It was said by Roger Sherman, in the convention that framed the Constitution, speaking for Connecticut, than which no State was more liberal to citizens of foreign States, that "the United States had never invited foreigners here, nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native citizens." But, it is just to say, that the country had been opened to them, through the legislation of the several States, and they came at the rate of five thousand each year.

Look, now, at the returns made to us of European emigration. Within the present year, the last quarter of which has not yet expired, the foreign emigration will amount to very nearly four hundred thousand persons. I have no complaint

dens? England must draw upon her resources, present or future, at the rate of a hundred millions sterling per annum,and other States will be weighed down by every species of contribution, assessment, and excise. And it is for a war of indefinite duration, unless terminated by treaties of peace, that will annihilate, rightfully, independent States, and divide Europe anew among its great sover

*The addition of fifty per centum for persons not enu, merated in the custom house returns from 1820 to 1846, is made upon the authority of Dr. Chickering. It is a very liberal estimate for the period to which it is here applied; but it is too large a number to be applied to the years succeeding 1846, as will be seen by reference to the emigration for that period. An addition of only five per centum is made to the custom-house returns since 1850, which is rather an under estimate, as the returns of the Canadian Government show nearly that number arriving in the United States via Canada.

33D CONG....2D SESS.

eigns. What are the people of the Old World to do? They have but one course. They must bear the onerous and increasing burdens of war, or shoulder the musket and brave the dangers of battle. There is no alternative. In Great Britain, France, Turkey, or Russia-in Austria, Prussia, or Germany-there is no alternative.

But emigration presents an avenue of escape from the evils of actual or impending war. Where shall they go? To Canada? To unstable Mexico? To South America? They will come to the United States. The three and a quarter millions of foreign-born people, and their descendants here, have so many heart strings out to draw their kith and kin to the New World. Our country begins to be known abroad. The most favorable account of this country, lately published, was written by a gentleman, who ten years since asked an American how it was possible he, who had seen Europe, could live in America? They begin to feel that America is the only land where men can reach their true standard of greatness. Our institutions are debated by the light of every camp-fire and hearth-stone on the face of the earth. The excited imaginations of distressed and heart-broken men, invest that liberty we actually enjoy, with the attributes of an almost fabulous and impossible prosperity and freedom. When one State is exhausted another is opened. How is it possible that emigration can have reached its head? Who can doubt its increase; or, that it may even, in our time, be doubled?

Look to the East, to China, India, Japan, with their six hundred millions of people, often without employment or subsistence. They have already an idea of the institutions and capacity of the American continent. The Chinese, whose emigration has been limited to Japan, now seek the United States and the islands of our southern seas. They are already upon the Pacific coast. Thirty or forty thousand are in California; and when we are, by steamships, within ten or twelve days sail of their crowded empires, who can prophesy the extent of this new and unanticipated emigration? Who can check its encroachments? Not the States; that has been decided by the Supreme Judicial tribunal. What power is equal to that duty?

Not long since, I had the pleasure of reading a letter upon this subject, written by a most intelligent Chinese, who was educating himself in this country, I think in New Jersey. He says, that when the people of the Chinese empire understand that there are for them, among us, opportunities greatly to improve their condition, they will pour in upon us, not by thousands, but in swarms like the locusts of ancient days; that there is no power at home, none here, to stay them from our shores, if they but understand the nature of our institutions, and the resources of our country. Their empire is now bristling with rebellion and civil war. In times of peace, the Government has been unable to enforce its decrees against expatriation, when Japan alone, held out its allurements to them; and now, when for the first time in a century, they are subjected to the accumulating horrors of civil war, choking up the ordinary channels of trade and industrial employment, in their crowded empire, it will be still more impossible. Shall we fend off with the bayonet? No, sir, if they come we shall admit them. There

may be legitimate uses for them, in the economy of God's providence. But, have they a Christian character adapted to the institutions of this country? I ask the gentleman from Mississippi, whether we shall give to them the rights of citizenship, at the close of their first five years' residence? Or, are we to have another extension of judicial decrees, another code of judicial fictions, that, in the absence of any legislation, shall determine what affinities of race, and color, and blood, make it impossible for men ever to participate in the powers of Government?

Mr. Chairman, how does our present condition compare with the period of the Constitution to which we are referred, when ten years' emigration gave us only fifty thousand persons? And what said the framers of the Constitution even then? Did they declare that foreigners had a right to participate in the affairs of government? Not at all! They made the Constitution proscriptive. They declared, by a unanimous vote of the convention,

||

American Politics-Mr. Bonks.

that, after a brief period, no man but a nativeborn citizen should be eligible to the office of President. They declared that nine years citizenship should be required to make a man eligible to the Senate, and seven years to the House of Representatives. They took from the States the power to confer citizenship, which the States then exercised. There is nothing to show that they entertained the idea advanced here, that foreigners had a right to participate in the highest prerogatives of government. It was made a question of expediency. It was a privilege conferred.

