The native American., 1838-01-20
THE NATIVE AMERICAN.
To the Editor of the Native .aaerica''.

had prepared the following article ior inc
tona Intelligencer but having observed IN an edi-
,or;., of few davs back, that Messrs Gales q
Seaton begged their friends to excuse i'eii iioin
continuing the discussion, think II expedient 70
insert in your columns the brief reJoinder wish
70 make to the Janus headed Marylander-" A
Natiye,v who does not seem exactly to know his
own mind, and is yet on the fence, rejecting,
no doubt, which is tire safest side to make his de-
scent easy. The article l send you, though hur-
ried and rough, flater myself touches sufficient
ly at large all the points Of my adversary's re-
marks, which, to say the best Of them, not We
ry remarkable for their strength or point.
BOSTON.
REPLY TO THE COMMUNICATIONS OF "a Ma
TIVE OF MARYLAND" HEADED "THE Ma
TIVE AMERICANS.
Messrs Editors:
Whilst somewhat surprised at finding an article
on subject which not many months back you
had editoriay forbidden entrance into your col
umns, / cannot but rejoice that by this apparent
infraction of your own promises, an opportunity
is given to a Native American to claim as kind
of right the insertion of rejoinder to matter ad
mitted by yourselves for publication. l rejoice,
because know you too well to imagine for mo-
ment that this temperate reply will not be insert
ed, and whilst thus grat6ed in being able to make
use of your widely circulated and able journal as
the vehicle of my thoughts and opinions, am sorry
that the writer Of ''The Native Americans" had
not entered more into the subject and thus afford
ed the Association he finds fault with, more field
for argument and discussion.
/ But to the point. I feel, Gentlemen, one small
difficulty in setting out in this paper tournament,
from the doubt entertain as to the creed and OBJ
whether to regard him friend or foe; for whilst
he differs from us Natives on some points, he
clearly agrees with us on others, as hope soon
to prove. shall, however, to split the difference,
meet him in both characters, and where he ap-
proves our doctrines praise him for his orthodoxy
and where we differ, attempt to conquer him by
argument and reason.
In the first place, we thank you Mr.. Marylan-
der, for the deserved compliment you pay to om
motives, and feel less loath to discuss point with
one just and honest in his declarations, and
am as willing as.yourself to appeal, as our Asso-
ciation ever has done, to g American mind,'' and
not exclusively to the American heart
Secondly, in reply to your assertion, that sno
complaint has been made that naturalized citizens
have exercised the elective franchise, beg leave
to remark that our reform does not pretend to be
"retrOspccfiUe,' " but 'prospcctipe'-th howe
yer much we may regret the unwise generosity OF
fathers in extending political privileges to ali-
ems, since as adopted citizens they have rights
which will not and dare not invade it is but in
accordance with the constitution of the land, as
well as of our own Association, that we do not
complain of any proper exercise Of political power
by those who have acquired such rights and i'm
munities. But to the second assertion, that we
complain 50 that aliens, before attaining the high
privilege, had been induced, or had presumed, to
use it, or attempt its use" why you yourself, Mr..
Marylander, agree with us in another part of your
lucubration, fully and conclusivey, and deprecate
in strong terms the abuses arising from the pre-
sent lax system Of legislation.
We agree also with the writer, in the opinion,
that the political movers of the wire'' should be
censured, and with his approval to sustain u.s. we
shall ever condemn corruption of the elective fran
chse, come it from home or abroad That Ma
tlves have encouraged Aliens to perjury at the hus-
tings, is unfortunately too true; but are we, the
majority, to be taunted by individual cases of vice
and corruption among those born OH the soil, when
as set of to the accusation, we can point you to
numberless cases of degraded RIGHTEOUSNESS and
disregard of moral obligation in Aliens claiming
admittance to our political family.
Thirdly, the Native of Maryland comes to ar
que the matter with us, and lays down the broad
proposition that Congress not having the right or
power to abolish the naturalization laws" our
objects are unconstitutional. Now, Gentlemen.
1t strikes mo that Congress haue the right and
power to exercise their discretion in this matter
for if it is unconstitutional to interfere with the
naturalization law, why was it that that BODY have
passed divers laws upon the subject? At first
seven years, as probation, were required d.-a6er
that the time was enlarged to fourteen wears. ,nd
1,et1 Ioc L.. -. r