There is nothing in it intolerant or proscriptive; nor will the patriotic and enlightened citizen of foreign birth so regard it. It imposes no legal disqualification. It takes from him no rights. Official station of right belongs to no man. While I would adhere to this policy as one of wisdom and patriotism, no American who properly appreciates his responsibilities, would neglect an inquiry into the character and fitness of candidates presented for his suffrage; nor could he, without betrayal of the best interests of his country, disregard the claims of principle involved in his choice. Thus occasions may arise, when an enlightened and faithful discharge of duty, would demand our suffrages for the naturalized citizen, in preference to one born on our soil. Understanding the spirit of your first proposition as not inconsistent with the views here expressed, I yield it my cordial assent.

"Are you in favor of the protection of American labor, American rights and American interests?"

To this your second interrogatory, I shall content myself with a simple affirmative answer.

The matters embraced in your third interrogatory are of the first importance, and demand the most serious consideration of the patriot and statesman. The boldness and success with which frauds are perpetrated upon the ballot box have become alarming, and unless promptly and effectually checked, must end in the subversion of our system of free government. The form of Liberty may remain, but only as a cheat and mockery, glossing over as cruel a despotism as ever cursed a people. I would sustain with my whole strength any and every measure wisely devised, to preserve the purity of our popular elections. Wilful fraud upon the ballot box, is moral treason against Republican Government; and all duly convicted of being concerned therein, in addition to other penalties, should be forever disqualified from holding office or exercising the elective franchise.

Doubtless our naturalization laws could be so amended as to aid in securing purity and fairness in our elections; but we should not weaken our State sovereignty by looking to the General Government as the great source of reform in this matter. It belongs exclusively to the States to regulate this whole question of suffrage-to prescribe the qualifications of electors-to provide safeguards against frauds and inflict punishment for assaults upon

the integrity of the ballot box. Our own State can not too early or vigorously exert its constitutional authority in respect to these matters, vital as they are to liberty and the existence of free government.

It has ever been a source of just pride to the true American that his country opened an asylum for the oppressed of every land. God forbid that we should be so ungrateful for his blessings as to be unwilling to share them with the honest and industrious of whatever clime or country; but it is an outrage upon our hospitality and a violation of international law, for the Governments of the Old World to ship cargoes of criminals and paupers to our shores. Our Government can not be too vigilant in guarding our rights in this respect.

To your fourth interrogatory, I answer that I am opposed to the interference of hierarchies in politics. The office of a Christian minister is second to no other in dignity and responsibility. I would not detract from his functions nor impair the respect due to his character. I acknowledge his right, and as a teacher of the people I believe it to be his duty, to speak openly and fearlessly against social and political evils, destructive of public morals and at war with the interests and happiness of mankind. In thus publicly speaking, if he transcends the proprieties of his place and office, a safe corrective is found in the censure of an enlightened public. But that a priestly order, invested by the laity with a mysterious sacerdotal character-with pretensions to extraordinary spiritual power-bound together by strong ties and acknowledging as their head a foreign potentate-that such an order should enter the field of politics, control our elections and influence the policy of our government, is surely a cause for alarm and should awaken the jealous vigilance of the American people. It will probably be denied that any such hierarchical influence is brought to bear in our elections. We should judge with candor and not condemn without proof.

We see the American people divided on a momentous issue. The principles of human freedom or bondage are brought in direct conflict. Man's inalienable right to life and liberty is denied. The doctrine is openly asserted by those who hold the government in their hands that God created the mass of mankind to be slaves. In the heat of this great struggle we see the strongest

ties severed the ancient political parties of the country broken. and men of every nation and faith divided, save one. The votaries of one church alone are united in political action. This unity in the midst of otherwise universal division is truly most remarkable. From Maine to Texas, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, in every city, town and hamlet, under whatever circumstances placed, or by whatever influences surrounded, we find the votaries of this church arrayed on the side of slavery. This can not arise from an intelligent assent to the principles of slavery, because those principles would reduce ninety-nine out of every hundred of these men to the condition of slaves. Whence are we to look for the cause of this unity among so many hundreds of thousands scattered over so wide a surface?

