IN circumstances of extraordinary danger or alarm, ex­traordinary measures must be adopted: for ordinary means are incompetent for extraordinary occasions. Tho' I may not kill a man, while I am in no danger from him; yet if he be in the act to kill me, or I find him breaking into my house, in the night-time to rob me, I may put him to death. This results from the general law of self-defence. The sacred right of property will not forbid us, when a house is on fire, to pull down the adjacent buildings, to save the rest of the town.—Nor will the right of per­sonal liberty restrain the magistrate from committing to gaol a man who has actually done no mischief, if another is justly afraid of mischief being done by him. All these are extraordinary cases, to which the ordinary rules of pro­perty, or of personal liberty and safety, are not applicable: and the violation of those rules, in such cases, is, in true construction, no violation of them: for they were never meant to be applied to such cases, but only to the ordinary and peaceful state of society, and must yield to the great law of self-preservation and common welfare.

Nations, like individuals, are also bound, by the law of self-preservation, in times of danger, to adopt measures, which would be altogether unjustifiable in ordinary times. They may destroy an hostile army. If a hostile army be suffered to march through a neutral country, to attack a­nother nation, this nation may also enter that country, [Page 2]and oppose its enemy. If fields, gardens, houses, or towns, shelter its enemy from the full force of attack, they may be destroyed. If it be necessary to weaken the enemy by want, the corn, cattle, and all kinds of provision may be carried off, and the frontier made, as it were, a d [...]art. Such things are, in times of danger, justifiable by the law of self-defence; though, in ordinary times they would be unlawful and inhuman. On the same principles of self-defence, to prevent a dangerous communication of intelli­gence, or any measure unfavourable to its safety, when a nation is, or is likely to be, engaged in war, it may order any aliens, who may be suspected of promoting or favouring the designs of its enemy, to depart out of its territory.— This may be always, and has been generally done. And, unless where this right is regulated by treaty, this may be done at the discretion of the government under which the aliens reside. For every government must be sole judge of what is necessary to be done, for its own safety or advan­tage, within its own territory^*. And, even with respect to their own subjects, most governments have reserved a right, without being required to shew any cause, to commit to close custody any subject suspected as dangerous to the peace or welfare of the community. In England, this right is restrained by the writ of Habeas Corpus, which gives to every subject imprisoned an opportunity of requiring the cause of his commitment, and of obtaining, in all proper cases, his enlargement. When, therefore, the King of Britain's ministers find it necessary, for political reasons, to restrain the personal liberty of any subject, without shewing any cause for it, a law must be obtained from Parliament, suspending the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus; and Parliament may, whenever it pleases, pass such a law.

Conforming to the principles of liberty inherited from our ancestors, the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus is established, as a principle, in the government of this State and of the Union^†. And, though Congress or the Gen­eral [Page 3]Assembly may, respectively, like the British Parliament, by law, suspend this privilege; yet they cannot, like the British Parliament, pass such law whenever they please. For the Federal and State Constitutions have declared, that "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or in­vasion, the public safety may require it." So that, in this country, no citizen can be deprived of his liberty, with­out an avowed and sufficient cause, unless, in case of rebellion or invasion, the legislature think the public safe­ty requires it, and suspend the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus. But here the Constitution leaves aliens, as in other countries, to the protection of the general princi­ples of the law of nations, or of the particular provisions of treaties made between the United States, and the govern­ment whose subjects or citizens the aliens severally are.

