as he refers in his letter, by way of exposition of his meaning, to
the 8th Article, we have quoted above, he is to be understood
as speaking of persons belonging to the Roman Catholic church
who acknowledge a civil allegiance to a foreign power, since that
is the qualification which the Governor was aware the party he
alludes to, attached to its' refusal to vote in the case of Roman
Catholics.

Such unlawful combinations the Governor professes himself
powerless to suppress, but impliedly commends that endeavor to
the Legislature, which he infers has the power.

His warring against " a war of races and sects," has no point
but in its reference to the danger of limiting the privileges of for-
eigners, and withholding political trusts from those of the Catho-
lic faith, who acknowledge a foreign civil allegiance.

These, therefore, are the questions which the Governor's mes-
sage was intended to bring to the consideration of the Legisla-
ture, as the unconstitutional meditations of unlawful societies, the
proper subject for Legislative suppression. The Committee must
presume that they again misunderstand the Governor, when they
suppose him really to believe that there is any thing of an unlaw-
ful character in the freest discussion, whether secret or public,
of the policy of the naturalization laws, or that these laws may
not without violation of any principle of the Constitution, be mod-
ified or absolutely repealed at the pleasure of the Congress of the
United States, or that any State in the Union may not restrict the
privilege of voting and holding office to native born citizens,
whenever such State shall find it useful to the common weal to
do so. We are unwilling to believe that the Governor intended
to assert a doctrine so extravagant as this, and rather interpret his
language as meaning to rebuke those who have resolved in the
absence of any change or repeal of the naturalization laws, to vote
for none but native American citizens for places of trust in the
government, and yet it would seem to be scarcely less extrava-
gant to suppose that he regarded such a resolution, made by any
citizen or number of citizens, as inconsistent with the letter or
spirit of the Constitution of the United States, or of that of any
State or of any law of either. It is a dangerous assault upon
the privilege of the ballot, which we have been accustomed to ven-
erate as one of the safeguards of constitutional liberty, when the