ginians as before quoted, the Archbishop the fundamental charter; and it was especially urther remarks: "Very different, in many respects, were the Pil grim Fathers of Plymouth. Both colonies were of the same national stock and origin, but the early inhabitants of both were brought up under the influence of systems and associations quite antag. onistic to each other. I am sorry to say that Catholics were not favorites with either. They were regarded by both with feelings of dislike-if I can use such an expression-of intense dislike." This is by no means strange; were they not as Protestants protesting against the political rule of a potentate whose temporal and tyrannical authority Catholics sought to enforce in various ways which their souls abhorred? Not attempting to convert others, but to protect themselves, what were the Protestants to think of the humane conduct of Catholic Spain, in her attempts to save souls and convert them to the true faith, by gibbeting and beheading even in the New World! Had they then any examples of Catholic tolerance before them, other than those written in blood? Remarking that both colonies sought political freedom, and the right to enjoy their religious belief unmolested, we return to Maryland. Maryland was formerly embraced within the boundaries of Protestant Virginia; yet tative government was indissolubly connected with This document is considered to have been written by the first Lord Baltimore, Sir George Calvert, who, living "in an age when religious controversy still continued. active, and when the increasing divisions among Protestants were spreading a general alarm, sought relief for his mind in the bosom of the Catholic Church." The charter is, therefore, claimed as a Catholic document, and the colony settled under it as Catholic, although the Charter was granted by a Protestant government, after the experience derived from the earlier Protestant settlements, in which civil and religious freedom had been materially developed. It was impossible that a charter less liberal to Protestants could have been obtained; hence, for its tolerant character, the colonists were not indebted to Catholicism. Thus we find representative government and freedom of religion to be important grounds upon which the Catholic proprietorship was based. They were conditions which must be complied with, or the rights of the proprietor under the charter would revert to the king. "The Catholic colony of Maryland" was compelled, therefore, to exercise that tolerant spirit which the Archbishop claims as their peculiar virtue in the "preaching" and "practice" of civil and religious liberty. The first Lord Baltimore was undoubtedly a great and good man, unlike any other of his age or Church; and it may be regretted that, before the patent could be finally adjusted and pass the great seal, he, Sir George Calvert, died. Thereafter, the charter was th. n in civil freedom, was assured. . . . Represen-issued for the benefit of his son. "The cancelling of the Virginia patents had restored to the [Protestant] monarch [James, of E gland] the ample authority of his prerogative over the soil; he might now sever a province from the colony, to which he had assigned a territory so vast; and it was not difficult for Calvert-a man of such moderation that all parties were taken with him; sincere in his character, disengaged from all interests, and a favorite with the royal family-to obtain a charter for domains in this happy clime.” "George Calvert, known as Lord Baltimore," says the Archbishop, "was the projector of the Catholic colony of Maryland. He was an Englishman, and a favorite of King James. The charter granted to Lord Baltimore, be it remembered, was issued by a Protestant monarch; and for the terms of that important document we again quote the historian Bancroft: 66 Christianity was, by the charter, made the law of the land, but no preference was to be given to any sect; and equality in religious rights, not less Having thus far refuted the Archbishop's the Revolution. The workings of the Duke position relative to the Catholic occupancy of the country, and also the impertinent claim to originality in promulgating ideas of civil and religious liberty in America, we shall in the next number take up the history of Maryland as it existed under this celebrated charter, and show the colony to have been Protestant beyond cavil, at the time of of York in behalf of the people of NewNetherlands, "so creditable (?) to himself and Catholics," will also be noticed, together with the remaining falsities embodied in the Archbishop's Chapter. In so doing, we promise an entire refutation and positive proof of the subtle cunning of a wily priesthood. EDITORIAL. THOMAS R. WHITNEY, EDITOR. was regarded equally as a political ruler, because the principles of free toleration then prevailing in matters merely religious forbade, absolutely, the interference of our State in the spiritual thinking of the people. Therefore, while the original Constitution of the State guaranteed to all a full and unembarrassed right of conscience and religious creed, it re CONSTITUTIONAL MUTATIONS.