sidential election of 1825, addressed a letter to that arch traitor, Francis P. Blair, who has by turns deserted every party or public man who has confided in him. He was at that time regarded by Mr. Clay as his unwavering friend. As Mr. Clay's political fortunes waned, however, so did Mr. Blair's friendship, until at length he sold out bag and baggage to Mr. Clay's enemies. Then it was that dark and mysterious hints began to be disseminated, that Mr. Clay had written a confidential letter to Blair, in which the whole bargain and intrigue was fully admitted. Blair countenanced the rumor, and so the enemies of Mr. Clay assumed the dark hint to be a black reality, and the whole country rang with the charge. At length, after many years, Blair was called upon, and was obliged to publish the letter in full. It turned out, as all will remember, to be utterly insignificant. Blair, however, witnessed the tremendous influence which the hint exercised upon the public mind to the prejudice of Mr. Clay; and hence, no doubt, the pertinacity with which the old Kitchen Cabinet, and its adjunct of the Louisville Journal, cling to the above story of the private conversation between Mr. Letcher and Mr. Buchanan, which we have before shown Mr. Letcher emphatically denies. I have thus called up from the records of the past the declarations of all Mr. Clay's biographers and friends, together with his own solemn assurances, all agreeing that Mr. Buchanan's conduct was noble, manly, and conelusive of Mr. Clay's innocence. I will now read to you the testimony of his son, James B. Clay, who surely cannot be suspected of doing or saying anything which would be calculated to injure the reputation of his noble father: upon the From J. B. Clay's Speech in Mason County, Ky, July 26, 1856. "I have fully and carefully studied the whole history of the bargain and intrigue slander, with the express purpose of ascertaining the truth or the falsity of the charge against Mr. Buchanan, and the result of my search has been, that as an honest man, I am bound to acquit him of having had any part in the original slander, or of having done my father any wrong, when he was summoned before the public as a testimony of the very person whom he is said to have wronged and slandered, and however little partisan editors and partisan orators may esteem the evidence of my father himself, it is abundantly sufficient for me, his son. The charge of bargain and intrigue was first made by Mr. Kremer, in an anonymous letter, subsequently reiterated by Carter Beverly, in his celebrated Fayetteville letter, and finally asserted by Gen. Jackson, who assumed the responsibility of it, and to prove its truth, summoned Mr. Buchanan before the public as his only witness. Mr. Buchanan promptly responded to the call for his testimony. Did he sustain Mr. Kremer, Carter Beverly and Gen. Jackson, the last of whom ummoned him? On the contrary, his evidence was clear and distinct, and fully exculpated Mr. Clay from the charges made against him. So Mr. Clay regarded it himself, and e, the person accused, testified, publicly and privately, that he considered Mr. Buchanan had done him no wrong.' I have thus far furnished the recorded testimony of Henry Clay himself, and of every single individual claiming to be his friend who has written upon the subject, from the moment the charge was first heralded to the world, up to the hour when James Buchanan was nominated for the Presidency. I will now direct your attention to the testimony furnished since that time by the recognised "Kitchen Cabinet," in conjunction with their ally of the Louisville Journal, who has recently, in addition to his other onerous duties, taken charge of the reputation of Gen. Andrew Jackson. A few weeks ago the Nashville Banner, the old home organ of the "Kitchen Cabinet,' paraded in its columns an extract of a letter written in 1845, by Gen. Jackson to Wm. B. Lewis, the old member of the Culinary Cabi net before referred to, of which the following is a copy : "Your observations with regard to Mr. Buchanan are correct. He showed a want of moral courage in the affair of the intrigue of Adams and Clay-did not do me justice in the expose he then made, and I am sure about that time did believe there was an understanding between Adams and Clay about the Presidency and Secretary of State. This I am sure of. But whether he viewed that there was any corruption in the