&ni % IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) /y » J^- 1.0 I.I 1.25 If 1^ 1^ ^ ti^ |||L^ hiUt. 1.4 ill 1.6 m ^ /a ^l ol r. (f3^ ' oS •■*• V M ^ 'ife^ k^. % Linpt of the worldly-minded and epicurean "Roman satirist." Ought a Christian scholar of the nineteenth century to forget the homage paid by Augustus Caesar to the spiritual faith and civic virtue of his Jewish subjects ? Or is Mr. Goldwin Smith, in his zeal for the " derabbinization " of the Jews, really ready to turn into derision the heroic martyrdom of Israel under Caligula ? "The Jew is now detested," we are calmly told, "not only because he absorbs the national wealth, but because, when present in numbers, he eats out the core of nation- ality." If this were true, Baron Ilirsch, of whose " philan- thropic zeal " Mr. Goldivin Smith, in his ardent desire to see eastern Europe rid of a " parasitic race," speaks in loud words of commendation, would deserve, not commendation at all, but the sternest rt-prehension. How can a man be called a " philan- thropist " who seeks to introduce into Australia, into America, into the Argentine Republic, and that " in numbers," a parasitic race destined and doomed by nature not only to absorb the national wealth, but to eat out the core of nationality from among whatever people may be cursed by its presence ? But this is not true. It is precisely the contrary of this which is true. Frederick the Great was no lover of the Jews m ^^q'K'^ inv more than of »j *- ' aOLDWlS SMITH AND THE JJ'JWS. 2«1 tic he of Kiiglishmcii ii3 Eiiglislimon. His ''genenil privilege" issued to tlie Jews of Prussia in IToU reeks with iutoloriiiice and political bigotry. With his own hand this royal admirer of Voltaire struck out the name of Mendelssohn, which all Germany, and, indeed, all Christendom, unites to honor to-day, from the list of his great Berlin Aciideniy. But Frederick the Great was a mighty ruler of men, and broadened the foundations upon which his descend- ants have l)uilt up the foremost European power of our times. And it was Frederick the Great who laid it down as an axiom that "to oppress the Jews has never brought prosperity to any government." Was this because the prince of royal sceptics be- lieved the oppression of the Jew would be avenged by the (iod of Israel ? Certainly not ! It was because the shrewdest and most indefatigiiljle of royal observers had learned that in every state in whicli thev find themselves compelled to establish their homes the children of Israel, adhering to the precepts of their great lawgiver and eidightened by the wisdom (Talmudic or Karaitie) of their foretathers, have always been found to be a source of strength, not of weakness. He found them every- where not absorbing, but increasing, the "national wealth"; not " eating out the core," but building up the body, of every nationality to which they have contributed their vital force. Had the Jews "eaten out the core" of the nationality of Spain when, twenty years after the conquest of England by William the Norinan, they drove the Moors forth from " tlie city of generations," the Jerusalc a of the West, and es- tablished the throne of Alonzo el Einpe ratio r? Where ad been the deathless glory of the Cid, Ilodrigo de Bivar, the Cauipeador of .Si)ain and the bulwark of Europe, but for the Jews of Toledo? What Spaniards did Spain better service in that marvellous twelfth century than the Spanish Jews who laid the pavements of La Blaiu^a in soil brought from Mount Zion, and who framed of cedarwood fro'n Lebanon that lofty and noble ceiling which still delights the artist and the architect, though ages have passed since the brave and lo3'al heirs of the builders were hounded tu destruction by the savage Vincente Ferrer, in order tliat the mob might pillage their homos— even as Pedro the Cruel before them had plundered the treasury of his wisest councillor and tortured to death the faithful servant he had robbed ? Does not Mr. Gold- win Smith know that to this day, in Servia, in Macedonia, in ^ V 262 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. Rumania, in Hiilgaria, the descendants of the exiled Jews of Spain, driven forth from the land they had done so muoh to re- deem and to enrich, still proudly call thiMn^^elves Spaniards ; still preserve the speech of Spain ; still cherish in their eastern homes the memories of a heroic past in western Europe ? Does he not know that the Hebrew newspaper which represents the ideas and the interests of the Hebrew race at Salonica bears the Spanish name of the Epova ? Nay, let me ask Mr, Goldwin Smith to look into the annals of the Hebrew race in his own country and in his own time. He will find that the Jews of England, down to the very eve of the Reform Bill, clung to the use in their