We find the votaries of the Catholic Church yield a ready obedience, in all things, to an authority which they have been taught to respect as of God's appointment. The church of their faith advances high and extraordinary claims. It is infallible in doctrine-miracles continue to be wrought within its holy communion-its head is the Apostle to whom was intrusted the keys of heaven. It is a pure hierarchy. The laity have little or no power, all authority being concentrated in the priesthood. Again I ask, whence this unity in political action among the votaries of this church, when every other denomination of Christians is divided? In seeking for an answer to this inquiry, all men will look to the source where the power resides. When the voters of the church of Rome shall exhibit in our political contests the like diversity of views and action that is seen among all other classes of our people, then and not till then, will the public mind be relieved from the suspicion that hierarchical influences are mischievously at work in our politics.

It is idle to evade the point by labored efforts in defense of religious freedom and the rights of conscience. No assault is made upon either. The largest liberty-the broadest toleration, is conceded in matters of religious faith and worship. The ground of complaint lies here-that a hierarchy, invested with peculiar sanctity and powers in the eyes of the laity, should exert a spiritual influence to control our elections, and give to the policy of our Government a direction adverse to the wishes of a majority of the people not within the sphere of such influence. No in

telligent man would question the fact, that the late Presidential election was controlled by the united Catholic vote. If the adherents of that church had been divided in their votes, as were all the Protestant sects of our country, the present Administration would never have had an existence. The Slave Power today would not be master of our Government-promulgating its abhorrent doctrines through our judicial tribunals-undermining the sovereignty of the States, and boldly trampling down the clearest constitutional rights of the citizen.

It is also apparent to every intelligent observer, that the same unity in the Catholic vote is relied upon as the main support of our oppenents in the coming State election. With these undeniable facts before us, can it be said that there is no ground for the strong conviction in the minds of the American people, that hierarchial influences not only interfere in our politics, but actually control our elections? If the Protestant sects of our country presented the same unanimity in opposition to the proslavery democracy, that the Catholic Church does in its support, our opponents would not be slow or measured in their denunciation. Indeed, the chiefs and press of that party assail with gross vituperation such Protestant Christian ministers as openly in the face of day denounce from the sacred desk the crimes of slavery, and insist upon the sanctity of the marital and parental relations.

In them, it is a grievous offense to proclaim in connection with slavery the great essential truths of Christianity-that God is the Creator and Father of all men-that He made of one flesh all the nations of the earth-that He is no respecter of persons, but holds in equal love all His children; and that He will require of every one the observance of His righteous law; "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." This alliance between an ancient and powerful Church and the slave interests of America is the more remarkable, when we consider the fact that the early and authoritative teachings of that church are in condemnation of slavery. How long this strange alliance is to continue I know not. How long it is to be successful is for the American people to decide.

To your fifth interrogatory, I answer-that I am in favor of free schools for the education of all classes; and am opposed to any exclusion of the Bible therefrom,

VIII

WILMOT'S ARGUMENT BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE AT HARRISBURG, MARCH 26, 1858

THE following argument was on the bill introduced for the purpose of legislating Wilmot out of office by abolishing his judicial district-the thirteenth, of Pennsylvania.

This "defense" opened with a recital of the steps taken by his opponents (who were behind the pending measure), describing the secrecy of their movements and the overtures they had unsuccessfully made to certain others to join in their assault. See the preceding chapter (XXX) on "The So-Called Impeachment Proceedings." The text following is Wilmot's own brief, as reprinted in the contemporary press and published separately in pamphlet form.

I arrived at Harrisburg, on Monday, the 8th instant, and on the following day called on the Hon. Chairman for information as to the "specific charges in writing" against me, and was by him informed that no such charges had as yet been preferred. On the following day (Wednesday) I learned that the memorialists, two of whom were here, desired to present some matters before this Committee, on the following Friday. I accordingly awaited the arrival of that day, hoping then to be informed of specific charges, wherein it was claimed that the ends of justice had failed or been defeated through my weakness or want of integrity. In this I was disappointed; and to this hour I am ignorant, save as outdoor rumor reaches my ears, of any charge impeaching my official integrity.

On the Friday mentioned, the 12th instant, there was handed to the Committee two printed papers, one in the form of a letter, addressed to the Chairman (the letter itself being withheld) and purporting to be signed by nine members of the Bar of Bradford County, and by three other gentlemen not members of said Bar; to wit: C. L. Ward, Wm. Scott, and J. B. Reeve, neither of whom have appeared for years, as practicing attorneys in court, and