-It is a matter of no little interest to look back and notice the various mutations and changes made in our organic laws; and the fact that most of those changes have been made as concessions to the adopted citizens, and for their especial satisfaction, is no less significant than interesting. For example, in the original Constitution of the State of New-York, we find the follow-quired every and all of its citizens to renounce ing clause, providing for the naturalization of foreigners : “It shall be in the discretion of the Legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner as they shall think proper; provided all such persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond the sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in, and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and state, in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil." This clause of the Constitution, it will be seen, required that, to effect naturalization, a special act of the Legislature was necessary in the case of each person applying, and it was discretionary with the Legislature to grant naturalization or refuse it. The Constitution also required that the party being naturalized should renounce his allegiance to all foreign powers, ecclesiastical as well as civil; showing that in that day the idea prevailed of the necessity of guarding against the religious as well as against the civil potentates of Europe; and showing also that the religious sovereign or be free from allegiance to any European Church-political. The antecedent proofs of the poisonous and blighting influence of the Church upon State affairs, evidently influenced the framers of the first Constitution in thus gnarding our State against so dangerous a contingency, and hence the clause requiring aliens to renounce their former allegiance to foreign potentates, ecclesiastical as well as civil. This clause of the Constitution continued in force until 1789, a period of twelve years, when it was supposed to be supplanted by the adoption of the Federal Constitution, which, as it forbade Congress to pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, was construed as forbidding the application of any religious test as a qualification of citizenship. It does not appear to us, however, that the clause above quoted could be regarded as a religious test. It certainly did not require the party to renounce his religion, or any part of his religion, but simply to renounce allegiance to a foreign potentate, political as well as religious in his character. Be that as it may, the clause became a dead letter, and was never after enforced; and in the next Constitution of the State, adopted in 1822, the clause was omitted. But in the Constitution of 1822, we find the two following clauses, to wit: Art. III, Sec. 2. "No person, except a native citizen of the United States, shall be eligible to the office of governor." Art. VII, Sec. 4. "And whereas, the ministers of the gospel are by their profession dedicated to when they struck out these conservative clauses in the organic law of their State, yet such is the fact; they place too much reliance on the men who make politics a trade, and who manage these affairs for their own personal honor, glory, and profit, and thus they were tricked into an act which their judgment revolts at. We hope henceforth that they will look before they leap, and we may, before the service of God and the care of souls, and ought long, ask them to vote again for the restora not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore no minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination whatsoever shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretense or description whatever, be ligible to or capable of holding any civil or military office or place within the State." Here we find another guard thrown around the safety of the State, by the total exclusion of ecclesiastical influence from its affairs, and the keeping of the executive power in the hands of native-born Americans; thus closing the door against a union of the Church and the State, and especially excluding all foreign. elements, secular and religious, from the executive department of the State. These clauses, however, were found to be too stringent to please the foreign and ecclesiastical interests in the State, especially the foreign-ecclesiastical interest; and hence, as that combination grew stronger and stronger by immigration, a successful effort was made to expunge those clauses; and a new Constitution, adopted in 1846, appears, in which both of them are stricken out. Under that Constitution, the people of the Empire State now live, and in it there is no clause that renders a foreign priest ineligible to the office of Governor of the State. Thus the door to a union of Church and State is thrown wide open, and a premium is offered to ecclesiastics, who own and acknowledge obedience to a foreign prince, that is well calculated not only to bring their Church influence to bear upon the elections of the State, but to increase their ambition for politico-religious ascendency in all its affairs. Surely the American citizens of the State, who, without regard to creed, deprecate the interference of religion in secular affairs, would never have voted for such fatal amendments to their Constitution, had they known what they voted for. We are aware that we pay no compliment to their intelligence in saying they did not know what they were voting for tion of that which their heedlessness has robbed us of. AN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.