religious services of the language of Spain. It was only in 18'^9, and after a most earnest and critical debate, that the lo3'alty of the Hebrew exiles to the language of Samuel Levi and of Benjamin of Tudela could be shaken by the persistent efforts of men like Moses Montefiore and N. M. de Rothschild, who were anxious to see English patriotism encouraged among the Hebrew residejits of England by a com- plete identification of the Jew, in all his social and political rights, with the Protestant and the Ronum Catholic subjects of the British Crown. The English iaw^ consented to adopt the English tongue in their synagogues long before other Englishmen could be brought to grant to the English Jews the full rights of citizenship. Does not Mr. Goldwin Smith know that the won- derful career of the most illustrious Englisliman of our times would have been impossible to him had not his father abjured the rel'^^'un of his ancestors ? Benjamin Disraeli was able to enter Parliament in the springtime of his life because he was able to take the oath of allegiance "on the faith of a Christian." How long did the Liberals of the city of London beat in vain at the door of the House of Commons, demanding to be represented there by a great financier and a high-minded English citizen who could not and would not take that oath ? Mr. Goldwin Smith rebukes the Jews of eastern Europe for ad- hering to that rite of the circumcision which, as he must assuredly know, is not confined to Jews alone, has prevailed, and prevails, throughout the world from Arabia to Australasia, and from South Africa to Central America, and cannot with any sort of accuracy be called a "tribal " custom. Doubtless Spinoza, who stands alone among philosophers, as does Newton among men of science, or aOLDWIS SMITH AND THE JEWS. 2t;:? Piisciil lunoiig thinkers — (1onbtlos3 Spinoza was iii,'iit wlicn lie siiid tliiit tlie rito of (nrciimcisioii would niiiintiiiii tlio iiit(\L,n'ity of the Jewisli honsohold of fiiith. The highest iniMiiv. d authoritioH of our day maintain that it has also kept up the vigor and vitality of the race. I suppose the Protestant Baptists an- right in maintaining the rite of immersion as essential to the main- tenanoe of their sect, and the Quakers in maintaining the custom of wearing the hat ; but is an American Bai)tist less trustworthv as an American because he insists noon immersion ? Were William Penn and George Fox less trustworthy Englishmen becuuse they wore the hat wh^re others doffed it ? Will Mr. Goldwin Smitli aver that Sir Moses Montefiorc andN. M. de Kotli- sohild were less loyal and patriotic Englishmen, being circumcised children of Israel, than Benjamin Disraeli, who, adopting under his father's roof the religion of the English Church, rose to the highest place among the statesmen of England ana of the world as Earl of Bcaconslield ? The most famous and the most popular English writer of fiction of this century, Charles Dickens, was certairdy not the less truly an Englishman in his local and nation-d sympathies be- cause he came of a Hebrew family. Would his place in fiction have been other or lower than it is had he adhered to the faith of his ancestors and undergone all the rites of their religion ? Is the renown of George Eliot tarnished by her loyalty to the genius of Israel ? Mr. Goldwin Smith must permit me to ask him whether he does justice to his own reputation for candor and for learning when he charges it upon the Jew as a Jew that " he changes his country more easily than others." Are we not at this moment dealing with a "Jewish question" the urgency of which is due to the simple fact that the Jews of Russia and of other countries in eastern Europe cling to the countries in which they have dwelt, and are driven forth from them, not by tht ir own " greed of gain," as Mr. Smith rashly puts it, but by the prejudices of an ignorant peasantry and the policy of autocratic governments? As I have already shown, it is the characteristic of the Jewish race to cling to the soil of the land in which it has been planted. For this reason, in all times and countries the policy of all who hated the Jew has been to forbid him to own or to till the soil. When Portuguese bigotry drove the Jews from the banks of the ; I- I i04 Ttlh: NORTH AMERICAN RIA'IHW. Tiigiis to tlioso of tho Chironiio, tho Jews tnuispliititdcl to Fn.iico still (;ii11(-h1 lliomsclve.s tho " Portugiioso iiuliijii." Under ihiit 11:1110 they (loriiaiulod the rights of c:iliz(.'iHlii|) from tho First lioimblio in 1791 — rights which, by tho way, the First Republic would have refused them but for tho elo»iueuco and cuergy of Minibeau and of Rabaut de St. Etienne. " When tho Southern Confederacy fell,'" Mr. (loldwin Smith tells us, ** its loaders generally