The ban of secrecy had made it, doubtless, an object of suspicion. Its adversaries hurl at it these {115} unfortunate antecedents. But now all secrecy has been abolished, and the party claims to assert only, the great principle of an INTELLIGENT SELF-GOVERNMENT. They recognise the secret and insidious influences of the Jesuit, and deprecate it. They call attention to it, and to its increasing importance in this valley; but still, in the spirit of liberty, leave the Jesuit free to act as he pleases. They perceive that it is irreconcilable with freedom of thought and conscience to surrender, unconditionally, one's own views and thoughts to the will of any one man, whether he be at Rome or elsewhere. Still he is not interfered with. Let him act with all freedom. You can vote for him for office or not, as you please; and, here, we have reason to fear the secret influence controlled alone at Rome. But, with all this freedom, it is called "persecution" to say "I will not vote for such a man." Let Europe send over all her emissaries, and our country tells them you shall have the protection of our flag. You shall think, and speak what you will, if it be not to the injury of your neighbor. But is there not a spirit of self-preservation which demands that eternal vigilance which is the price of freedom? Is it "proscription" in saying to another man, "I will not vote for you?" If you can not exercise your own will, where is your freedom? If a whig refuses to vote for a democrat is that "proscription?" Then, if I believe another man has surrendered his {116} own will to the unconditional control of another, in a foreign country, can I trust him--regarding the antecedents hereinbefore referred to? It has been said, perhaps unjustly (at least I hope so), that the teaching of this important society, the Jesuit, so deeply-rooted here, is, that "the end justifies the means." If this be so, and if they can exercise over the immigrant population from Europe the power imputed to them--all this also controlled at Rome by the general of the order and his monitor--where can freedom be preserved to us, if they can control a majority of votes here? In such case our liberties are gone. In such case, they have simply adopted and ingeniously carried out the ancient powers of the priestly Magi. Has not an Englishman, a member of parliament, come to this country, and lectured in New England on the abolition of slavery, expressly to aid in creating disunion of our states? Has not the leaven of Puritanism been excited to new action to accomplish the same result? Have not three thousand clergymen been induced to interfere in our temporal and political affairs; just as in past history we find the Magi and the priests did? Has not the word of God been set at naught? Where the command is, "Thou shalt not kill," are not Sharpe's rifles purchased by their command?