The same caution runs through all our statute legislation on this subject. The statute of 1790 required two years' residence as a qualification for citizenship. The statute of 1795 required five years' residence. The statute of 1802 required additional proof of residence, and renunciation of all allegiance to other Governments. The statute of 1816 required proof of residence by two citizens of the United States, showing a constant advance in the demands made by Government upon those on whom it conferred the privilege of citizenship. They made it a condition precedent that aliens who sought citizenship should divest themselves of all attachment to foreign potentates or Governments, of any character whatever. If I recollect aright, Mr. Madison, who was foremost among the advocates of liberal legislation for citizens of foreign birth, in supporting a proposition of Hamilton, that eligibility to office should depend merely upon citizenship and inhabitancy, said distinctly "that while it was a possible danger that men with foreign predilections might obtain appointments, it was by no means probable that it would happen to any dangerous degree. For the same reason that they would be attached to their own country, our people would prefer natives of this country to them." This, certainly, sounds like a confirmation of the doctrine of the Know-Nothings; and it falls from the lips of a steadfast friend of adopted citizens, who knew the services of foreigners in the Revolution, at a time when the vast, unsurveyed portions of the country demanded a pioneer population, and the annual emigration from abroad did not exceed five thousand persons. He had reference only to the appointment of foreigners to office by the people, and did not refer to them as even possible recipients of Executive patronage. There is a distinction in these sources of appointment that deserves to be noted. Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts-afterwards Vice President during the administration of Mr. Madison-said that he wished, "in future, eligibility might be confined to NATIVES. He was not singular," he said, "in his views. A great many of the most influential men in Massachusetts reasoned in like manner." Similar views were expressed by leading men of the Federal and Republican parties. They placed the new Constitution upon the ground that, when emigrants ceased to be foreigners they were entitled to become American citizens.

How is it with the foreign population of our day? The gentleman from Mississippi alluded to the flattery of foreign voters by General Scott, in the campaign of 1852. But how was it with the Democratic party in that canvass? where were the different parties of all the States? and how will it be with all the parties in the contest of 1856? May not they too go down on their knees, to those who may hold the balance of power in that contest?

And a word as to this balance of power. Has it occurred to gentlemen how slight a power is required to determine the result of any future election? Has it occurred to us how slight a power, skilfully directed, might have changed the result of any past election? And who shall deny to that party that holds this power, the patronage it demands? How is it that so many gentlemen of foreign birth, hold diplomatic stations at foreign courts? Is it because General Pierce is President? Would not General Scott have pursued the same policy? or, if differing at all, differing in degree only, and not in principle. Of course, no man could do otherwise. May not the next man who occupies the presidential chair do the same thing? I do not censure one party and excuse another, because the necessities of action are equally imperative on all.

Now it is said that the foreign vote, and the Catholic influence in this country is comparatively

Ho. OF REPS.

weak, and the figures cited, prove it to be true. But weak in numbers as they are, they are not so weak but their opponents may divide, and American citizens and Protestants, dividing upon minor questions of policy, can easily give a balance of power to a party of diminutive numbers that eschews division.

There is a difference between elections of public officers by the people and Executive appointments, that bears upon this question. The appointment of foreigners, by the Executive, must be obtained through solicitation of those who have most influence in controlling the body of naturalized voters; and successful application binds the recipients, if there be integrity in human nature, partly to the Government, but largely to the parties through whom it is obtained.

On the other hand there is a kind of purgation in popular elections, that binds a candidate to the public, and compels him to look to the people alone. He can share the favor of no other mistress. If the church presents a candidate for popular suffrage, she loses a disciple or he fails in his appeal. In the Constitutional Convention, the danger apprehended was from election of foreigners by the people. I leave it for others to say whether public apprehension has not fallen, with some reason, upon a different source of patronage at this time?

Now, sir, I will admit that any change of the statutes of naturalization will not obviate this objectionable feature in our system of Government. A power already exists that is sufficient to produce these results, if directed to that end. In the almost perfect equipoise of the great American parties, a very small number of men, untrammeled by declared opinions, can determine the result of any election. The election of 1852 is not a fair illustration, because of the general unanimity of political sentiment in that year. But a change of less than thirty-nine thousand votes, out of an aggregate of over three millions, would have elected General Scott, instead of General Pierce. A change of one hundred and thirteen thousand votes would have given General Scott every electoral vote, and a change of one hundred and twenty-five thousand votes would have given to General Pierce every vote General Scott received, and to General Scott every vote General Pierce received. In the election of 1848, less than eighty thousand votes would have changed the vote of every State of the Union, except that of New York, giving to General Taylor the votes received by General Cass, and the vote of General Cass to General Taylor. And a change of less than twenty-five thousand votes in four States would have elected General Cass, instead of General Taylor. If, in the enthusiasm and heat of American politics, there is any party that is cool enough, as is suspected and charged, deliberately to project and execute a plan that shall secure an absolute balance of power between the great parties, the remedy, the only remedy, must be for the people to abstain from division upon ordinary questions, as against that party. If it be true that any considerable portion of the foreign vote has been directed with a view to secure this end, there are now votes enough out of two and a quarter millions of resident foreigners to effect it, were the statutes of naturalization repealed. There is no remedy but that UNION which has been described to us, and that, I understand,

*