Congress, in its last session, found the United States in extraordinary circumstances of peril, unequalled since their Independence was solemnly acknowledged. France, hav­ing, without any respect to the principles of liberty, the law of nations, or the rights of individuals, plundered the land to the utmost reach of her grasp; extended the same unprincipled rapacity to the ocean, and plundered indiscrim­inately friends and foes. Of all nations and governments none had with more affection regarded the revolution of France, none had more assiduously cultivated her friendship, none had more scrupulously observed the rules of neutral­ity, or, consistently with those rules, partially indulged the views of France; than the nation and government of the United States. And if neutrality, justice, affection, and gratitude, could have exempted any government and nation from injury from France, the nation and government of the United States might justly have claimed this exemption. But what weight has justice, with a government without principle, without religion, and without an interest in the prosperity of the people over which it is placed! If the French government had regarded only the interest of France, it would have cultivated the affections of America. But the French government, like the false mother indiffer­ent [Page 4]to the life of the child, regarded not the interest of the French nation, but the indulgence of its own passions, and the triumph of its own pride, which, exalted by success, beyond the bounds of moderation, sought to humble all authorities in universal prostration at its feet. She commenced and prosecuted spoliations of our trade to an extent that threatened its ruin: and the dismal effects are displayed in the bankruptcies of our merchants, and the languishing state of our commerce and agriculture. The American government patiently and peacefully sought redress by negotiation; but the presumption and rapacity of France rose in proportion to the patience and peace of America; and, with unexampled insolence, she repeatedly drove away our ambassadors sent to claim only an exemp­tion from injury, and apayment of just debts; required us, by an ignominious tribute and bribe, to double the damage we had suffered; and threatened us, if we refused this, with war and ravage on our coasts, burning of our towns, and even dissolution as a nation.

What could have swelled the insolence of France to this pitch of extravagance? Had we done her any injury? She can shew none. Was it her great success, and mighty power? We are at a distance to defy her power. How then dared she thus to insult and injure us? She accounted us a divided people, split into factions, among which she had zealous partizans. In this state, she knew, we must be an easy prey: in this state, she knew, we could make no resistance. And, while we remained in this state, she might safely persist in her proud oppression: and she d [...] so. For men, without regard to religion and justice, will do whatever they can do: and nothing but resistance and force will restrain them from injuring others. France had long known and promoted divisions and factions among us. And had sent spies into all parts of our country, to procure information of our circumstances and opinions.— These travelled through America, under various pretexts, of curiosity, of philosophy, or of avoiding tyranny or per­secution at home. This Talleyrand, who demanded the bribe and loan from our ambassadors, travelled through America as an emigrant; and, after his return to France, [Page 5]was appointed minister of foreign affairs. From its spies and other agents here, the French government received constant intelligence of the sentiments of the citizens, and the measures of the government of America; and was thus prepared to promote its own views, and defeat ours.

If ever there was a time in which it was proper for any government, to order aliens to depart out of its territory, it was proper for the American government to do so at this time. In other countries, this would have been done by a proclamation of the Executive. This was a new case under the American Constitution, and proper for the in­terference of the legislature.—Congress, therefore, passed a law^*, the substance of which, in its own words, I shall here state,—

"It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to order all such aliens, as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reason­able grounds to suspect, are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time, as shall be expressed in such order.—Which order shall be served on such alien, by delivering him a copy thereof, or leav­ing the same at his usual abode, and be returned to the office of the secretary of state, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed."

But "if any alien so ordered to depart shall prove, to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such persons as the President shall direct, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise, from suffering him to reside therein, the President may grant a licence to such alien to remain within the United States, for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he shall designate.— And the President may also require of such alien to enter into bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties, to the satisfaction of the person authorized by the President to take the same, condi­tioned for the good behaviour of such alien during his residence in the United States, and for not violating his licence; which [Page 6]licence the President may revoke whenever he shall think proper.

"And if any alien, sc [...]rdered to depart, shall be found at large within the United States, after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having a licence from the President to reside therein; or having obtained such licence, shall not have conformed thereto; every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States.

This law further enacts, "That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever be may deem it necessary for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof any alien who may be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested, and sent out of the United States, such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom, and shall not have obtained a licence as aforesaid, in all cases, where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien, so removed, or sent out of the United States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States; such alien, on convic­tion thereof, shall be imprisoned as long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require."

But it is provided, "That it shall be lawful for any alien, who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, by vritue of this act, to take with him such part of his goods, chattles, or other property, as he may find conve­nient; and all property left in the United States by any alien who may be removed, as aforesaid, shall be subject to his disposal."

