The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-13 00:00:00

AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD.

(From the Anglo-American 2 inaes.)
Of all nations the United States should be the

most cautious in legislating on naturalization, so

as to establish a principle. It is of the utmost con

sequence to her that her people should be fused

,ud held together as one. At the present moment,
,nd perhaps for a century to come, a great objet

will be to attract people into the wastes of her ter,

ritories. This object, however, requires no legisla-
tion ; the natural attractions being sufficient.
Over so vast a space there cannot fail to be diver-

sifted interests, and it is a far higher object to en

deavour to implant in the min.'s of her citizens an

overruling passion for national ity than merely to
attract population. In erecting a nation it is
better to build on a rock than to run up a showy
edifice that has no real and lasting strength. The
rights claimed for naturalized citizens who come
from abroad are rights that must be granted to the
native-born of the Republic who choose to go.
The United States cannot pretend to enforce on
foreign nations laws relating to their natural-born
subjects wbo may seek a home in the United States,
which they do not extend to their own natural-
born citizens who s.;ek a home in foreign countries.
In all nations except among the -few where imme-
morial usage has reconciled the people to the exist-
ing state, two principles have been at war—the one
centralization, the other decentralization, local
government, or nationality. The late struggle
arose out of these conflicting elements. Other
principles, of course, as in all wars, entered into the
contest, but emphatically it was a war for local
government. Had it been successful, the United

States would have been brought face to face
with the question of naturalization, and the ex-
treme danger of loosening the cords which bind
the citizen to his native country would have been
brought forcibly home. Laws must be framed and
principles laid down to meet probable and possible
events, not merely the emergency of the moment.
What guarantee is there against a future severance
of the States? And if the legislation of the hour be
based on an erroneous principle, it cannot fail in
such a case to complicate what must in the nature
of things be a difficult position. Working on the pre-
amble of the bill just passed by the House of Repre-
sentatives concerning the rights of American citizens
abroad, a combination of States might on it assert
their right of expatriation to be a natural and inhe-
rent right of all people claiming to expatriate them-
selves ; but not choosing to leave their land, they
might insist on voting as to whether the States em-
bracing the Confederation should not be severed
from the Union. If the people have the right at
any time to throw off their allegiance, they have a
right to carry their territory with them ; and if the
Government recognizes the right of all people to
shake off their allegiance, not by the forms which
their native Government may dictate, but by the
forms which any other Government may prescribe,
then we maintain that the bonds of natural allegi-
ance are severed, and the country which establishes
such a principle will hold its people together by a
very slender connection. It is clear, however, from
the debate that the United States, does not recog-
nize the principle as applicable to herself. Represen-
tatives have commenced legislation at the wrong end,
endeavouring to force a principle on foreign Govern-
ments before they have established that principle in
their own country. The law of the United States
regarding expatriation is similar to that of England,
the absurdity of which is very properly condemned.
But the first thing to do, if the House is legislating to
establish a righteous principle, is to lay down clear
laws by which citizens of the Union may, if they
desire it, shake off their nationality. Mr. Plume
VAN Titumr, of Ohio, offered an amendment., de-
claring the right of expatriation on the part of
Americans; but Mr. BANKS refused to give way.
The arguments brought forward in the bill mainly
had reference to American citizens arrested in Ire-
land, and turned on the power given to the PRESI-
DENT iu the 3d section to arrest all subjects or citi-
zens of a country where any case had occurred in
which the provisions of that Act were infringed.
Henry L. DAWES, of Massachusetts, pointed out
that, by the Act, the PRESIDENT would be enabled
to suspend the Habeas Corpus in time of peace,
thus violating the Constitution, which guaranteed
to all residing within the boundaries of the country