a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle State between the two; and because it only gave him local privileges, which he was so far from being entitled to carry with him into another State, that he actually lost them by his removal from the State giving them. And, although the individual State might for the reasons assigned, have been willing to give up to Congress the power of naturalization, it would have been very dangerous and impolitic to put it in the power of a majority of the States in the Union, to prohibit emigration to the other States. The ninth section of the first article, and the fifth article of the Constitution, prove beyond contradiction that the Constitution SO far from intending to give Congress any other powers on this subject but that which it does expressly give to the body, "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," has expressly forbid such a power being given them, even by an amendment to the Constitution, prior to the year 1800; and, therefore, must prove also that this act is unconstitutional. But admitting for argument sake that Congress had a right to legislate on this subject, I conceive that the act which they have passed respecting it, is unconstitutional, from the nature of the provision contained in the act. If they had a right given them by the Constitution to legislate on this subject, it could be no greater right than was before vested in the

State governments; and the State laws which have been passed respecting it prior to the adoption of that Constitution, were unquestionably in force until Congress did legislate concerning it, and all the terms held out by those laws were binding on the United States, as to all who had emigrated here prior to the first act of legislation by Congress respecting it. If those State laws are examined, it will be found that every security which is given to a natural born citizen, for the enjoyment of his privileges. is also given to all alien friends for the enjoyment of theirs; and that those laws were so. far from intending to deprive persons in their situation, of any privilege which would prevent them from having as full and as fair trials as natural born citizens were entitled to, that they have in certain cases allowed them to claim privileges in our Courts, (such as that their jury should consist of half foreigners,) which were allowed to no other persons; and the federal Constitution also declares that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by jury, and the trial of all crimes shall be by jury. We find in these clauses no terms of restriction, which can confine their operation, or the privileges which they are intended to grant to any particular persons; on the contrary the expressions used in the Constitution are general.

Suppose an alien who had resided here many

years under the protection of the State, the laws and in the enjoyment of the privileges given him by those laws, without being naturalized under the laws of the United States, was to be prosecuted for treason, would he be If so,

tried by a jury? Certainly he would.

it would be because the law directs that this shall be the case; for there can be but one legal mode of trial, no discretionary power having been vested in any court to prescribe or alter the mode which shall be pursued. If this is the legal mode of trial, it is the privilege of the alien to have it followed, and in a prosecution for treason he could not be legally deprived of it. And if this would be his privilege in a prosecution for treason, although he had never been naturalized, the Constitution secures it to him equally in all other cases, where accusations are brought against him, because it declares, "that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of the counsel for his defence."

Considering this punishment of banishment as

a novelty in our law, it is for that reason also unconstitutional, because the Constitution declares that, "cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted."

And, although this law directs this punishment to be inflicted on alien friends only, if the principle is once admitted to be a Constitutional one, it will soon be extended to natives also; and then the best of our patriots, would under new fangled charges of sedition, be sent to Botany Bay, to lament the. general downfall of liberty, with the British patriots who have been already exiled there, under sentences given on similar charges.

This act is also unconstitutional, because the Constitution declares, "that the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in courts, to be established by Congress, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior," whereas this act gives the President power to judge and determine in this case; if that deserves to be called a judgment, which is given without a trial of any kind, and on a suspicion only.

If, then, the aliens who came to this country in consequence of the legal assurances they had received, that they should enjoy certain privileges; that they, in common with all others residing here, should be protected in the enjoyment of all their just privileges; that they should never forfeit them but in consequence of their own improper

conduct, and not then, until the charge against them had been established before a proper tribunal, after a full, fair, and legal investigation of that charge; I must be warranted in saying, that this law is unconstitutional, because it puts it in the power of the President to banish them, a punishment hitherto unknown to our laws, and now confined to them alone, and that upon suspicion only, and, without a previous trial of any kind. That this act is impolitic, no man can doubt, who knows the extent of the present uncultivated tracts of country, in the United States.

Until within a very short period, it has been universally admitted as a truth, that there was no line of policy so important to us, as the encouraging of emigration; as a proof of it, the Declaration of Independence states it as one of our charges against the tyrant, George III, "that he endeavored to prevent the population of these States, for that purpose obstructing the laws of naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage emigration hither and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands."

The true way to remove all danger from emigrants is to make it general. In religion, a general toleration prevents danger from any one sect, as all others would unite against one which should attempt to act improperly. So it would happen if emigrants from every quarter of Europe