One would have thought, that a law so reasonable in it­self, so conformable to the law of nations, and the practice of all governments, and, while it is altogether consistent with the Constitution, so necessary to the safety and defence of the United States; if it did not obtain all praise, would, at loast, have escaped all censure. Yet this law was not only vehemently opposed in Congress; but, even since it was passed, has been reprobated by ignorant, or wicked and seditious men; and, for their vile and selfish purposes [Page 7]has been held up to detestation, as unconstitutional and ty­rannical. In many parts of the Union, it has been used as a pretext and instrument, to inflame the passions of the people, disturb the peace of the country, destroy respect for the laws, and relax the authority of the government; and, in one State, to produce such a commotion, as threatens an insurrection, if not a separation from the Union.

It is proper for men in all stations, and peculiarly in my station, to endeavour to counteract such mischievous pas­sions, and miserable consequences. With this view, I shall examine the objections, which I have observed to have been offered against this law solemnly established by the authority of the United States.

1. It is objected to this law, that it is contrary to the express words of the Constitution.

We perhaps ought not to wonder, that this objection is made. Added to the want of sense and knowledge in some or the objectors, of modesty in most of them, and the gen­eral disposition, from prejudices excited and nourished by slander, to believe every act of administration wrong; the habit of opposition prepares their minds to make and re­ceive it. For a habit of opposing every thing makes dreadful havoc, not only on the feelings and conscience, but on the understanding itself.

This objection is made on two grounds.

The first is, that the Constitution declares, that "the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall no [...] be prohibited by Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person^§." From this it is inferred, that, as Congress can­not yet prohibit such migration or importation, they canno [...] remove the persons, who have migrated or been imported for this, it is said, would be, in effect, prohibiting the mi­gration or importation.

It is well known, that the prohibition in view, respected only slaves. This was universally understood, at the time [Page 8]of the publication of the Constitution, during its discussion, and ever since. All the members of the Convention know this. The Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, who was a member of the Convention, did, in the argument on this bill, in a committee of that house, expressly declare this to have been the avowed sense of the Convention, on this clause of the Constitution; and no man, of any knowledge of the subject, has ever seriously entertained a doubt of this. The Convention was so averse to the traffic in human beings, that they would not directly name slaves, slavery, or the slave-trade. The southern members thought their States not yet prepared for the prohibition of this traffic. The other members agreed to give those States twenty years to think of it. In that space, they would probably abolish the slave-trade themselves; or, after that, Congress might do it. In the mean time, the Convention would not give slavery the sanction of being expressly named. Instead of the word slaves, the word persons was used; and, to correspond with this, the word migration, and explanatory of this, the word importation, as more properly applicable to slaves, or per­sons considered, not as aliens, but as property. Or consi­dering this prohibition as respecting only slaves, we find another reason for this construction, in the power reserved to Congress "to impose a tax on such importation;" while no such power is expressed as to migration; and thus for construing those words as meaning a different manner of introducing slaves. Congress is restrained from prohi­biting their importation by sea, or their migration by land, into any of the States; but may say a duty on their first. importation, not on any subsequent migration; the duty in that case being presumed to have been paid before.— While the prejudices or necessities of the State then existing were thus indulged; the Convention confined this indul­gence to them, and did not restrain Congress from prohi­biting the migration or importation of slaves into any State thereafter to be established; but left them to the discretion of Congress. Whatever reason may be assigned for it, this is certain, that it was the plain meaning of [...] Con­vention, and has been the uniform construction of the [Page 9]Constitution, that the restraint laid on Congress, by this clause of the Constitution, applies only to the prohibition of introducing slaves.