stood by the wreck and did their best for those whom tiioy had led, but Judah IJenjamin went oil to pastures now." Is this sneer an argument to prove the Jewish race incapable of patriotism ? Is it worthy of the pen which has indited it ? Is it even decently fair to the distinguished lawyer, btatosman, and orator at whose grave it is levelled ? Surely Mr. Ooldwin Smith must know that Judah Benjamin was the com- panion of Jetferson Davis in thai southward hegira from Rich- mond the true object of which was to raise again, l)eyond t!ie Mississippi, the fallen banner of tho Confederacy. Surely ho must know tlie stoiy of that hogira. Surely ho must know how it came to pass that tho little band was broken up and scattered. Had not Louisiana, the American home of Judah lionjamin, been made a wilderness for him and for his family long before the fall of tlie Confederacy ? Does not Mr. Goldwiu Smith know that Judah IJenjamin, boru a British subject in Jamaica, and driven from his adopted land at an age when most men would have thought the making of a new career beyond their force, cour- ageously took up the profession of the law in the very metrojiolis of his mother-country, and there won for himself, by energetic toil, the foremost position at the English bar ? " Pastures new ! " Nay ! Judah Benjamin sought no pastures fat and easy of access ! Di-iven from the home he luid made in the new world, he delved in the most difficult of mines, and died overworn with work, though not till his work had been rewarded by a success which reflects honor not on himself alone, but on the Jewish name and race. I must ask Mr. Goldwin Smith to remember that when Judah Ijenjamin was born a British subject in Jamaica the English bar was closed to Englishmen of Jewish race. I must ask him to remember that it was only in 18;J3 that a young Jewish student and gentleman • s permitted by English ])rejudiee and proscription to take his place at the English bar ; and I must appeal to his candor to admit that the names of Sir Francis Goldsmid, of Sir ■4 I UOLhWIN SMITIJ AND THE JKWS. 2(55 George . I I'ssel, of Lonl llorschel, aiidof Jiuluh lUMijiiniiii can never be omitted by any historian of tlio Knglisli bar from the roll of honor of Englisa jurispriuleiico. And before I pass from this point I must, furtliermoro, protest against tiie airy assump'ion tliat Jiidah Benjamin alone - "esented the Jews of America in tlio dari< days of tiie ('ivil On both sides in that cruel conflict the American Israelite wod shoulder to shoulder with their fel- low-citizens of all other races and creeds. T]>e Mordccais, the Cohens, the Lovys, the Florences of the South did their duty, as they understood it, to the sovereignties which claimed their im- mediate allegiance. Hud the advice of Mr. Memminger, of South Carolina, an Israelite by race, though not by religion, and a colleague in the Confederate Treasury of Judah Henjamin, been taken at the outset of the conflict, I have been assured the issue of the struggle might have been other than what it actually was ; nor have I ever heard that, when the war was ended (happily, as I think) in the victory of the Union, any Southern Israelite who was suffered to remain in his own State failed to " do liis best" for his country. On the other side, what soldiers of the Union earned more honor by their loyalty and the': valor than Lyon and Kosecrans ? What Northern financier \,iis more energetic in support of the national credit than the Helmontsand the Seligmans? The numbers of the American Jews have always been exag- gerated. There is no good ground for believing that they exceeded 100,000 at the outbreak of the Civil War, or less than one-third of 1 per cent, of the total population of the United States in 1860. The rolls of tlie War Departments of Washington and of Richmond will show what proportion the Jewish soldiers on eitlier side bore to t' is scanty percentage. I must leave Mr. Goldwin Smith to reconcile bis denun- ciation of the Jew as a " parasitic " creature who " eats out the core of nationality " with his admission, in another place, that the Jew " always and everywhere " has been *' a con- forming citizen" who has "refused none of the burdens of the state." To nie the statements appear ^o be absolutely incon- sistent one with the other ; nor does it much help them that Mr. Goldwin Smith thinks it fair to qualify the admission by adding that the Jew has always made *' the burdens of the state" "as light as he could." This maybe said with equal truth, I venture to 266 THE NOIiTH AMERICAN REVIEW. think, of all men. I have yet to hear of any race or sect of men addicted to demanding habitually tlie privilege ^f paying more taxes than their fellow-citizens. l?iit how long is it since the odious " Lcibzoll," or