ALBANY, June, 1855.
MY DEAR SIR—On my return to my residence a few days since, from a professional engagement abroad, I found your favor of a late date inquiring my views touching the principles of the "American" or "Know-Nothing" organization. Before I found time to answer I was hurried to this place to attend the Court of Appeals now in session, where the business in which I am engaged affords little time or opportunity for correspondence. I will, however, as I have no concealments upon public questions, borrow a moment from my passing duties to say quite hastily, that I have no knowledge concerning the order to which you allude, except such as is acquired from publications purporting to give information upon the subject, and must therefore confine myself to such points as are embraced within this range. It is generally understood and conceded to be a secret society or organization, designed to act politically in the contests of the day. Of this secret feature I entirely disapprove, and am unable to understand by what necessity, real or supposed, it was dictated, or upon what principle it can be justified. Free public discussion and open action on all public affairs, are essential to the health, nay, to the very existence of popular liberty; and the day which finds the public mind reconciled to the secret movements of political parties, will find us far on our way to the slavery of despotism. If good men may meet in secret for good purposes, we can have no assurance that bad men, under the same plausible exterior, will not secretly sap the foundations of public virtue.
Whether I am in favor of their platform upon the question of domestic slavery, must depend upon what it is; or rather, whether they are in favor of mine. If their platform is to be regarded as including, upholding, or justifying such monstrosities as the "personal liberty bill," recently passed into a law by the Massachusetts Legislature over the veto of Governor Gardner, then I pronounce it treason—rank, unblushing, and brazen-deserving of public reprehension and condign punishment. If upon this subject their platform conforms to resolutions recently published, purporting to be the voice of the majority of the Convention assembled at Philadelphia, it is in substance the same upon which I have stood for years—upon which I did not enter without counting the consequences, and which I intend to relinquish only with life. I have not now these resolutions before me, but as I recollect them, I approve them in substance as sound national doctrine. I ignore no part of the federal Constitution, either in theory or in practice, to court the popular caprices of the moment, to gain public station, or to minister to the necessities or infirmities of those in power. Nor can I distrust the soundness of principles approved upon full consideration under a high sense of duty, because others may choose to adopt and embrace them.
I cannot believe that any good can be accomplished by making the birthplace a test of fidelity or merit. It does not accord, but is at war, with the genius of cur institutions. That abuses have been practised by the appointment of foreigners to places of trust, before sufficiently familiar with our Constitution, laws, and social system, or to which, from circumstances, they were unsuited, is probable. This, however, is in some respects common to native as well as naturalized citizens, and arises not from a defective system, but from its erroneous administration. It is in both respects the natural result of placing in the hands of the incompetent the distribution of public patronage.
Upon the subject of naturalized citizens I have been governed by considerations of justice and duty, and have designed to observe the spirit of my country's Constitution. When members engaged in a steeple-chase, to see who should propose earliest, give most, and vote loudest, to feed suffering Ireland from the federal treasury a few years since, not finding any warrant for such proceedings, I voted against it, and let public clamor exhaust itself upon my head in denunciations. When I learned that the foreigner who had in good faith declared his intentions of citizenship, by setting his foot upon a foreign shore in case of shipwreck, without any intention of remaining abroad, lost the benefit of his proceedings, I introduced and procured the passage of a bill to redress the grievance. These principles have governed my public conduct and now guide my opinions. The Constitution, administered in its true spirit, is, in my judgment, sufficient for the protection of all, whether native or naturalized, and for the redress of all political evils which can be reached by human government.
I have the honor to be,
CHARLES E. DYKE, Esq., editor Floridian and Journal, Tallahassee.
No comments:
Post a Comment