But supposing this not the true construction of this clause of the Constitution, and supposing that Congress is thereby restrained from prohibiting the migration or importation of any aliens whatever; it does not follow, as a just con­sequence from this, that Congress can make no law to remove such aliens. A rule will not be extended beyond the strict words, if this extension will promote mischief; especially if it endanger the safety of the people, which is the supreme law. I would ask whether this restraint, supposing it to respect aliens generally, must not be limited to times of peace; and whether it must govern in ex­traordinary times of danger, or must then give way to the great rule of self-defence and general welfare? Let us try this construction by the rules of reasoning. It is a rule, that, if an argument prove too much, it is unsound.— Suppose a body of Frenchmen to arrive at Boston, with arms and ammunition, which men may carry for their own defence, and tell the people there, that they are per­sons who have migrated, to settle peaceably in the country. Another body of such emigrants, with the same tale in their mouths, arrives at New-York; another, at Philadelphia; another, at Norfolk; and another, at Charleston. Must the State Legislatures of Massachusetts, of New-York, o [...] Pennsylvania, of Virginia, and of S. Carolina, be con­vened, to order those several bodies of emigrants to depart out of their several States? Well; the Boston emigrant march peaceably into Connecticut; and the South Caro­lina emigrants into North Carolina; and so of the others till they all meet peaceably in Maryland; and then declare that they are come, by order of the Directory, to settle there, and to prevail on the President and Congress, to give the tribute demanded by the Directory. All this they may do; and yet, if Congress had proceeded to make a law to prevent their landing, or effect their rem [...]l, we should be told, that Congress cannot prohibit the migration o [...] importation of aliens! This seems a strange absurdity. And yet the absurdity of this case is only altered, it is no [Page 10]removed, by substituting the case on which Congress has acted. Spies are, at all times dangerous; they are generally not less, and they are often more dangerous, than open enemies; and those who corrupt our opinions, and pervert our duties, are the most dangerous of all enemies. A [...] power to make such law is clearly necessary, for the general defence and welfare of the United States; the care of which is properly deposited with the Government of the United States.

For "the People of the United States, in order to form [...] more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their po­sterity^*"; established a Constitution, by which objects of general concern to the nation are properly submitted to the management of the General Government. And this Go­vernment is expressly bound to "guaranty to every state in the union a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion and domestic vio­lence^†"; and has "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department of office thereof^‡" The restraint or expulsion of aliens, in times of war or danger, has, by almost all nations, been considered as a necessary measure of protection and self-defence: and, from the nature of the case, the law of nations, and the general constitutional authority of the government, I cannot per­mit myself to doubt, that a power to restrain or expel them necessarily exists in the government of the United States, as in every government charged with the general welfare the common defence, and protection against inva­sion and domestic violence. If this be a necessary and proper mean of accomplishing any object, with which [...]he government of the United States is charged; the pow­er of exerting it is clearly vested in that government. The difficulty of obtaining the universal consent of the individual States to any measure, however salutary, was [Page 11]sufficiently experienced, as the great evil to be remedied by the Constitution. And a construction of this Constitu­tion, were it admissible, will not be favoured, which would leave the general defence of the nation at hazard, on the caprice of a single State.

But this law is said to be contrary to the express words of the Constitution, because the Constitution declares, that "the trial of all crimes shall be by jury."^*

There is one general observation, which applies to all the objections to this law drawn from the Constitution. It is this; that aliens are not pa [...]ties to this instrument, and, therefore, can claim no benefit under it, unless they are expressly named. The Constitution is made by "the people of the United States."^† And for whose benefit? For the benefit of the people of the United States surely. It is the charter of the privileges of the citizens of the United States, to which none but citizens of the United States can thereby claim title. The people of the United States therein limit the power of their government over themselves; but lay no restraint on the power of their go­vernment over aliens. This was not in their view at all. Until aliens become citizens, they are in the power of the ordinary legislature. The legislature may receive them, and admit them to become citizens; or may reject them, or remove them, before they become citizens. When they come here, they know, that they come at the discre­tion of the ordinary legislature, can claim no privileges as citizens, and have no reason to complain, if this legis­lature remove them, before they become citizens. The legislature may refuse to admit them to become citizens, by enacting, that citizenship shall be acquired only by birth. If the legislature receive them, retain them, and admit them to become citizens; then, and not before, have they a right to claim the benefit of the Constitution made for citizens. This is clear reasoning. The citizens, who made the Constitution, bargained for themselves, and all who, after them, should become citizens; but did not bargain for aliens. Would an American citizen, removing into France, claim, as a citizen, the benefit of the French [Page 12]Constitution, against an act of the legislature? Would a man received, under the laws of hospitality, into the house of another, tell the master of the house, when he orders him to depart, because he suspects him of ill designs; "I will not go, you have a lease of this house, you have admit­ted me, I will continue in it under your lease?" Aliens are tenants at will, and may be removed at the discretion of the owner. When they become citizens, they become tenants on fixed terms, and cannot be removed, but ac­cording to those terms: they are freeholders, and cannot be deprived of their rights, but on a known forfeiture regularly ascertained.