case or not, I know not, but one thing I know, that he wished me to combat them with their own weapons-that was to let my friends say if I was elected I would make Mr. Clay Secretary of State. This to me appeared gross corruption, and I repelled it with that honest indignation as [which] I thought it deserved.” This much of the letter of Gen. Jackson had been published for months, when it was charged that an important portion had been suppressed. The Banner finally admitted the fact, and on the 15th inst. published the entire letter, from which we discover that the paragraph, instead of being terminated at the word " deserved," is continued in the following words : "Mr. Buchanan is a man of fine talents. and if he comes into the Department of State, will execute the duties with ability." Without pausing to comment upon the injustice of this suppression to Mr. Buchanan, I would ask, what does this letter prove? Why, first, that Gen. Jackson did, in all probility, to the end of his life, entertain his old prejudices against Henry Clay. What next does it establish? Clearly this, that it was the opinion of Gen. Jackson, notwithstanding Mr. Buchanan had at all times, orally and in writing, proclaimed Mr. Clay's innocence, yet that in the depths of his heart, he really and in all sincerity did believe Mr. Clay guilty, as charged. Mark you, Gen. Jackson does not say that Mr. Buchanan ever made the charge; on the contrary, he in effect complains that he did not do so, but he expresses the belief that Mr. Buchanan did nevertheless believe it true. For one, I do not doubt but that Gen. Jackson did honestly entertain the opinion of Mr. Clay's guilt. For myself, I entertained no doubt of his innocence. No two public men since the days of Washington, have filled so large a space in the public mind, or in the affections of the American people, as Jackson and Clay. For nearly a quarter of a century their great struggle convulsed the nation. Both are, and will be in all time to come, beloved and revered for the services they rendered to their country. Gen. Jackson's honor is not irreconcilable with Mr. Clay's innocence of the charge of bargain, and posterity will confirm the decision to which the unprejudiced public mind is fast arriving, as the passions engendered by the conflict are sul siding, that Jackson honestly believed Mr. Clay to be guilty of an offence, of which Mr. Clay was altogether innocent. And now, if there is a single sincere friend to the memory of Henry Clay, who is giving countenance, aid, and comfort, to the Kitchen Cabinet, in circulating this passage from the pen of the dying hero, let me ask him what he expects to accomplish by establishing-First, that almost upon his death-bed Gen. Jackson believed Mr. Clay guilty; and, secondly, that James Buchanan, whose recorded testimony has been in all times past, triumphantly adduced to establish Mr. Clay's innocence, did nevertheless, on his honor and his conscience, and in the secret recesses of his heart, believe Mr. Clay to be guilty as charged! Oh, if this is the token of your love, inay heaven protect the memory of Clay from the tender mercies of his friends! No, as the friends of Henry Clay, let us rather say that this ebullition of ill humor was extracted from him after his physical and mental energies had been prostrated by disease, by the insidious wiles of Mr. Clay's oldest, and bitterest, and most unrelenting enemy. That this is true, is fully established by a letter which I will read, addressed by W. B. Lewis, of the old Kitchen Cabinet, to Gen. Jackson, and to which the letter upon which I have been commenting is in reply: "Washington, Feb. 17, 1845. "My Dear General: Your two confidential and very interesting letters of the 4th and 5th inst., have been received entirely satisfied, and so is Mr. Blair, with the gentlemen who it is supposed will constitute the new Cabinet. Mr. Blair and myself both think it doubtful, however, whether Mr. Buchanan will accept upon the terms proposed (he should not be appointed unless he does), as he is full of the idea, as stated to you in my previous letters, of being a candidate for the succession. If he should not accept, I suppose the State Department will then be offered to Mr. Stevenson. With or without Mr. Buchanan, however, I think the Cabinet will be an able one, and fully entitled to, and disposed of as requested. I am happy to say that I am and doubtless