-In previous numbers of the Republic, we have shown, by their own evidence, that the "adopted citizens" are forming distinct political organizations for three objects: I. A development of the true Democratic elements of our Constitution, which, as they say, American statesmen have failed to accomplish. II. To propagate the elements of European revolution, by organizing political bodies to operate upon, and carry measures in the councils of the nation, and to provide bodies of armed men, at the expense of the several States, to march in aid of European revolutionists; and, III. To establish a politico-religious government in the place of our present system of civil and religious liberty. These things shown, the question arises, Is it best to allow them to go on to a consummation? or shall the American people interfere to prevent that consummation? This problem inust be solved; and we are glad to see that the press of our country, or at least that portion of it which is not directly or indirectly under foreign control, is gradually becoming awakened to the subject. From every part of the country we receive papers which speak the American sentiment in opposition to the foreign action; and we begin to hope that our countrymen will realize, in time, the importance of a unity of political sentiment and action. We have had already quite sufficient of European Democracy mingled with American politics, and it is time now to take a fresh start as American Democrats, and once more take the helm of State. The Philadelphia Mercury, a paper not addicted to the heresy of Native Americanism, thus speaks on this subject. After alluding to the appetite of foreigners for political office in America, it says: "These people, who are degraded at home, have a fair opportunity of coming here and riding over our heads to honorable and profitable positions; and unless their power is speedily destroyed, we must become content to be ruled by unscrupulous demagogues from abroad. . . . . But, as we said before, the Democratic party in this place is destroyed, and now is the time to break up this unholy foreign alliance. The means are easy, and the end is desirable. Then, how is it to be done? To erect over the grave of the so-called Democratic party the platform of an American Democracy; a party that would present a strong bulwark against foreign influence. . . . . If the immense influx of foreign immigration continues to swell the forces of this political faction, Americans will be forced to extend our naturalization laws, and thus check this growing evil. We have felt enough of foreign influence. We have lived long enough under Irish rule, and, Heaven knows, a change is desirable. We think a little exclusive American rule is an experiment worth the trial.” Again, the Newark Daily Advertiser, a journal distinguished for its liberality of sentiment, thus speaks on this subject: .... "That foreign influence which filled the mind of Washington with such anxiety, and against which he warned Americans in his day, and their posterity, begins now to be felt with a vengeance. Immigrants, accustomed till they come hither to perpetual disturbance from the agitations of neighboring governinents surging around them, cannot immediately settle into repose on landing on our peaceful shores. . . . . After all, no one understands, or can direct, the affairs of America, but Americans, who have got their qualifications by a Not considerable experience on the spot. the greatest statesman of the old world is fit to regulate the policy of this country, or to give any useful advice concerning it. This is the doctrine of our Constitution. It therefore makes nativity one. of the qualifications for the Presidency. Though this is the acknowledged genius of our Constitution, pervading all our State and national institutions, it has become our national misfortune to behold causes at work to expel it from our system by a powerful mixture of foreign elements, generating a fermentation in the political body." Speaking of the European propaganda recently organized in this country, the Advertiser says: they are now prepared to make over the functions · of the State, under which they have lived for three quarters of a century, to an irresponsible associa tion of men, who have no stake whatever either in the property or welfare of the United States; or whether they are resolved to maintain the government of the country as it is. They cannot be too prompt or peremptory in their decision.” We did hope at one time that the so-called Union Party would have gone forward, as they promised, in this work of re-nationalizing America. It had within its reach all the elements essential for its performance; a union of sentiment between the North and the South, and, for the nonce, a complete abjuration of party trammels and corruptions. But they have gone to work again at Presidentmaking in the old way, and it is more than probable that the components of that organization will glide smoothly and almost imperceptibly back into the old partisan mire. The good work, therefore, falls back upon the American people themselves, as such; and we trust they will, ere long, unite in their National Democratic Republican character, eschewing all sectional issues, all partisan preferences, all petty isms; and, independent of all foreign influences, take into their hands once more and for ever, the control and management of their own affairs. If they are not fully qualified for and able to perform the duties of self-government, they do not deserve a government at all, and the experiment may as well be tried first as last. PUBLIC SUPPORT OF PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING.