affecting, as they believe, their rights; these laws they refuse to obey. The municipal authorities order force to compel obedience; but force can be met by force, since military companies exist, composed of the rioters themselves. Thus bloodshed may ensue. We have had pain ful examples of this fact in late years. It was only on the last anniversary of St. Patrick's Day in New York, that such a probability was freely discussed in the papers, and looked for with forebodings by our peaceable citizens. Is not this sufficient to open the eyes of our legislators to the crying evils of such organizations, and to induce the authorities to constitute them illegal?

Let us, for a moment, strip the subject of its dangerous results, and view it as a matter of taste. The plea of emigration to this country is, tyranny. The tools of power, whether through compulsion or choice, are the soldiers,-who are pleasing to the rulers by their pliant subserviency—and hateful to the people by their uniforms, their badge of office. Accustomed to view the soldier, and his constant presence, with a feeling of dread,-uncertain at what moment his power might be exercised on him,—the foreigner has little of ease or security associated in his reminiscences of their tinselled trappings. In the hovel, the dwelling, or the palatial residence, they are always present; in village, town, or city, they are ever tramping. Their acts are servile, and their impulse tyrannical. Associated in the minds of the people with cruelty and oppression,-bearing on their persons the livery of tyranny, and enforcing its mandates with an undisguised zest, the foreigner is happy to flee their presence, and escape their power. And yet, in spite of these associations, and the dread inspired by them, they form themselves into volunteer companies, on their arrival here, and adopt the very uniforms which have oppressed them with fear, thus wilfully assuming the badge of tyrants. The folly (we might use a stronger expression) of this taste must be apparent to all who think about the matter, and is one of such peculiar import, that we seek in vain a reasonable excuse for its adoption. It is so much at variance with all our conceived notions of the impulses which govern the human breast, and is so glaring in its inconsistency, that

we are forced to reflect upon it with some degree of apprehension, and look with a feeling of dread at its ultimate operation.

These foreign-accoutred regiments are found in every large city throughout the Union. There is not a single petty nationality in Germany but has its military representatives amongst our citizensoldiers-German in blood, feelings, language, and dress; German in their officers and organization. France has given us fac-similes of those troops who perpetrated the atrocities of the sanguinary demagogues of her first revolution-troops who, in 1848, stormed Rome and annihilated the Italian republic. Austria presents us with the counterparts of those ruffians who, under the butcher Haynau, whipped delicate women to death, and waded knee-deep in blood through the plains of Italy and Hungary. Even contemptible little Hessewhose hireling soldiery became so odious to our forefathers in the Revolution, and were the laughing-stock of their English comradeseven Hesse has her representatives among our military. But, worst of all, Americans, forgetting the glorious traditions of their country, and relinquishing every claim to self-respect, adopt the livery of a foreign prince-that same uniform which their forefathers used so badly at Saratoga, Trenton, and Yorktown.

We are at a loss to understand how Americans can suffer such outrages of all decency, such contempt for the historical associations of the Revolution. Where is the Executive, that such atrocities are permitted? If these foreigners must become soldiers, why are they not compelled to wear the uniform of the United States-that dark gray and blue, which military men tell us is most suitable for such purposes? But no! our feelings must be outraged to meet the views of political hacks, who pander to the prejudices of these foreign cohorts, for vile party ends. Is the Eagle thus to be insulted in her own eyrie?

There is a motive, an intention in foreigners banding themselves together in military companies. Accustomed in their own country. to see the soldiery paramount to the civil power, they hasten to clothe themselves in the same garb of power here, under the impression that

they thus elevate themselves above the citizen, perfectly unconscious of the great principle of our government-that the civil power is paramount to all other. Should any question be mooted in coming time, in which their jealousies and prejudices are enlisted against the patriotism of this country, we shall bitterly rue our shortsightedness in placing arms in the hands of men, who cannot appreciate our institutions, and are ever ready to follow demagogues in their insidious attacks on the country and the Constitution. We have, in fact, removed a great incentive to virtue, by giving them the power to commit wrong.

We cannot look upon the armed confederacy of foreigners, clothed in a uniform fashioned upon a foreign model, without, to say the least, a thought of its impropriety, and the entirely anti-American phase which it presents. It is certainly due to the feelings of citizens of this country who guarantee to foreigners the liberties they enjoy under our laws, that some degree of respect should be paid to their sentiments, in the adoption of a uniform (if foreign companies must be formed), which will not insult their vision, nor interfere with their desire of having a citizen-soldiery, entirely American in appearance and feeling, although its individuals may be of foreign birth.