body-tax, was exacted throughout Germany of every Jew^ not once in a year, nor once in a month, but whenever lie came into or went out of a city gate, though it might be ten or twenty times a day ? The first real equality of civil rights given to the Jews in fJerrnany came to them with the establishment by Kapoleon of the kingdom of Westphalia. At that time the Jews constituted less than one-half of 1 per cent, of the population of Germany, — they constituted no more than 1 per cent, of the population of the empire in 18T5, — and such had been the social and political restrictions imposed on them in Germany for ages that no one could have been surprised l)ad they everywhere cast in their lot with the French liberator of their race against their oppressive and intolerant Teutonic fellow-citizens. What actually came to pass when Germany rose against Napoleon after the repulse of the ex- pedition against Eussia ? The Jews of Germany remembered only that they were Germans. As Germans, they took the field and gave their blood freely for the German Fatherland. But what was their reward ? After the crowning victory of the allies in 1815 every German Jew who had won a commission in the armies by his valor and his skill was suddenly deprived of it, aiid faced the alternative of serving in the ranks or leaving the army altogether ! It was in this way that the Gernnm rulers of the Holy Alliance set about promoting that amalgamation of the Jews with the rest of their subjects which Mr. Goldwin Smith seems to imagine that nothing has ever prevented but the stitf-uecked "tribal " exclusiveness of tlie children of Israel ! And this took place, observe, years after the Jews, assembled in the great Sanhedrim of Strasbnrg, had comniatuled the Jews of France to acquire landed property as a means of training them " to be better Frenchmen," and had ordained that Jews serving in the national armies should be absolved during their term of service from the " ceremonial duties " of their religion ! Is it the opinion of Mr. Goldwin Smith that the object of the Jews who, ot their own motion, deliberately established such a decree as this was to "eat out the core of nationality"? If Mr. Goldwin Smith will look into the history and the enact- QOLDWIN SMITH AND THE JEWS. 2i;7 ments of die great ccunoil of 1807, he will find tlicroiii more and more ncliromatic " light upon tiie Jewish question " than he has been receiving from the ollieial reports of British vice-consuls charged to report upon the repetition in various regions of east- ern Europe of phenomena as old and as familiar as the instincts of prejudice, joaloiisy, and greed which have })roduccd them. Of these consular reports Mr, Goldwin Smith makes use, with little or no attempt to examine them critically, lie makes long citations, for exam])le, from the reports of Mr, Wagstaff, without telling us that Mr. Wagstaff is established as British vice-con- sul at Riga, far away from ilie great centres of the Jewish popula- tions in IJussia, and in the mid^it of a population predo.-.inantly Cierman and commercial. In 1840 the Jews were forbidden to dwell in any Livonian city except Kiga, and in Riga only 100 Jewish families were permitted to dwell, Mr, Wagstaff is now quoted to prove that a system of '"boycotting" exists among the Jews of Bessarabia! Thisisasif the report of a British vice-consul at Portland, Maine, should be cited in Kome to illustrate the origin, of the alleged " massacre " of Italians in New Orleans. Mr, Wag- staff says of the Bessarabian Jews : "■ They use their religion for business purposes. This is expressed by the words 'koul* or 'kasral.' " This doubtless means the " Kahel '' under which the Israelites have stood together in matters affecting their interests from time immemorial. To confound it with the essentially ag- gressive and tyrannical practice of *' boycotting " is to show equal ignorance of the one and of the other. If Mr, Goldwin Smith will consult the decrees of the Sanhedrim of 1807, he will find that in matters of interest and profit the Jews are commanded to treat all their fellow-men as they treat one another. They are forbidden to take usury of any man. They are forbidden to take advantage of any man. They are forbidden even to take interest on loans made for the support of a family. On these and kindred points I am sure every well-informed Jew will agree with me in asking Mr, Goldwin Smith to make the fullest and freest inquiry into what he contemptuously calls the " tribal morality " of the Talmud. If he will make the inquiry, I venture to say he will no longer talk about the "Karaitic" as purer atid loftier than the " Tal- mudic" morality. Indeed, he seems to imagine, as did the Prot- estant controversialists of the sixteenth century, that