If, therefore, aliens have no right to remain, it is no deprivation of right to order them to depart; and, if it be no deprivation of right, it can be no punishment; and, if it be no punishment, this order may be made, without any crime, on the mere suspicion or arbitrary will of the legislature, which, with respect to them, is sovereign, as, with respect to citizens, the Constitution is sovereign. Even a citizen may be deprived of his right to personal liberty, without any actual crime, on the mere suspicion of another, on which a magistrate deems it necessary to require security of the peace. So may an alien be depri­ved of our indulgence to remain among us, on the mere suspicion of the legislature, that his residence here is dan­gerous to the public peace. This, being no deprivation of right, but a mere denial of a favour; is no punishment, but a mere exercise of the right of self-defence, which the government of the United States, like that of every other na­tion, may exert at discretion, without any crime or any trial.

All that is said of a right to trial by jury is out of the question. That refers to an investigation of offences pre­vious to punishment, or a deprivation of a right.—Here there is no offence, but a suspicion, alledged: and, as, even in the case of a citizen, he may be imprisoned, for the security of an individual; so, in the case of an alien, he may be removed, for the security of the nation. And, in this, there is no punishment, because there is no depriva­tion of a right. It is neither an injury nor a punishment; it is a measure of self-defence, inherent in every owner [Page 13]of a house, to turn out of his house a stranger, whom he does not choose to entertain longer.

I will again put the case of a stranger admitted, under the laws of hospitality, into a house. The owner thinks he has reason to suspect, that this stranger intends to rob or murder him; or to assist a gang of thieves, whom he suspects of this intention. He tells the stranger, that he has such suspicion; and desires him to depart. If the stranger say, "Your suspicions are wrong, you must prove them, carry me before a magistrate, and let me be tried and convicted, before you take upon you to turn me out of your house;" would this be an answer? Shall the master of the house, in order to give the stranger the privilege of being tried and convicted, give him and his associates an opportunity of accomplishing the wicked purposes suspect­ed? Suppose the master of the house reply, "I am not well acquainted with your character, but, whatever it be. I have a right to turn you out; go to my steward, and, if you can so explain yourself to him, as that he choose to permit you to re­main, I agree; but, if he order you to depart, you must go;" would not this be reasonable? Would this be any punish­ment of the stranger? No; it is the right of self-defence. But, as a right to exercise this power will not authorise the master of the house wantonly to beat the stranger, or violently to take his money from him; so a right, to re­move an alien from our territory, does not authorise a power to punish him without a trial by jury.

That aliens, before they can be punished, or deprived of any right, for an offence, must be tried by a jury, results not from the express words of the Constitution, which refer not to them, but to citizens. It results from this, that our Courts know no other mode of trial, and have no authority to adopt any other.

2. But, if this law should not be contrary to the express words, it is objected, that it is contrary to the principles, of the Constitution, which distributes the legislative, judi­cial, and executive powers into three departments; while this law confounds them all in the Executive; and this, it is said, establishes despotism.

[Page 14] I might rest the answer to this objection, of a confu­sion and accumulation of powers being a violation of the Constitution, on the observation already made, that this law operates upon none, for whose benefit the Constitution was established, or whom the Constitution was intended to affect; and cannot, therefore, be a violation of the Constitution. It operates only on aliens. No citizen has any despotism to fear from this law. Any citizen may, notwithstanding this law, plot as many "treasons, strata­gems, and spoils," as he pleases; and, if he can escape the judiciary, may bid the President defiance.

But, the fact is, there is no confusion of powers in this law, but such as convenience or necessity, consistently with the principles of the Constitution, introduces into many other laws, to which no man would dream of objecting.