will receive, the confidence of the nation. "The truth is, General, I have never had any very great respect for Mr. Buchanan, and of late I have even had less than formerly. He did not come out upon the subject of that 'bargain, intrigue and corruption' charge upon Messrs. Clay and Adams, in 1825, as he ought to have done, and as was expected of him. Besides, I have heard him say, not more than a month ago, that he did not and never had believed there was any truth in the charge. This occurred at Mr.'s dinner table, and the remarks were addressed taken place at the time and place when it did, I have said to Judge Mangum, the President of the Senate. But having nothing about it to any one." And now, gentlemen, behold the secret origin of the hatred of the Old Kitchen Cabinet for Mr. Buchanan, as furnished in the above letter, which it was never supposed would see the light of day. An impression prevailed that all of Gen. Jackson's papers had been consigned to Francis P. Blair, and it is well known that if such had been the destination of the letter I have just read, the light of day never would have shown upon this record of Mr. Buchanan's incorruptible integrity. See how naively, and how like a diplomat schooled in the atmosphere of the Kitchen Cabinet, he approaches his purpose. "The truth is, General, I have never had any very great respect for Mr. Buchanan." And why, Maj. Lewis? "Because he never stood up to us when we were denouncing Henry Clay!" On the contrary, he declared his belief in Mr. Clay's innocence-he did not come out on the question of bargain, intrigue, and corruption, as the Kitchen Cabinet expected of him! But," continues Maj. Lewis, "I have had less respect for him of late than formerly." And why? Because in a private conversation, at a private dinner table, I heard Mr. Buchanan solemnly declare that he never did believe Mr. Clay guilty! And yet strange perversion of reason and common sense-this letter of Gen. Jackson, thus elicited, is put forth by the Kitchen Cabinet, with a view of creating the impression upon Mr. Clay's old friends, that Mr. Buchanan was the originator and propagator of this very charge of bargain and corruption! Sirs, if you were to strike from the records of the past every syllable of testimony which has been adduced upon this subject, those two letters, the one the production of Wm. B. Lewis, the other the reply thereto of Gen. Jackson, would of themselves be sufficient to establish the fact that Mr. Buchanan had always and under every trying emergency done justice to Henry Clay. I have thus presented an array of testimony, gleaned from the musty records of the past to the present moment, ail or any part of which establishes conclusively, that the conduct of Mr. Buchanan towards Mr. Clay throughout that great struggle of a past generation, was characterized by that honorable and noble bearing for which, through life, he has been so eminently distinguished. I have brought together the single and accumulated evidence of George D. Prentice, Epes Sargeant, Calvin Colton, and Wm. H. Seward, the historians and biographers of Mr. Clay. I have added thereto the unanswerable evidence of his bosom friend and companion, R. P. Letcher, and of his own son, the present occupant of the old homestead of Ashland. I have arrayed before you even the declarations of Clay's bitterest foes of the old "Kitchen Cabinet,” and of Gen. Andrew Jackson. And I have crowned the pyramid of proofs by the testimony of Henry Clay himself, furnished upon many different occasions, all of which, without a solitary exception, triumphantly claim that Mr. Buchanan's testimony fully and unreservedly established Mr. Clay's innocence. In addition to all this, I now solemnly declare, that so far as I have been able to ascertain the facts, no friend to Henry Clay, from the time when the charge of "bargain” was first made in 1824, up to June, 1856, when Mr. Buchanan was nominated for the Presidency, ever assumed that Mr. B's testimony did not fully and completely exonerate Mr. Clay. States and foreign nations," Mr. David Wilmot, a representative from the state of Pennsylvania, moved the following amendment :Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted." This amendment was adopted in the Committee of the Whole by a vote, by tellers, of yeas 77, nays 58. There was no vote had on it in the House by yeas and nays, the bill having passed the body as it