And still later, in a letter to Gen. Lafayette, dated Dec. 25, 1798, he says:

"On the politics of Europe I shall express no opinion, nor make any inquiry who is right or who is wrong. I wish well to all nations and to all men. My politics are plain and simple. I think every nation has a right to establish that form of government under which it conceives it may live most happy, provided it infracts no right or is not dangerous to others; and that no governments ought to interfere with the internal concerns of another, except for the security of what is due to themselves."

Such was the policy of Washington, and such has been the policy of our government ever since its establishment, as might easily be shown by historical references, among which it may not be out of place to note the following language used by Henry Clay, while Secretary of State, in his instructions to Mr. Poinsett, relative to the Panama mission:

5. «Finally, I have it in charge to direct your attention to the subject of the forms of government, and to the cause of free institutions on this continent. The United States never have been, and are not, animated by any spirit of propagandism. They prefer to all other forms of government, and are perfectly contented with their own confederacy. Allowing no foreign interference, either in the formation or the conduct of their government, they are equally scrupulous in refraining from all interference in the original structure or subsequent interior movements of the government of other independent nations. Indifferent they are not, because they cannot be indifferent to the happiness of any nation. But the interest which they are accustomed to cherish in the wisdom or folly which may mark the course of other powers in the adoption and execution of their political system, is rather a sympathy of feeling than a principle of action.”

And such, too, was the language of Gen. Jackson, in his fourth annual message to Congress, as will be seen by the following extract from it:

"In the view I have given of our connection with foreign powers, allusions have been made to their domestic disturbances or foreign wars, to their revolutions or dissensions. It may be proper to observe, that this is done solely in cases where those events affect our political relations with them, or to show their operation on our commerce. Further than this, it is neither our policy nor our right to interfere. Our best wishes on all occasions, our good offices when required, will be afforded to promote the domestic tranquillity and foreign peace of all nations with whom we have any intercourse. Any intervention in their affairs further than this, even by the expression of an official opinion, is contrary to our principles of international policy, and will always be avoided."

Thus far our government has perseveringly adhered to the advice given by Washington on this subject. Its policy, to use the language of Jefferson, has been: "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever State or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;" and it is most devoutly to be hoped that there must be other reasons than those urged by the Free German Association, or any which have yet been suggested from any other source, to make true and patriotic Americans depart from

it. "We have seen great principles laid down by Washington, for the administration of this government," said Henry Clay, in a letter, dated February 21, 1852, written but a few months before his death, "especially in regard to its foreign policy, drawn in question, his wisdom doubted, and serious efforts made and making to subvert those maxims of policy by the conformity to which this nation has risen to its present unparalleled greatness. We have seen serious attempts to induce the United States to depart from its great principles of peace and neutrality, of avoiding all entangling alliances with foreign powers, and of confining ourselves to the growth, improvement and prosperity, of our new country, and, in place of them, to plunge ourselves, by perilous proceedings and insensible degrees, in the wars of Europe. Under such circumstances, it is right, and proper, and useful, to repair to the great fountain of Washington's patriotism, and, drinking deep at it, to return refreshed and invigorated by the draught."

"

And who can doubt the wisdom and propriety of the suggestion here made by the great statesman? A reassertion of his principles, said Theo. Frelinghuysen, about the same time, was never more needed than at this time, and we must still hope that the sober reflection of our people will yield to the wisdom and truth of his counsels." Washington's policy was a wise, enlightened, comprehensive American policy. His object, as has been well remarked by Senator Toombs, was that to which his whole life had been devoted, to protect and to perpetuate the liberty and independence of his country. The special dangers against which he warned his countrymen were "political connection" with European governments, "implicating ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships and enmities," quitting "our own to stand on foreign ground," "interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe," "entangling our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice," subjecting "the will and policy" of this country "to the will and policy" of other countries. He negatives the reasoning as well as the fact of entangling our country in European politics. His argument answers all the plausible fallacies in favor of a crusade for pulling down despotisms or building up republics; and asserts clearly and distinctly our duty to act justly and impartially towards all nations, no matter what may be their form of governmenttowards all belligerents, no matter what may be their cause of quarrel. He sought to place his country in a position, where, neither entangled by foreign alliances, nor compromitted with foreign politics or interest, she might, on all occasions and in every emergency, freely adopt that policy which might be best calculated to protect her own rights, maintain her own interests, and promote her own happiness. If it be necessary to

secure these great ends, to interfere in the affairs of other nations, then it is not only our right but our duty to interfere. But that interference must not be as an intermeddler in the affairs of others, but as a party with rights to assert and interests to maintain.

The past and the present bear witness to the wisdom of this policy; and who are they that would overthrow it? They are those from other climes, who have never repaired to the "fountain of Washington's patriotism, and drinking deep at it, returned refreshed and invigorated by the draught." They have yet to learn his lessons of wisdom and profit by them. It is for Americans, then, to follow them. To use the language of the eloquent Crittenden, we may say with him, "Washington has taught us, and we have learned to govern ourselves. If the rest of the world have not yet learned that great lesson, how shall they teach us? Shall they undertake to expound to us the Farewell Address of our Washington, or to influence us to depart from the policy recommended by him? We are the teachers, and they have not or they will not learn; and yet they come to teach us. Be jealous of all foreign influence, and enter into entangling alliances with none. Cherish no particular partiality or prejudice for or against any people. Be just to all-impartial to all. It is folly to expect disinterested favors from any nation. That is not the relation or character of nations. Favor is a basis too uncertain upon which to place any steadfast or permanent relations. Justice and the interests of the parties is the only sound and substantial basis for national relations. So said General Washington-so he teaches. asks, 'Why quit our own, to stand on foreign ground?'. Go not abroad to mingle yourselves in the quarrels or wars of other nations. Take care to do them no wrong, but avoid the romantic notion of righting the wrongs of all the world, and resisting by arms the oppression of all."