The Constitution has not established, and no human constitution can establish, a perfect, but only a modified, separation of powers. What work of Man is perfect?— It is very common, and it is convenient and necessary, for the legislature to pass a law fixing certain principles, and leaving it to some other part of the administration, the ex­ecutive or judiciary, to ascertain the cases to which such principles shall be applied, to detail the minute modifica­tions, which no foresight can suggest, and experience alone can disclose; or to pass a law, which shall operate on a certain contingency, leaving it to some other part of the administration, to declare when this contingency occurs, and the law begins to operate. This lessens not the authority of the legislature; for such discretion cannot be exercised by any other part of the administration, without the authority of the legislature; may be restrained, correc­ted, or suppressed, whenever the legislature thinks fit; and is, therefore, altogether under the control of the legislature. The legislature, therefore, only determines something, which it is necessary for them to determine; and leaves it to some other part of the administration, as cases shall occur, to determine something else respecting this, which the limited powers of man, the principles of just discrimi­nation, and public convenience, render it impossible for them to determine. Were the legislature to take upon [Page 15]them to modify their laws to every case, they must be constantly in session; and human capacity would render it impossible for any one body of men, to discharge their task. Therefore, the legislature wisely contents itself with estab­lishing general rules, and leaves, to some other part of the administration, authority to ascertain the modifications and exceptions. Thus the legislative power determines, that certain actions shall be punished; but, as there may be degrees of such actions, more or less aggravated, leaves it to the judiciary to ascertain the degree of punishment; and, as, in some cases, all punishment may be dispensed with, leaves it to the executive to pardon, at his discretion. All this is necessary for the sake of humanity, justice, and public convenience; and it seems absurd to say, that the principles of the Constitution are thereby violated.

On such principles this Alien Act is framed. It estab­lishes an authority in the President "To order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States." But, as a general exertion of this authority may not be necessary, it provides, "That if any alien, so ordered to depart, shall prove, to the satisfaction of the President, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise; from suffering such alien to reside therein; the President may grant a licence to such alien to remain within the United States." What more prudent or proper method could the legisla­ture have adopted? While they were in session, and a war was in view; must they wait, till there was a declared war, or an actual invasion, before they established the prin­ciple, that aliens might be removed, in a certain manner? When they established this principle, were they obliged to establish it without any exception? Or must they sit or be convened, to decide on every case proper as an ex­ception? This would seem, if not absurd and impractica­ble, at least, very inconvenient. Surely the legislature die better. Congress has, by this law, declared, that aliens are removeable; just as that offenders are punishable; and has said, that the President may choose, out of all, what aliens shall be removed, just as he may choose out of all what offenders shall be punished. The President may tell [Page 16]any alien, "I will permit or license you to remain; as he may tell any offender, "I will pardon you." And, in doing this, Congress has violated no principle of the Con­stitution.

3. Lest this law, when' tried by the words, and by the principles, of the Constitution, should appear unexcep­tionable, and escape censure; it has been endeavoured to excite a clamour against it, by drawing a melting picture of the distress of aliens, who may thus be ordered to de­part out of the country, at the will of one man.