came from the Committee of the Whole, by a vote of yeas 87, nays 64. The bill was not voted on in the Senate, on account of a discussion as to Mr. Wilmot's amendment having engaged the time of the body until the hour arrived for an adjournment sine die. On the 8th of Feb., 1847, the three million bill being under consideration in the Committee of the whole on the state of the Union, Mr. Wilmot moved the following amendment: Sec. "And be it further enacted, That there shall be neither slavery or involuntary servitude in any territory on the continent of America, which shall hereafter be acquired by, or annexed to the United States, except for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided always, That any person escaping into such territory from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed out of said territory to the persons claiming his or her labor or service." The amendment was adopted in the Committee of the Whole. On the 15th of Feb., 1847, the question coming up in the House, upon agreeing to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, it was decided in the affirmative by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Abbott of Mass., John Quincy Adams of Mass., Anderson of N. Y., Arnold of R. I., Ashmun of Mass., Benton of N. Y., Blanchard of Pa., Brinkerhoff of O., Buffington of Pa., William W. Campbell of N. Y., John H. Campbell of Pa., Carroll of N. Y., Cathcart of Ind., Collamer of Vt., Collin of N. Y., Cranston of R. I., Culver of N. Y,, Cummins of O., Darragh of Pa., Delano of O., De Mott of N. Y., Dillingham of Vt., Dixon of Conn., Dunlap of Me., Edsall of N. J.. Ellsworth of N. Y., John H. Ewing of Pa., Faran of O., Foot of Vt., Foster of Pa.. Fries of O., Garvin of Pa., Giddings of O., Goodyear of N. Y., Gordon of N. Y., Grinnell of Mass., Grover of N. Y., Hall of Mass., Hamlin of Me., Hampton of N. J., Harper of O., Henley of Ind., Henry of Ill., Iloge of III., Elias B. Holmes of N. Y., Hough of N. Y., J. W. Houston of Del., Samuel D. Hubbard of Conn., Hudson of Mass., Hungerford of N. Y., Washington Hunt of N. Y., James B. Hunt of Mich., Joseph R. Ingersoll of Pa., Jenkins of N. Y., James II. Johnson of N. H., Kennedy of Ind., Daniel P. King of Mass., Preston King of N. Y., Lawrence of N. Y., Levin of Pa., Lewis of N. Y., Maclay of N. Y., McClelland of Mich., McCrate of Me., Joseph J. McDowell of O., McGaughey of Ind., McIlvaine of Pa., Marsh of Vt., Miller of N. Y., Moseley of N. Y., Moulton of N. II., Niven of N. Y., Norris of N. H., Perrill of O., Pettit of In 1., Pollock of Pa., Ramsey of Pa., Rathbun of N. Y., Ripley of N. Y., Ritter of Pa., Julius Rockwell of Mass., John A. Rockwell of Conn., Root of O., Runk of N. J.. Russell of N. Y., Sawtelle of Me., Scamnion Truman Smith of Conu., Albert Smith of N. Y., Thomas of Me., Schenck of O., Seaman of N. Y.. Severance of Me., Smith of Ind.. Caleb B. Smith of Ind., Starkweather of O., Stewart of Pa.. Strohm of Pa.. Sykes of N. J., Benj. Thompson O., Vance of O., Vinton of O., Wentworth of Ill., Wheaton of N. Y., White of N. Y., Williams of Me.. Wilmot of Pa., worth of N. Y., Wright of N. J., Yost of Pa.—115. Winthrop of Mass., Wood of N. Y., Woodruff of N. Y., Wood of Mass., James Thompson of Pa., Thurman of O., Tilden of NAYS.-Messrs. Stephen Adams of Miss., Atkinson of Va.. Barringer of N. C., Bayly of Va., Bedinger of Va.. Bell of Ky., Biggs of N. C., James Black of Pa., James A. Black of S. C.. Bowdon of Ala.. Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brocken brough of Fla., Brodhead of Pa., Milton Brown of Tenn.. William G. Brown of Va., Burt of S. C., J. G. Chapman of Md., Augustus A. Chapman of Md.. Reuben Chapman of Ala., Chase of Tenn., Chipman of Mich., Clarke of N. C., Cobb of Ga., Cocke of Tenn., Constable of Md., Cottrell of Ala., Crozier of Tenn., Cullom of Tenn., Cunningham of O., Daniel of N. C., Dargan of Ala., Garrett Davis of Ky., Dobbin of N. C., Dockery of N. C., Douglas of Ill., Dromgoole of Va., Ellett of Miss., Erdman of Pa., Edwin H. Ewing of Tenn.. Ficklin of Ill., Gentry of Tenn., Graham of N. C., Grider of Ky., Haralson of Ga., Harmanson of La., Hilliard of Ala., Isaac E. Holmes W. Hubard of Va., Hunter of Va., Charles J. Ingersoll of of S. C., Hopkins of Va., George S. Houston of Ala., Edmund Pa., Joseph Johnson of Va., Andrew Johnson of Tenn., G. W. Jones of Tenn., Seaborn Jones of Ga., Kaufman of Texas, Thomas Butler