the word " Karaite" stands for Protestant and the word " Talmudic " for y68 TUF. yORTlI AMKHICAS KKVIKW. Hoiiian Catholic ; and it may perhaps surprise him to learn that of the three millions of Jews in the Kussian Em})ire, not more certainly than one-third of 1 per cent, belono- to the Karaitic communities, which exist chiefly in the Crimea Perhajjs his friend, Dr. .Sand with, who seems to hav;-' studied the Jewish question cliietly in the Crimea and within the walls of Kars, may have misled him into this curious ovcrestinuite, both of the moral elevation and of the importiincj of the Karaitic sectarians. I do not dwell on liiis, for I have no quarrel with AFr. Coldwin Smith. My only object is to jirotest against danj^erous ami be- wildering misre])resentations of the "Jewish question," which inay do serious mischief at a time when thousands of Jews, ex- pelled from their homes in eastern JMiroi)e, are seeking a land of peace and of liberty on this side of the Atlantic. Curiously, the decrees banishing all the Jews of Spain were issued in the very year, 1402, which saw the discovery of America made under the Siianish flag. I do not thitik the fourti' centennial of the expedition of Columbus ought to be celebrated by an o"f^an- i/A'd attempt to exclude the Jews from the new world which he found. Oddly enough, the cable now announces the outbreak at Elizabethgrad of a local persecution precisely like that which oc- curred at the same place in 1.S81. Xow, as then, the authorities allow, if they do not ins|)ire, the outbreak, which spares neither Karaite nor Talmudic Jews who have any property worth looting ! The ''Jewish question," like other " questions," has many sides. Vice-t'onsul Wag.stalT, studying it at Riga, where the Jews are neither numerous nor very influential, takes it upon hearsay that in regions of Russia where the Jews are both nunje.ous and, through their activity, influential, they exercise a commercial tyranny over the peasantry, earn thereby the hatred of the peasantry, and are tliere;".pon persecuted ])y the authorities. Doubtless in many ])arts of agricultural Russia, where the Jews, not being allowed 'o own land, have been driven out of agriculture into trades and dealing in money, they have behaved no better than other people in similar circumstances have elsewhere behaved. The complaints nuule of the Jews in Poland, for example, where the vast majority of them live in villages and towns, are almost identical with the complaints made of the " gom- been men " who in Ireland monopolize trade in the rural districts GOLDWIN i.MlTH AND THE JKWS. 2(j\.) iiiicl control the small farmers by lending or advancing money to theia. I have heard complaints of a similar kind made against the ''capitalists" of the eastern United States, in the far West. In Hungary and the Danubian states similar complaints led, a quarter of a century ago, to a "■ Juden-hitze," or system of ''Jew- baiting,'' as bitter as any n(;w raging. The object of the system then was to drive the .lews into Kussia, that other money-lenders and traders might take their places. Long before this, under Nicholas I., the Russian Government set afoot a persecution of the Jews in western Russia and Poland for the purj)ose of com- pelling the Jews along the frontier to remove either into (ler- many or into the interior of the Russian Empire. The famous "deportation ukase" of April, 1844, excited feelings of sym- l)athy and indignation throughout western Europe. Under it hundreds of thousands of Jews were commanded to sell all they had within a very brief period, and leave tlieir honu's forever. The ukase led to an earnest remonstrance from the Jews of Eng- land, and to the celebrated visit which Sir Moses Monteftore nuide in the winter of that year to Russia, where he pleaded the cause of Israel persojiaily before the Czar Nicholas, as some years before he had pleaded the cause of the Jews of Damascus and Syria be- fore the Sultan. The main pretext of the persecutions of 1844 and 1881 was that the Jews along the frontier engaged extensively in smuggling, just as the main pretext of the persecution of 1891 is that the Jews in the rural regions engage extensively in trades not always of an elevated kind, and in money-lending not always on the most liberal principles. In 1844 and 1881, as in 1891, the real motive at the bottom of the persecution is a political motive. It is the desire of the Pan- Slavist leaders and agitators to expel all non-Slavonic elements out of Russia. The Jews are ready and willing to be Russians. They are not, however. Slavs, nor can they be amalganuited into Slavs. In 1844 Nicholas had Jewish soldicjrs in his guards, and admitted to Sir Moses ^lontetiore tiiat they were loyal, brave, and excellent soldiers. In 