This is all work of imagination. It cannot be denied, that there is a right in the United States, as in every other nation, to remove aliens; and that there may be cases, in which the safety of the nation will render it necessary to exert this right.—And, I think, it cannot be denied, that, in the last session of Congress, the United States were, of any nation ever was, in a condition that required it, as it solemn duty, to exert this right. The rights and safety of individuals must never be put into competition with the rights and safety of a nation. Aliens have but an imper­fect right, the right of hospitality and civility, to remain in any nation, to which they are not bound to permanent allegiance. And if the rulers of the nation, in which they have a temporary indulgence to reside, suspect any danger to the nation, from their residence, and order them to depart, they have no right to remain. The United States were threatened with danger from France, and by the same means which France has uniformly adopted, to bring danger and destruction on other countries; intestine divisions. Aliens having the least interest in the prosperity of this country, and owing the least duty, only a temporary [...]uty, to it, were the most likely to yield themselves the [...]eadiest agents of France. And the little respect, which, [...]n this country, is paid to the rights of election, gives them, here, an opportunity of mischief, which they could, [...]n no other country, enjoy. Though some of our own [...]itizenamay be base enough to yield themselves as instru­ments of a foreign power, the Government of the United States has no [...]uthority to remove them. But it has, like [...]e [...]y other government, in time of danger, authority to [Page 17]expel aliens; and the right and duty of common defence and protection against invasion and domestic violence required, that this right of expulsion should be exerted Nor was the exertion of this right proper only against French aliens. The principles professed by the govern­ment of France have excited through the world an en­thusiasm, which nothing, but experience of their destructive consequences, can correct. There is, in all nations, [...] number of warm speculative men, combined together to promote the diffusion and prevalence of this theoretic liberty. Many of these, either expelled or flying from their own country, reside in the United States; and are here, it seems, systematically united, not in support of the principles of our government, but, of an imaginary poli­tical millennium, a government which never existed, and while man remains as he is, never can exist; in support of the fanciful principles, which, in the progress of its revo­lution to anarchy and despotism, have brought so much misery on France, and on every country where the art and arms of France have prevailed. These dogmatists invincible by reason or experience, united in princples however dispersed in place, as a nation of themselves, ar [...] enemies to all governments; and, like the preachers of new, religion, think all other rights and duties ought t [...] yield to the great duty of establishing their principles To this duty, they will sacrifice all other considerations and, nothing, however cruel or destructive, that can pro­mote this, will, in their eyes, be a crime. Such men will be dangerous to any country, in which they reside. Insti­gated by the zeal of proselytism, the apparent benevolence in their principles will give them an irresistible influence on the young and unexperienced. And no country, in which such men prevail, can hope for safety againsts the arts of France. Nor can any Frenchman more earnest [...] promote the views and success of France, than any nativ [...] of any country, who, by adopting her principles, ha [...] brought himself within the pale of this new political church. Insensible of error, and deaf to instruction, the are borne forward with the courage of conscience, th [...] ardour of inspiration, and the obstinacy of impenitence [Page 18]by an impetuous enthusiasm, [...]o all the mischiefs, which guilt could effect.—And, wherever there is no hope of conversion, while we are in danger, the exertion of the [...]ight of expulsion becomes a duty, which the rulers owe to the safety of the nation.

If there may be cases of humanity, which may make this exertion, where not absolutely necessary, favour of seve­rity; the question is, with whom the power of indulgence nay be best lodged, so as best to accomplish the great object, public safety, and most to favour humanity.

As a measure of national defence, this discretion, of [...]x [...]lsion or indulgence, seems properly vested in the branch of the government peculiarly charged with the direction of the executive powers, and of our foreign elations. There is in it a mixture of external policy, and of the law of nations, that justifies this disposition.

It was never known, that a numerous and complex body [...]f men had a more tender conscience, than an uptight individual. Where many do wrong, each can cast the ensure from himself upon others. But a responsible indi­vidual must take all the burden of the blame. Any man, with any claim to tenderness, would rather risk the success [...]f that claim to an impartial and humane individual, than [...]o a numerous body of men.

It remains, therefore, only to determine, whether the [...]haracter of the President be such, as to render him a [...]roper depositary of this power of indulgence. Ha [...] the President no feelings of humanity? Is a life of piety and [...]stice no ground of confidence? The character of the President is well known. And no alien, who meddles not with politics and plots, who favours not the views of our [...]nemies, and injures not the peace, safety, or defence, of [...]he country, has any thing to fear from this law. Even with respect to dangerous aliens, Congress has provided, [...]hat the rights of humanity (so far as, consistently with the [...]preme law, the safety of the people, they can) shall be [...]cured to them. For it is enacted, that it shall be lawful [...]or any alien, who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, to take with him his property; or, if he leave any of it, [...] at it shall remain subject to his order and disposal.

