FEDERAL WHIGS, ALIAS NATIVE AMERICANS.

Mr. Lincoln on Wednesday evening of last week, at a meeting of the whigs convened for the purpose of investigating the causes of the Philadelphia riots, said that he had not yet seen an account of this affair which he could rely upon as true—(I should like to know how he is to judge of the correctness of any report.) But if he is really without information on this subject, I refer him to a letter in the New York Tribune, (a leading whig paper) of May 15, ’44[1844], “from the pen of a protestant, on the spot, and whose love of truth and fairness is vouched for by the editors of that Journal;”—and I would here most respectfully ask Mr. Lincoln to use his influence with Mr. Francis to have that letter published for the purpose of correcting, what I must call, the slanderous misrepresentations of the Sangamo Journal. With the account given by the New York Tribune, I most cheerfully concur, as one intimately acquainted with the characters and political principles of all the actors therein named, and with the entire locale of the late disturbances. And as it does show that the Native Whigs commenced the aggression, and as the writer’s character for “truth and fairness” is endorsed by Mr. Greely, Mr. Lincoln cannot doubt it. Mr. Lincoln however was incorrect in stating that the Catholics demanded the exclusion of the Bible from the public schools: this they never asked for; all they wanted was the privilege, as it was undoubtedly their right, of introducing and using their own translation

Mr. Lincoln expressed the kindest, and most benevolent feelings towards foreigners; they were, I doubt not, the sincere and honest sentiments of his heart; but they were not those of his party. Whiggery has never avowed them. Mr. Lincoln also alleged that the whigs were as much the friends of foreigners as democrats; but he failed to substantiate it in a manner satisfactory to the foreigners who heard him. But if he will accept of my assistance, I will endeavor to show that they have been remarkably friendly to foreigners—after a way of their own.

The first great head of their party, George III, laid heavy restrictions upon the emigration of foreigners to these States. In 1794 Mr. Rufus King opposed the admission of Albert Gallatin to his seat in the United States Senate, because he was a foreigner. The same Rufus King, as I have observed before, five years afterwards while minister at the Court of St. James prevented a large number of distinguished Irishmen from coming here because they entertained republican principles. In 1798 they enacted an Alien law for purposes explained in my communication of last week. In 1814 the whig Hartford convention recommended that the Constitution be so amended as to declare all foreigners ineligible to a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives, or to hold any civil office under the authority of the United States. In 1838 Mr. Matthew L. Davis (uncle to Mr. Geo. T. M. Davis, editor of the Alton Telegraph) in one of his letters said— “Had I the power I would erect a gallows upon every wharf in the city of New York and hang every d—d[damned] Irishman as fast as they came on shore.” In the same year Mr. Aaron Clark, whig-native Mayor of New York, denied to foreigners admission within the corporate limits of that city. One of his coadjutors, Ald. Bruen, in a speech in the council room said— “if Irishmen assisted in obtaining our independence they have been well paid for it,”—and he “thanked God that the power of adopted citizens was at an end.—(Niles’ Register, vol. 54, p. 226.) In 1838 in the Senate of New York, Gen. Root spoke of foreigners as “paupers, strangers, sojourners, loafers and other cattle.” In the same year again, the Hon. David Russell, M. C.[Member of Congress] from New York made a report on foreign paupers and naturalization laws; which a writer in the Extra Globe speaks of as being a “complete digest of all the brains and bile, hypochondriaism and monomaniaism of the Native faction. (Congressional Report 1838.) Mr. Clay also, in Jan.[January] 1838, voted for Mr. Merrick’s resolution which excluded foreigners from settling upon the public lands—thus proving to the satisfaction of every reasonable man, that in his professions of friendship, six years before, he was hollow-hearted, treacherous and unprincipled. Who can doubt after all this that whigs are friends to foreigners? But to make it more clear to them let us view the conduct of a leading and distinguished democrat, as contrasted with that of a (not very) distinguished whig on the floor of our National Legislature on presenting a petition to reduce our foreign population to the condition of Russian serfs; in vulgar parlance, praying for the repeal of the naturalization laws. Some weeks since, Mr. Buchanan presented to the Senate a petition for the repeal of the existing naturalization laws. This, as a representative, he was bound to do—but, at the same time, he positively and solemnly declared to the Senate that he would oppose that petitition with all the energies with all the abilities, and with all the influence which he possessed. As I have not his remarks before me, I cannot quote his language, but this was speaking like a democrat, and he will be as good as his word.

Now mark the contrast—on the 6th of February, 1840 the Hon. John T. Stuart, the whig representative in Congress of what was then the 3d Congressional district in Illinois presented a petition to the House of Representatives asking that “body to repeal entirely the laws which now exist in regard to the naturalization of foreigners.” Well, on presenting that petition, did Mr. Stuart express his dissent? No; not he; but by his silence he sanctioned it. This was acting like a Whig.

J. R. D.