-We perceive that recently the Baptist and the Dutch Reformed professors of religion in our State, encouraged by the suc cess of the Catholics, have asked the Legislature for a slice of the public loaf. They cannot see why the moneys that are raised by taxation from the people at large, and a portion of which, under an old-fashioned system of disbursement, have been appropriated to the encouragement of private institutions of learn the purchase of votes is an object with our legislators, we also have votes as good and as many as the Roman Catholics, and we can use them as effectually against those who oppose our interest as they can." Now, this is not only good logic, but forcible logic; in a word, as things now go, it is the best kind of logic, and it is marvelous that our friends the Baptists, Dutch Reformed, Episcopalians, Universalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and others, had not hit upon it before. The Catholics long ago discovered the soft spot in the side of legislation, and while the others have been asleep, they (the Catholics) have been reaping the fruits of their superior acumen and finesse, and enjoying the benefits of liberal appropriations from the public treasury. It is certainly but fair that all should be served alike; and since the precedent of supporting sectarian institutions from the pockets of the people has been established in one instance, there is no way left but for the others to be treated likewise, or else to break the precedent, and shut the gates of the treasury against them all. Our own notion of the matter is simply this: the time has been when it was necessary to extend public aid to private institutions of learning of a secular character; that is, where doctrinal dogmas and creeds constituted no part of their educational programme; and such, in fact, was one of the prime objects of what is known as the "Literature Fund" of the State. But that time is past; the spirit of progress, real, legitimate progress, has made public education not only cheap, but cheap and respectable; and the necessity of those private academies is superseded by the creation of public academies of equal erudition and respectability, where education is supported by taxation, and given without money and without price. One tax of this kind is surely sufficient for the people to pay, and it is time now for the State to withdraw its support from those private institutions. They are no longer needed; and if any of our citizens still desire to be so far exclusive as to continue them in existence, it is but fair that they should support them from their exclusive purses. to little purpose, or it would not have attempted to pervert them, and to extort from them a meaning never intended or expressed by us."-NewYork Sun, We did express our approval of the Sun's article entitled, "The First Duty of Americans," and we did so without any "affectation" whatever, and without the remotest idea of perverting its meaning. It spoke the truth patriotically, and we were right glad to hear it. But it appears the Sun did not mean what it said, or else, having accidentally gotten beyond its depth, it became alarmed for its own safety, and is now struggling back into shoal and muddy water again. In its former article, which we quoted, the Sun said, the despots of the Old World look upon our country with intense hatred; that "they would gladly sweep our institutions and our name from the face of the earth, and assuredly they will attempt to do so:" "By agents among us who are unseen, unknown, and unsuspected, they will watch for and avail themselves of every opportunity to foment discord,. to create sectional animosities, to lower the tone of plicity, while they seek to fascinate us with some-republicanism, and disgust us with its homely sim-thing more showy, stately, and imperial." It now says: "The Republic, by leaving out a part of the sentence, endeavors to represent us as preaching its doctrine, and calls upon us to aid it in applying frage from our adopted fellow-citizens." its remedy, which is to withhold the right of suf Will the Sun be kind enough to point outthe place where we recommended the withholding the right of suffrage from our adopted fellow-citizens? We do not profess to be a Pallas in wisdom, but we claim the proprie-. torship of sufficient common intelligence to know, that what our adopted citizens possess under the Constitution and laws of the coun-try, cannot be taken or withheld from them,. so long as that Constitution exists; and, knowing that fact, we are not quixotic enough to engage in a warfare with windmills, or attempt to achieve impossibilities. What we said in relation to foreigners and the suffrage was this: "The newly unchained felon, the ignorant, pestilential pauper, the scheming Jesuit, and the secret agent of despotism, are now alike invested with that potent engine for good or evil, the right of suffrage; and with it the demagogues of the land are by them reduced to a condition of abject servility. Withhold from them that power, and we care |
