The Native Americans

The Native Amencansof this village nve formedan Association, and issucd a ' ar je num&er of circulars preparatory, ' ye'suppose, to a general movetwent. - ' 1'hey annou-nce thir dstinct?e ! les to'be as follows : Article&- The membersof this ' ociation will Femain a distinct political arlyr and herfeby adopt rhe folio wing principies : SécTIOcí 1. - An extensión of the time if residence of aliens previous to naturalization, to at l'east 21' years. or a toitï repeal oí the Naturalation lavvs. Section % - The legai impösitibn of such a capitation tax on alt foreigners -oming into this country, for the pu-rpose of permanent setllement, as shaU efeclually discourage the shipment of foreign paupers and crimináis to our shores. Section 3. - No alien shall be permitted to land in the United States without a certifícate of good moral character, properly vouched by a United States Consul of the port from whence he sailed; such alien should also be registered in conformity with the act of Congress of 1802. Sections 4. - Theadoption of the most efficiënt means of promoting the educalion, moral and intellectual, of every son and daughter of the Republic. Section 5. - Unflinchingopposition to any connection of Church and State, and to 'all schernes foreign or domestic, to render the State subordínate to any Church whaiever.Section 6. - Regarding the Bible in , ts benign and cnlightening influences, is indispensable to the social and politi. ;alwell-being of the Republic, and as sanctioning by divine authority, the great principies of human brotheríiood and 2quality,we will cling to it as tlie sheet anchor of our hope ibr the permanency of our free institutions. lt should be freely read, and freely interpreted by all men, and we will hold him an enemy to mankind and our glorious Republic, whoshall endeavor to prevent either. We stopped into the Native Meeting held at the Baptist Church on Tuesday evening. It was addressed by E. L. Fuller, Esq. Many of the facts and statistics presented were interesting. The Speaker argued great danger to our institutions from the large annual acces sions of foreigners to our shores : from their character, as many of them were paupers, crimináis, idiots, and persons incompetent to provide for themselves :rom their want ol knowieüge, ana wam )f thc same ability to acquire it that Anericans have : from the difference of anguages : and from their several national aüachments and prejudices. He rgued that from such a heteregeneous mass it was impossible that such citizens could be made as vould cherish and defend our national institutions. However plausible ibis may be in thesry, yet the history of our own country shows that the argument is without forcé. At the time of the Re volution the population, of thc colonies was about 3,000,000, and was derived from nearly every nation in the world, and a large proportion of the people - much larger than at present, we apprehend - were forcign bom. Not a few of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence were fureigners. Yet this very "heterogeneous mass" offoreignersand natives achieved our independence, and established those same institutions of civil and religious freedom that Mr. Fuller was so anxious to defend ! But the principal objection of the speaker to foreign emigrants becoming citizens, was that seven-eighths of them were Catholics. To be a sincere, devout, honest Catholic, obedient to all the requirements of the Church, in Mr. JVs view, was to be disqualificd for acting as an independent, American voter. Most of them were of this class ; and their sincerity and devotedness to their religión was enough to put Protestants toshame. As to religious toleration, he was for t decidedly. But theConstitulion would not allow a man to come here and make his religious failh a rcason for commencing war on our institutions. Suppose a Turk should emigrate to ihis country, and go tohis nrighbor with the Koran in one hand, and the sword in the other, and say, " my religión commands me to proselyte you. You must believe this book, or my religión requires me to kill you." - Would the principies of a just religious toleration require us to let the murder be consummated with impunity '( Of course not. The case in some respects was similar with the Catholics. - The Catholic Church did not consider it murder to kill a heretic ; and he cited the case of a woman condemned to death in 1844 in the island of Madeira, for heresy, blaspheming the Holy Virgin, denying the real presence, &c. The woman had turnee! from a Catholic to a Methodist. The Catholics had the power there, and condemned people to death ; henee he argued, if they had the power they would do the same here. He quoted also from the Pope's encyclical letter to show that he denounced the liberty of the'Press, liberty of Conscience, and liberty of Opinión, and all the Priests of this country are sworn to obey the Pope, i and carry out his commands. Catholicism was hostile to Republicanism. There had not been a Catholic republic in the world for any length of time, except Venice ; and there a restraint was put upon the power of the clergy. He also argued danger to our.country from the readïnss of tho politfcal parties to buy up the foreign v ote from the fact that the Vicar General of the Pope induced certain Catholic Whieg in Boston to vote a Democratie tiefcet j fromr the relative increase of foreigners who may become voters over the increase of native voters ; the former being 200,000 a year, while the latter is but 50,000, [erroneous we think] ; but chiefly and especially, because the Catholics hold to all the blooc'y acU of their cliurch, and toiH nol acknowlcdge them to be wrong, nor will they renounce their allegiance to the Pope. If they would do these two thing$, it would, so far, be satisfactory The great fallacy in the argument of Mr. FulTer and his Native friendsis, that they assume that all the Catholics in the United States approve and juslify tho wicked acts nnd bigottedand; tyrannical notions of the Catholic cliurch, and of all its clergy, and that they are therefbre enemies to our country. The argument is something like this : the Pope hates civil and religious liberty, and labors todestroy it : the Catholic priests are sworn to obey hirri, and carry out hiscommandi;" and the Catholic people in this country are wholly subject to tho priests ; and at their iiistigation will overlhrow our institutions. Now, the last position is notustained by our every üay e.vpenence, lor by history. In Maryland, tïie Cathoic iníluence has always been great, if ïot predominan!. llave rebellíons and reasons characterized that State ? Do ve find our Cutholic neighbors in Washenaw plotting the overthrow of our go■ernment ? A fifth or a sixth part of the foters of Michigan are foreigners. Aro hey laboring to destroy liberty of Conscience, of Opinión, and of the Press ? Whereisthe evidence of it 1 Are they not peaceable citizens, attending to their own business ? Hf.he is where the Natives fail in substantiating their case ; and while they fail in this, they cannot enlist the mass of the people. But we must conclude ; and we will finish by asking the Natives to show a more convincing evidence of attachment to our nstitutions than is presented by the foreigner, who, for the sake of enjoying thoir benefits, voluntnrily forsakes the home of his ancestors for hundreds of years, leaves his kindred and the friends of his youth, performs a journeyofmany thousand miles with hisfamily at a heavy expense, expcriences the hardships, sickness and losses incidental to a new country, ano forever, for himself and his children, casts in his lot with the inhabitants of his adopted country ? If all this be not satisfactory proof of attachment to ourinstitutions, what moro efteclual evidence can be prcsented 1