King of Ga., Leake of Va., La Sere of La., Ligon of Md., Long of Md., Lumpkin of Ga., McClean of Pa., McClernand of Ill., McDaniel of Mo., James McDowell of Va., McHenry of Ky., McKay of N. C., John P. Martin of Ky., Barclay Martin of Tenn., Morris of O., Morse of La., Newton of Ark., Owen of Ind., Parrish of O.. Payne of Ala.. Pendleton of Va., Perry of Md., Phelps of Mo., Pillsbury of Texas, Reid of O., Seddon of Va., A. D. Sims of S. C., Leonard II. Sims of Mo., Simpson of S. C., Stanton of Tenn., Stephens of Ga., St. of Ky., Jacob Thompson of Miss., Tibbatts of Ky.. Toombs John of O., Strong of N. Y., Thibodeaux of La., Thomasson of Ga., Towns of Ga., Tredway of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wick of Iud., Woodward of S. C., Young of Ky.—-106. of N. C., Relfe of Mo., Rhett of S. C., Roberts of Miss., Sawyer The Senate having passed a similar bill, which came before the House on the 3d of March, 1847, Mr. Wilmot moved to amend the same by adding his proviso thereto. The motion was rejected by yeas and nays as follows: YEAS. Messrs. Abbott of Mass., John Quincy Adams of Mass., Anderson of N. Y.. Arnold of R. I., Ashmun of Mass., Benton of N. Y., Brinkerhoff of O., William W. Campbell of N. Y., John II. Campbell of Pa., Carroll of N. Y., Cathcart of Ind., Collamer of Vt.. Collin of N. Y., Cranston of R. I., Cummins of O., Darragh of Pa., Delano of O., De Mott of N. Y., Dillingham of Vt., Dixon of Conn., Dunlap of Me., Ellsworth of N. Y., John II. Ewing of Pa., Foot of Vt., Fries of O., Giddings of O.. Gordon of N. Y., Grinnell of Mass., Grover of N. Y., Hale of Mass., Hamlin of Me., Hampton of N. J., Harper of O.. Henry of Ill., Elias B. Holmes of N. Y., Hough of N. Y., John W. Houston of Del., Samuel D. Hubington Hunt of N. Y., James B. Hunt of Mich., Joseph R. Ingersoll of Pa., Jenkins of N. Y. James II. Johnson of N. H., Kennedy of Ind., D. P. King of Mass., Preston King of N. Y., Lawrence of N. Y., Levin of Pa.. Lewis of N. Y., McClelland of Mich., Jos. J. McDowell of O., McGaughey of Ind,. McIlvaine of Pa., Marsh of Vt., Miller of N. Y., Mosely of N. Y., Moulton of N. II., Niven of N. Y., Norris of N. H., Perrill of O., Pettit of Ind., Pollock of Pa., Ramsey of Pa., Rathbun of N. Y., Ripley of N. Y., Ritter of Pa., Julius Rockwell of Mass., John A. Rockwell of Conn.. Root of O., Runk of N. J., Sawtelle of Me., Scammond of Me., Schenck of O., Seaman of N. Y., Severance of Me., Truman Smith of Conn., Caleb B. Smith of Iud., Starkweather of O., Stewart of Pa., Strohm of Pa., Sykes of N. J., Benjamin Thompson of Mass., Thurman of O., Vance of O., Vinton of O., Wentworth of Ill., Wheaton of N. Y., White of N. Y., Williams of Me., Wilmot of Pa., Winthrop of Mass., Wood of N. Y., Wright of N. J., Yost of Pa.-97. bard of Conn., Hudson of Mass.. Hungerford of N. Y., Wash NAYS.-Messrs. Stephen Adams of Miss., Atkinson of Va., Barringer of N. C., Bayly of Va.. Bedinger of Va., Bell of Ky., James Black of Pa.. James A. Black of S. C., Bowdon of Ala., Bowlin of Mo., Boyd of Ky., Brockenbrough of Fla., Brodhead of Pa.. M. Brown of Tenn., William G. Brown of Va., Burt of S. C., John G. Chapman of Md., Augustus A. Chapman of Va., Reuben Chapman of Ala., Chase of Tenn., Chipman of Mich., Cobb of Ga., Cocke of Tenn., Cottrell of Ala., Crozier of Tenn., Cullom of Tenn.. Cunningham of O., Daniel of N. C.. 1 argan of Ala., Garrett Davis of Ky.. Dockery of N. C.. Douglas of Ill., Edsall of N. J., Ellett of Miss., Erdman of Pa., Edwin H. Ewing of Tenn., Foster of Pa., Garvin of la. Gentry of Tenn., Giles of Md., Graham of N. C., Harmanson them sovereign and their wills the sources of constitutions and laws. of La.. Henley of Ind., Hilliard of Ala., Isaac E. Holmes of S. C.. Hopkins of Va., George S. Houston of Ala., Edmund W. Hubard of Va., Hunter of Va.. Charles J. Ingersoll of Pa., Joseph Johnson of Va., Andrew Johnson of Tenn., George W. Joues of Tenn., Seaborn Jones of Ga., Kaufman of Texas, Thomas B. King of Ga., Leake of Va., Leffler of Ia., La Sere of La., Ligon of Md., Long of Md., Lumpkin of Ga., McClean of Pa., McDaniel of Mo., McHenry of Ky., McKay of N. C., John P. Martin of Ky.. Barclay Martin of Tenn., Morris of O.. Morse of La., Newton of Ark., Owen of Ind., Parrish of O., Payne of Ala., Pendleton of Va., Perry of Md., Pillsbury of Texas, Reid of N. C., Relfe of Mo., Rhett of S. C., Roberts of Miss., Russell of N. Y., Sawyer of O., Seddon of Va., Alexander D. Sims of S. C., Leonard H. Sims of Mo.. Simpson of S. C.. Robert Smith of Ill., Stanton of Tenn., Strong of N. Y.. Thomasson of Ky., James Thompson of Pa., Jacob Thompson of Miss., Tibbatts of Ky., Towns of Ga., Tredway of Va., Trumbo of Ky., Wick of Ind., Woodward of S. C., Woodworth of N. Y., Young of Ky.