[Page 19] But is all our pity to be extended to strangers, a [...] shall we extend no care to ourselves, our wives, and [...] children? The French have threatened us with pillag [...] plunder, and massacre. Such threats they have carried in execution in other countries. They have threatened with a party among ourselves, which will promote the views. Some of them, it is said, have told us, that [...] dare not resent their injuries; for there are Frenchm [...] enow among us, to burn our cities, and cut our throa [...] And, it seems, we dare not remove those gentle lamb Gracious Heaven! are we an independent nation, a dare we not do this? Shall our Constitution, intended a shield to defend, become a sword to wound us? Ha [...] we made a Contribution, to restrain our administrati [...] from oppressing [...]selves, and so restrain it, as to sub [...] our cities to alien [...]ondiaries, and our throats to ali [...] assassins?

Vain is all our defence against our enemies without, we guard not against enemies within If we leave Achan in the camp, can we hope for victory? If we lea [...] a band of traitors in the fort, can we hope to defend i [...] If we suffer French spies to stroll through our cities, [...] harbours, our shores, and our country, and give informa­tion of all our strength, and all our weakness; how [...] we be guarded against attack? If we suffer them to main here, to give information of every ship that sails, t [...] it may fall into the hands of French privateers; how [...] we protect our trade? If we suffer French agents remain here, to corrupt the minds of our citizens, [...] printers, and our officers, to pry into our counc [...] purchase our arms and ammunition, influence our opini [...] and elections, render our people careless, and our adm [...] ­stration weak; what have we to expect, but all the h [...] ­rors of a French invasion? What have we to expect, to see our houses in flames, and our families in blood

I trust in God, that this will not happen. I trust, measures adopted by our administration, with cordial un among ourselves, will preserve us from this calamity. B [...] if it should come upon us, we will curse those, who h [...] lulled us with a sweet song of security, and gentle fratern [...] [Page 20]of the French; who, professing motives of oeconomy, have [...]ndenvo [...]ed to [...] up the hands of the administration from effectual measures of defence; and, under the pretence of v [...] ­ [...]ing and seeking peace, do, in the surest manner, invite war,

We are, a [...] present, in a perilous state, and it is to be eared, on the brink of some calamity. Menaced with [...]he resentment of a foreign nation, we are distracted among ourselves. In proportion to our dissentions, will [...]e our danger; and our safety lies in love to our Constitu­tion, and confidence in our administration. If the people will cordially unite in supporting active measures of the administration, France will change her tone, from resent­ [...]ent to complacency. But experience of her conduct awards all other nations must convince us, that it is her [...]eans only, and not her object, that she will change. Her object will remain the same, to reduce us to a subjection [...] her will. Let us beware, therefore of supposing, that, [...]hen she speaks peace, she means peace. She will speak peace, while we support our administration; and again [...]ar, whenever she can persuade our people to oppose the administration of their government. Divide and subdue is [...] maxim.

With a view to lessen the grounds ofdistrust in our ministration, so fatal to our own interest; and to en­ [...]ease that confidence in it, so essential to our safety; I [...]ve endeavoured, with candour and care, to examine the [...]inciples of a law, which has been made a pretext for [...]hement clamour. I have, I think shewn that it is [...]nstitutional and necessary. I have said (what is well [...]own) that there is such ground of confidence in the [...]esident, that there is no fear that he will suffer it to ope­ [...]e against any alien, who comes and remains honestly [...]d innocently among us; and that he will exercise his au­thority only against aliens, who use the opportunity of [...]eir being here, for the purpose of disturbing our peace, [...]enating the minds of our citizens from our government, [...]traying our situation, corrupting our measures, or weak­ [...]ing our defence. And, I hope, it will appear, that, if [...]r rulers had not exerted this authority, we should have [...]d just reason to say, that they had betrayed their trust.

[Page 21] O! if the people would but love their Constitution, and confide in its wise and honest administration, and turn away from those who harrass their minds with vain sus­picions; how happy might we be! May the God of Wis­dom open our eyes to the excellence of our Constitution, and the purity and prudence of our administration; and to the folly, madness, and wickedness of those demagogues, who mislead this people from their interests and duties, and glory in their guilt. May he wean us from all partialities and prejudices towards any foreign nation; unite our hearts in love, and support of our government; and preserve us from the machinations of a government, ambitious, desperate, faithless, and corrupt; which flatters only to deceive; and caresses only to destroy.