The New Hampshire Gazette

From the CHRONICLE.

OBSERVATIONS

ON THE

NATURALIZATION BILL.

Messrs. ADAMS & LARKIN,

Permit me to congratulate the Democratic Republicans, thro' the medium of your paper, on the national law of Naturalization, as an acquisition to the cause of Liberty in general. It was highly requisite that the probationary period should be extended, and an uniform standard erected to guard against those pernicious indulgences in favor of particular individuals, which had disgraced our local policy, and given all the advantages of American citizens, to British factors and agents, not only to the dishonour of the country, but to its essential injury.

Individuals of this class had assumed the garb of citizens to secure the correspondent advantages annexed to the character, and then threw it aside, either with indifference or contempt, the moment their purpose had been effected.

Such abuses will now be prevented. No man of infamous character, or even suspected, will now be admitted as a citizen. No stranger, of whatever colour, can be permitted to interfere or vote at our elections, unless he has a regular certificate of his pretensions. We shall never again have this town dishonoured by an impudent, profligate alien, of pale complexion, and the "first Merchant" of Boston, at the same door, face to face, distributing votes to their friends and connections, in favor of their favorite candidate. Every person in future must not only abjure the authority of the government, of which he had been formerly the subject, but must swear to support the laws and Constitution of our own; and to this last condition the most prejudiced, rigid determined republican, would not refuse his approbation.

It is true a Federal Government is as obnoxious in France, as a consolidated Government is odious and detestable in America. The territory of that Republic is almost in a circular form: it is compact and limited. In this country, ours is extended beyond all example.

On these occasions physical circumstances determine the nature of our respective political institutions. Whether too much or too little power has been given to the Federal administration, time will determine.

The instance of a State's being subject to Federal jurisdiction has been resolved by the people in favor of the local governments. This demonstrates two things: First, that the Federal Constitution was ambiguous, or defective in its original form. Second, that it may easily be improved.

But the circumstance, Messrs. Printers, which has given me the greatest pleasure, in the law for Naturalization, is the clause excluding foreign noblemen from the benefits of citizenship, in this country, without a formal renunciation of all their titles and prerogatives in the very office in which their ticket of citizenship is registered. Messrs. GILES and MADISON are richly entitled to the thanks of every good citizen, for their exertions on this decisive occasion. In charity I am willing to suppose that Messrs. Sedgwick, Ames, and Dexter, from this State, had no sinister views in their rash and impolitic opposition to this seasonable and important amendment to the original report of the Committee. Perhaps they did not see the advantage which must inevitably arise to the cause of equal Liberty by this fortunate circumstance. It will necessarily postpone all hope of titular distinctions in the United States, at least for a century.

Every body who has paid any attention to the course of our political controversies, since the establishment of the Federal Constitution, need not be informed, that a certain party in the Federal Senate proposed the title of a King for the President, in the first session of the National Legislature. These violent partizans began to indulge the ridiculous hope that the people were prepared for these pitiful innovations. They knew if one circumstance of Royalty was obtained, it would probably operate as an argument in favor of another. If the President could be called GEORGE by the Grace of GOD, President of the United States, and Protector and Defender of the Constitution, to day, to morrow an addition of power or salary would naturally follow as an indispensable attribute. But the law in question must prostrate their warmest hopes and confound their overweening pride.

Is there a member of Congress after this, who will have the presumption to propose any title whatever, more than is necessary to designate the office, for any Federal officer, however elevated?

The law further proves, that the objection to these idle distinctions is gaining strength in the community at large. Four years ago it would not have passed the Senate; now it has passed without any opposition.

It has been said that the Constitution prohibits all titles of nobility. Why then has a title been proposed, adopted and insisted upon, in the Senate; Why does this title still remain on their journals?

But the present law has thrown the few aspiring advocates of such distinctions, so far in the rear, that it will be impossible they can now resume their projects with any hope of succeeding.

On the whole, I consider the law for an uniform Naturalization of foreigners, as an epoch in the annals of Democratic Republicanism.

A DEMOCRAT.