—102. The Senate bill without the amendment of Mr. Wilmot became a law. This celebrated proviso has been moved by different Senators and Representatives to various bills since. The votes on it are seen under the caption of the various measures to amend which it has been moved. By act passed August 6, 1846, the people of Wisconsin territory were authorized to form a constitution and state government. By act of March 3, 1847, the constitution was recognised by Congress, and she was declared to be a state upon the express fundamental condition, that the said constitution be assented to by the qualified electors thereof, in the manner and at the times prescribed in the 20th article of said constitution. To LETTER OF, ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM. Only, near Onancock, Va., } If the Archbishop might say to King John, The sacred shield that covers all the land. -we may say that our American charters as free, as full, and as sovereign a consent" as was ever given by John to the bishops and the barons "at Runnimede, the field of freedom," to which it was said— "Britain's sons shall come, Shall tread where heroes and where patriots trod, In this country, at this time, does any man think anything? Would he think aloud? Would he speak anything? Would he write anything? IIis mind is free; his person is safe; his property is secure; his house is his castle; the spirit of the laws is his body-guard and his house-guard; the fate of one is the fate of all measured by the same common rule of right; his voice is heard and felt in the general suffrage of freemen; his trial is in open court, confronted by witnesses and accusers; his prison house has no secrets, and he has the judgment of his peers; and there is nought to make him afraid, so long as he The act of May 29, 1848, admitted Wis- the law. Would he propagate truth? Truth The act of May 29, 1848, admitted Wis-respects the rights of his equals in the eye of consin into the Union, and gave the assent of is free to combat error. Would he propagate Congress to certain resolutions of the conven- error? Error itself may stalk abroad and do tion of said state, relative to the proceeds of her mischief, and make night itself grow the public lands therein. darker, provided truth is left free to follow, however slowly, with her torches to light up Wise, Henry A. the wreck! Why, then, should any portion of the people desire to retire in secret, and by secret means to propagate a political thought, or word, or deed, by stealth? Why band together, exclusive of others, to do something which all may not know of, towards some political end? If it be good, why not make the good known? Why not think it, speak it, write it, act it out openly and aloud? Or, is it evil, which loveth darkness rather than light? When there is no necessity to justify a secret association for political ends, what else can justify it? A caucus may sit in seThe laws of the United States-federal and cret to consult on the general policy of a great state laws-declare and defend the liberties of public party. That may be necessary or conour people. They are free in every sense venient; but that even is reprehensible, if free in the sense of Magna Charta and beyond carried too far. But here is proposed a great Magna Charta; free by the surpassing fran-primary, national organization, in its incepchise of American charters, which makes tion-What? Nobody knows. To do what? Dear Sir: I now proceed to give you the reasons for the opinions I expressed in my letter of the 2d inst., as fully as my leisure will permit. I said that I did not "think that the present state of affairs in this country is such as to justify the formation, by the people, of any secret political society." years either of which is larger than the number of Lutheran, Catholics, Majority of free Protestant sects in Virginia, Or nearly Thus natives are to persons of foreign birth In the United States, as In Virginia, as The Protestant church accommodations are to the Catholic in Virginia, as In the United States, as 247,589 79,684 18.750 323,708 103,625 