There is a reason of great moment, which characterizes these peculiarly constituted companies as dangerous. By their means priestcraft is enabled to maintain a strong hold upon the mind and impulse of our foreign population, and even to effect results which are contrary to the Constitution and aim of our government. The founders of this Republic wisely ordained that religion and politics should not be associated together. Although no one religion is recognized by our laws as paramount to another, yet no one will deny that this country is essentially Protestant-Protestant in its foundation, in its principles, in its impulse and education, and opposed to all connection of Church and State. Were no other proof of its Protestantism required, it could be found in its liberality towards the religious sentiments of the people, in allowing them freedom of thought and opinion in the matter of sect or tenet. Were it a Roman Catho

lic country, all other denominations, years ago, would have been, by the thunders of the Vatican, "crushed out," and driven from its face, even though it required the aid of an Inquisition or an auto da fe. What then shall we say to the priesthood using the military for church display, and making the Flag of our Union bow in obsequious reverence to the Host? We are at a loss to understand by what authority a mitred priest could command the attendance of regiments at the consecration of the Cathedral of St. Louis in 1834, when, amidst the thunder of American artillery, the Stars and Stripes were lowered in idolatrous veneration. Such scenes as these, not meeting with the merited rebuke from the people that their gravity demanded, are consequently persisted in, and we find a parallel atrocity repeated in the city of Brooklyn, on the festival of Corpus Christi.

"The ceremonies took place at the German Romanist Church, located in Montrose Avenue, Brooklyn, in that section of the late city of Williamsburg known as 'Dutch Town.' The neighborhood being almost exclusively German, the characteristics of Fatherland are visible in many respects, of which this is one most prominent. The day wore the appearance of the Sabbath. Labor was at a stand; the holiday-suit was donned, and the principal portion of the people flocked to the church to participate in the services. A military company of the locality, under command of one Captain Maerz, thoroughly armed and equipped, with a full band, was on the ground. At 10 o'clock the church was filled to attend mass, and hear the discourse for the occasion. During mass, and at certain intervals, while the organ was playing, and the choir and congregation chanting, the military company, DRAWN UP IN LINE IN FRONT OF THE Altar, presented arms, and then followed in quick succession the roll of the drums, the sound of trumpets inside of the church, and loud discharges of fire-arms outside of the church. This was repeated several times during the services. The church was decorated with evergreens, and the altar with flowers. The edifice was filled to its utmost capacity by the congregation. At the close of the semi-military services, the military were marched into the street, and formed in front of the

church. Some further ceremonies, including a discharge of fire-arms at the side of the church, closed the services of the morning. The band of music playing-the military proceeded to their quarters, followed by an immense throng of spectators."

These are not exceptional instances, but proofs among many others of the determination of the Roman hierarchy to obtain power, and hold influence over the minds of its bigoted followers, by any and every means within its complicated machinery.

The Romish Church is far-seeing-it sows to-day, knowing that a future generation will reap the bitter fruit. Gradually accustoming the public to the spectacle of the military in alliance with ecclesiasticism, they will ultimately claim this innovation as a right, and our soldiers will be looked upon as part of the religious power, and the natural defenders and supporters of the priesthood. This is Rome's aim, and yet our legislators, yea, we ourselves neither complain nor resist. Who are the commanders of these regiments and companies? can it be that they willingly accord their permission to such conduct, and consent to the arms and accoutrements of the State being employed for such purposes? What would be thought of the Episcopalians, Baptists, or Methodists, calling out the military to assist in their religious services, and proclaiming "peace and good-will towards men" at the point of the bayonet? The idea, even, is ridiculous; and yet we permit the Romanists to persist in an abuse which we would immediately and deeply resent in any Protestant denomination.

We contend that such proceedings are not merely in defiance of the feelings of a large majority of the people of the country, but are in direct opposition to the fundamental principles and spirit of our government. The Executive is the only authority vested with power to call out the military, yet here we see a professedly religious body asserting equal power, and forming an imperium in imperio. How is it possible to make such regiments lose their national characteristics, surrounded as they are with a foreign, and to them kindred population, and controlled by a foreign priesthood? They have

* See the New York Tribune, June 9th, 1855.