1891 the removal of the Jews is a blow aimed indirectly, but distinctly, at the Germans. Many of the Jews in western Russia are of German origin. Tlirougli the " Kahel" all of them may maintain intimate business relations with the Jews of Germany, and bj their existence and prosperity i« Jews in Russia the German clement in Russia, which the Pan- 270 THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. I I Slavists tire bent oil s'^amping out, is more or less continually reen- forced. In 1844 the Czar Nicholas candidly admitted to Sir Moses Montefiore that the accusations levelled at the Russian Jews would not, for the most part, hold water, but he expressed his wish fradkly to get them all out of the empire. In 1891 Germany, which in 1844 was the vassal, has become the rival, of Knssia. Tiie policy of Prince Bismarck was to en- courage the court chaplain, Stocker, and other (ierinan fanatics into a "Jew-baiting" in Germany, which should drive more Jews out of Germany into Russia, and thereby strengthen the subter- ranean connections between the Russian Empire and central Europe. Since the retirement of Prince Bismarck the Russian Pan-Slavists, who are preparing to Russianize eastern and central Europe in due time, have sot on foot a ** Jew-baiting" among the Slavonic nations and t ibes. They are willing, as were the Russian authorities in 1841, that the Jews should i)rosper — but not in Russia ! In 1844 Count Kisseleff civilly, but cynically, assured Sir Moses Montefiore that he cared not what became of the then existing generation of Jews. *' In a century," he saitl, " the Jews may be educated and good Russians. But I do not care about le Jews now. I only care about the Jews of a century hence . ' Can the Jews of to-day be blamed for caring for themselves ? When, in 1501, Cardinal Comendoni went as nuncio from the Pope to King Sigismond, of Poland, he found the Jews of Wilna enjoying equal rights with other Poles. He found them landed proprietors, wearing swords, holding public offices, anil he loudly praises — he a Catholic and a cardinal coming from the city of the Ghetto — the system under which the Polish children of Israel were thus enabled to show themselves what their ancestors were in the Holy Land at the time of the Roman Conquest, — tillers of the soil as well as traders, valiant in arms, skilful in the arts, and equal to all the duties of civilization. Even to this day the traces of that better age are visible in the superiority of the Jews of \V ilna to their brethren in adjoining circles of the Russian Empire. When we see what great work the Jews of Europe have done despite the depressing influence of ages of restriction, in- justice, and oppression, what may not be hoped from the Jews of America ! That the Jew is by nature as well fitted for the dii- '■•". 'A. OOLDWIN SMITH AND THE JEWS. 37 j ties of a husbandman, or of r. sailor, or of asoldier. or of an artisan, as for those of a trader or a nioney-clian^or, anv Christian may satisfy himself by sinii)ly takin,? a concordance of the Scriptures old .Md „e^v, Jewish a,nd Christian, and referring? to the occupa- tions therein cited. IIo will Hud that the ocmipations of the .low- when they possessed Palestine were at least as various as the occu- pations of tlie En-lish ui.dc Elizabeth can be shown to have been by a concordance of Shakespeare. \V:,at was the c-ommand of the Lord of Hosts to .ne -Tews who were .leportcd from Jerusalem into Babylonia ? - I?uild to yourselves houses, and dwell therein • till your gardens, and eat of the fruit thereof." Have not the Jews of our own day faithfully obeyed this command ever since they found a refuge in Xew Jersey from those persecutions, - not religious," of 1880 and 1881, in the course of which Professor Kohling, of Prague, was ,»ot ashamed to charge 8ir Moses Montefiore,then in his ninety-ninth vear, with encouraging "the sacrihce of Centile maidens at the Passover " ? Has Mr Goldwin .Smith forgotten that this same atrocious calumny was levellel at the Jews of Damascus by a "consular officer "—not English, iu- deed, but French— no longer ago than in 1847 ? That the ,1ew is by nature gifted above many other races of men it does not become me to assert. But such is'the concurrent testimony of the ages of Christendom, the very existence of Christianity being itself a witness to the assertion. (Jrantincr the Jew to be only the equal, intellectually and morally, of other men what right or reason has any man to afiirm of him that by a law of Ins nature his presence as a citizen, enjoying equal rights with o her citizens, in a land of liberty and of plenty, must prove a b ight and not a blessing, to thai land and to all its inhabitants, of whatever lineage and of whatever faith ? Isaac Besiit Bexdavid.