773,356 7,930 765,426 98 to 1 8 to 1 38 to 1 21 to 1 The number of Protestant churches is to the 31 to 1 140 to 1 number of Catholic In the United States, as Nobody knows. How organized? Nobody knows. Governed by whom? Nobody knows. How bound? By what rites? By what test oaths? With what limitations and restraints? Nobody, nobody knows! All we know is that persons of foreign birth and of Catholic faith are proscribed; and so are all others who Presbyterian, don't proscribe them at the polls. This is certainly against the spirit of Magna Charta. Such is our condition of freedom at home, showing no necessity for such a secret organization and its antagonism to the very basis of American rights. And our comparative native and Protestant strength at home repels the plea of such necessity still more. The statistics of immigration show that from 1820 to 1st January, 1853, inclusive, for 32 and more, 3,204,848 foreigners arrived in the United States, at the average rate of 100,151 per annum; that the number of persons of foreign birth now in the United States is 2,210,839; that the number of natives, whites, is 17,735,578, and of persons whose nativity is unknown," is 39,154. (Quere, by the by: What will " Know-Nothings" do with the unknown?") The number of natives to persons of foreign birth in the United States, is as 8 to 1, and the most of the latter, of course, are naturalized. In Virginia the whole number of white natives is 813,891, of persons born out of the state and in the United States, 57,502, making a total of natives of 871,393; and the number of persons born in foreign countries, 22,953. So that in Virginia the number of natives is to the number of persons born in foreign countries, nearly as 38 to 1. Again: The churches of the United States provide accommodations for 14,234,825 votaries; the Roman Catholics for but 667,823; number of votaries in the Protestant to the rumber in the Roman Catholic in the United States, as 21 to 1. In Virginia the whole number is 856,436, the Roman Catholics 7930, or 108 to 1. The number of churches in the United States is 38,061, of Catholic churches 1221; more than 31 to 1 are Protestant. In Virginia the number of churches is 2383, of Catholic churches is 17; more than 140 to 1. In Virginia. as The value of Protestant church property is to the In the United States, as - 9 to 1 22 to 1 There are four Protestant sects, each of which is larger than the Catholic, in the United States, and the aggregate of which exceeds the Catholic by a majority of 9,804,250 votaries, and, adding one sect smaller, by a majority of 10,447,848. each larger than the number of Catholics in In Virginia there are five Protestant sects, the state, and the aggregate of which exceeds the Catholics by a majority of 765,426 votaries. and of wealth, of natives and of Protestants, Now, what has such a majority of numbers to fear from such minorities of Catholics and naturalized citizens? What is the necessity organization against such a minority? I put for this master majority to resort to secret it fairly: Would they organize at all against the Catholics and naturalized citizens, if the Catholics and naturalized citizens were in the like majority of numbers and of wealth, or if majorities and minorities were reversed? To retire in secret with such a majority, does it not itself to the scrutiny of knowledge, and would confess to something which dares not subject have discussion Know-Nothing of its designs and operations and ends? Cannot the KnowNothings trust to the leading Protestant churches to defend themselves and the souls of all the saints, and sinners too, against the influence of Catholics? Can't they trust to the patriotism and fraternity of natives to guard the land against immigrants? In defence of the great American Protestant that the Pope, and all his priests combined, churches, I venture to say in their behalf, are not more zealous and watchful in their master's work, or in the work for the mastery, than are our Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, 4.343.579 Methodist, Lutheran, and Congregational clergy. They are, as a whole church militant, with their armor bright: they are zealous, they are jealous, they are watchful, they are organized, embodied, however divided by 9.804.250 sectarianism, yet banded together against Papacy, and learned and active, and politic 10,417,848 | too as any brotherhood of monks. They need |