dom to discern, and patriotism to pursue the general good. He had pride, and he 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, aided indeed by the discipline of the Revolution."

*

"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 (he said) 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. William Vans Murray, of Maryland, declared: "He was quite indifferent if not fifty immigrants 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 term of residence, before admitting aliens, ought to be very much longer than that mentioned in the bill." Mr. Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, said:

"He agreed to the idea of Mr. Gilbert. He wished that a method could be found of permitting aliens to possess and transmit property without at the same time giving them a right to vote."

This much must suffice for today. I had hoped to close the subject of naturalization with the present number, but I find the materials so abundant, and the champions of American principles so numerous among the Fathers of the Republic, that I cannot withhold from your readers a farther expression of their wise and patriotic counsels. Another number must therefore be devoted to this topic.

Truly, if we have been engaged in war upon civil and religious freedom, we have the sanction of the opinions of many men of the earlier and better days of the Republic, whom we have been taught alike to admire for their talents and to revere for their virtues.

MADISON.

CHAPTER XIII

MADISON LETTER NUMBER FOUR-FRAUDS ON
NATURALIZATION LAWS

Y LAST number was devoted to the consideration of the naturalization laws of 1790 and 1795, and the opinions expressed by distinguished statesmen whilst those bills were under consideration. I come now to the law of 1798.

Between 1793 and 1798 our country had been the scene of great excitement. The 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 among the people; one of which was partial to England and the other to France. Foreigners 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, etc., so as to establish his identity and to prevent imposition by a fraudulent use of his paper. 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 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, would have the same force upon others as upon himself, he should not detain the committee by dilating upon, and 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 for 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 this 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, however acceptable they may be in other respects, could not have the same views and attachments with native citizens. Under this view of the subject, he was convinced it was an essential policy, which lay at the bottom of civil society, that no foreigner should be permitted to take a part in the government.

There might have been, Mr. Harper acknowledged, individual exceptions, and there might be again to this rule; but it was necessary to make regulations general, and he believed the danger arising from admitting foreigners generally to citizenship would be greater than the inconveniences arising from debarring from citizenship 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 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 William 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."