And where is the American, who reveres the memory of the Father of his country, and cherishes the rich legacy he has left to his countrymen in his Farewell Address, that will not say, to continue the language of Mr. Crittenden, "I feel that my country is safer, while pursuing the policy of Washington, than in making any new experiments in politics, upon any new expositions of Washington's legacy and advice to the American people? I want to stand super antiquas vias-upon the old road that Washington travelled, and that every President, from Washington to Fillmore, has travelled. This policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries has been maintained and sanctified by all our great magistrates. I may be defective in what is called the spirit of the age,' for aught I know; but I acknowledge that I feel safer in this ancient and well-tried policy than in the novelties of the present day."

CHAPTER XXXIX.

POLICY OF AMERICANS FOR AMERICA.

EFFORTS were made by some of the States, soon after the adoption of the Constitution, to cause a distinction to be made between native and naturalized citizens, and to make the latter ineligible to certain offices. Massachusetts led off in a movement of this kind in 1798, which was responded to by the Virginia Legislature, in the passage of the following preamble and resolution, on the 16th of January, 1799. See Henning's Statutes at large, vol. ii. (new series), page 194:

"That the General Assembly nevertheless concurring in opinion with the Legislature of Massachusetts, that every constitutional barrier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign influence into our National Councils:

"Resolved, That the Constitution ought to be so amended that no foreigner who shall not have acquired rights under the Constitution and Laws, at the time of making this amendment, shall thereafter be eligible to the office of Senator and Representative in the Congress of the United States, nor to any office in the Judiciary or Executive Departments."

In New Hampshire, a committee appointed by the Legislature for the purpose, Nov. 24, 1798, reported a petition, praying Congress to alter the Constitution respecting the qualification for members of Congress, and recommending that none but natural-born citizens should be eligible to the Vice Presidency as well as the Presidency; and also to "exclude from a seat in either branch of Congress, any person who shall not have been actually naturalized at the time of making this amendment, and have been a citizen fourteen years at least at the time of his election."

The American policy adopted by the Continental Congress, which was dictated alike by reason and patriotism, in relation to the apointment of persons to represent the government in foreign countries, seems to have been followed after the establishment of the Federal Government, and never departed from except in the case of Albert Gallatin, who was a native of Switzerland, until President Pierce saw proper to outrage the feelings of the country, by appointing a Frenchman as Minister to Spain, a German to the Hague, a Scotchman te Naples, and an Irishman to one of the other European Courts. During the last term of Mr. Madison's administration, he appointed Mr. Gallatin one of the Commissioners to negotiate a peace with Great Britain; when his appointment was presented to the Senate for confirmation, it met with the opposition of General Smith, of Maryland, W. B. Giles, of Virginia, and Stone, of North Carolina, and

he was rejected by a vote of 18 to 17. He was afterwards appointed by Mr. Madison, Minister to France, and was barely confirmed, in the absence of the above named gentlemen. If any apology can be offered for Mr. Madison, for this innovation on the established policy of the government, it might be found in the fact that Mr. Gallatin came to the United States in 1781, or previous to the adoption of the present Constitution. He had long been in public life, and held high stations; was a man of much experience and had been well schooled in our political institutions. Other instances of hostility to the appointment of any others than native born to offices in the foreign service of the country might be given. Not more than a dozen years since, while Daniel Webster was Secretary of State, some of the editors of Democratic journals could hardly find language strong enough to express their indignation at him for appointing a foreigner to a clerkship in that department. The New York Evening Post, then as now edited by Wm. C. Bryant, published an article on the subject, which was copied into the Washington Globe, from which the following is an extract:

"The appointment of a man named Reynolds, an alien, by Mr. Webster, to a place in the Department of State, has astonished those who knew him in this city. *

The indecency of this appointment of an alien to a post in the department which has the charge over our foreign relations, will surprise those who have not, like us, ceased to be surprised at anything done by Mr. Webster."

After the adoption of the Constitution, in his first annual message to Congress, Washington said: "Various considerations render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens, should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization;" but, in regard to the employment of foreign-born citizens in the public service, he does not seem to have changed the views entertained by him during the Revolution, as may be seen by the following letters written by him while President, and found in Spark's publication :—

Philadelphia, Nov. 17, 1794. To John Adams, Vice President of the U. S. Dear Sir:-* * My opinion with respect to immigration is, that except of useful mechanics and some particular description of men and professions, there is no use of encouragement.

*

I am, etc.,

G. WASHINGTON.

Mt. Vernon, Jun. 20, 1790.

To J. Q. Adams, American Minister at Berlin-Sir- * * You know, my good sir, that it is not the policy of this government to employ foreigners when it can well be avoided, either in the civil or military walks of life. There is a species of self-importance in all foreign officers, that cannot be gratified without doing injustice to meritorious characters among our own countrymen, who conceive, and justly, where there is no great preponderance of experience or merit, that they are entitled to all the offices in the gift of their government. I am, etc., G. WASHINGTON.

[Vol. XI. p. 392.]