The native American., 1838-08-11

discovered that the uespouc governments VI uio
Old World were in hostility to the principles
which they deemed essential to incorporate INTO
the institutions Of the New. The principle that
the right OF sovereignty was inherent in the Peo-
pie, and could be exercised by them, was, to lhose
governments, political heresy, which they repu-
dated, and even at this day they regret; and, al
though, to promote ulterior objects, they may
have Welded to The temporary supremacy OF re-
publican principles in contermlnous countries, yet
their hostility TO the fundamental doctrines of free
institutions is too deep-rooted to be eradcated.
Foreigners indeed, may change their domicil, but
their principles in regard TO the institutions OF CIV
il government are identified with those of the
country which gave them birth. Man is as inca
pabe of disregarding these impulses as he is
wanting i'll disposition to do so; his pride is graf
flied with the prosperity of his native country,
and the gloom of melancholy which broods upon
his couIienance in her adversely, indicates the de-
sire which he would sometimes willingly con-
ceal. The principle, that an individual owes an
allegiance to the country of his nativity, is sus
tanned by most writers on international law; and
that this allegiance is not only perpetual, but IN
frilsic, and which cannot be divested by any act
of his own. is regarded by many as fundamen-
tai principle. 1t is also the doctrine of the COM
mon lar, that an individual owes natural and
perpetual allegiance to the Government of the
country in which he was born; and this, too, is
the doctrine of the European Governments, and
that of England especially, which insists that a
subject born in England, and emigrating from
that to a foreign country, and taking commits
sion from foreign prince, and engaged in war
against England, is guilty of treason, and liable
to be prosecuted to condemnation and punish
ment for that offence. The right to recall the
subjects of Great Britain from foreign country,
or from foreign service, wherever they may be,
or wherever they may have departed, is not only
claimed, but exercised, by the British Govern
ment. In October, 1907, the King of England
issued his proclamation recaiming from foreign
service all seamen and seafaring men, who were
natural-born subjects, wherever they might be,
upon pain Of being proceeded against for their
omission to obey the call. In 1914, the Senate of
the United States called upon the President, by
resolution, to inform them what had been the prac-
tice of Great Britain concerning hernative subjects
nauraized in other countries, and taken in arms
against her; and, in answer to that resolution, it
was stated that the British Government arrest as
to be native British subjects, for having fought
under or standard against the British forces, al
though they had voluntarily entered into our ar
my. after having emigrated to the United States,
and incorporated themselves into the American
society. And it has become an historical fact,
that during the late war with England, many ma
tive-born bjects of the King of Great Britain,
who had been naturaized in America, and were
taken prisoners on the Northwestern frontier,
were transported to England to be tried for II ca
son against their King. ....
| Without deciding upon the validity of such
claim, would it be advisable, within the short pc
riod of fire years from the day of their landing
upon our shores, to cast indiscriminately upon
these emigrants all the political rights and privi
leges of native-born citizens?-with the natural
propensity which mankind universally possess to
sustain the institutions of the country which gave
them birth; with the claim of natural allegiance
which that country has upon them; with the liza
biy of being recalled by their native sovereign,
and in of neglect to obey such call, and of
being taken in arms against their native sovereign,
to be subject to condemnation and the punishment
Of death for treason. These are appalling cir
cumstances in view of such practice: and under
such embarrassments Of the individual, can it be
desirable TO add to the embarrassments of our
country also, by comforting the most important
political rights which a native-born citizen can
enjoy, premaurelv on this vast number? On|
their arrival in the United States they must be i'll
qualified to exercise the political rights of re-
publican citizen; rights which, in their native
country they could never enjoy or appreciate, and
possessing habits which, in ours, dsquaiy them
from mingling with our citizens, or even appre-
ciating here the free institutions of our countrv
many OF them no, informed even of the theory of|
our government; and of its political benefits to
mankind, they are equally Ignorant; and though
they may possess capacity, which, with time and
assiduity may enable them to become useful citi-
gems, yet it must be evident to all, that in their
present uncultivated state, they would not be safe
depostaries of our country's honor Many of|
them can neither read nor write, and believe that
liberty in republican government consists in the
unconstrained exercise of individual desire, and
that he is the best republican who can bring into
conflict the greatest extent of physical power
Such opinions are to be overcome only by i'm
provements in the knowledge of our institutions,
and the practical benefit which they universally
confer; and to accomplish these great objects, time
and observation are required, as well as patient
endurance of the toll and research so essential to
the acquisition of such knowledge.
Our institutions orig ginated in an expanded view
of the rights and duties of mankind in social
state. and only to be preserved by constant Vi
eilance on the part of the people, and by conf
Iinn tlo G., l. r