The spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1840-1844, 1840-12-25

either removed from the IT, s., or being punished
by Imprisonment, or disqualification ever to become
u citizen Oh conviction of not obeying the order OF
removal, he cannot be discharged from the pro-
ceedings against him. and restored to the benefits
of his former situation, although the highest Judi
cial authority should see the most sufficient cause
for it.
But, in the last place, it can never be admitted,
that the removal Of Aliens authorised by the act,
is TO be considered, not as punishment for an Of
fence; but as measure Of precauticn and prcyen-
ton. 1.-THE Punishment of an alien from country
into which he has been invited, as the asylum most
suspicious to his happiness; Il country, where he
may have formed the most tender Of connections,
where he may have vested his entire property, and
acquired property of the real and permanent, as
well as the movable and temporary kind; where
he enjoys under the laws, greater share Of the
blessings of personal security and personal liberty.
than he can elsewhere hope for, and where he may
have nearly completed his probationary title to
citizenship; If, moreover, in the execution Of the
sentence against him, he is TO be exposed not only
to the ordinary dangers Of the sea- but to the Pc
cuar casualties incident to crisis Of war. and Of
unusual licenlousness on that element, and posi-
bly, to yindictye purposes which his emigration it.
self may have provoked; ifa Punishment of this
sort be not punishment, and among the severest
of puui,hmcnts, it will be difficult to imagine
doom To which the name can be applied, And if
it be punishment. it will remain TO be enquired,
whether can be consutionally inflicted on mere
suspicion, by the single will Of the Executive Mag
slrate, on persons convicted of no personal offence
against the laws Of the land, nor involved in any
offence aguns, the law of nations, charged on the
loregn state Of which they are members.
One argument, offered in Justification of this pow
or exercised over aliens, is, that the admission of
them into the country being Of favor not Of right,
the favor is ut all times revocable,
To this argument it might be answered, that al
lowing the truth Of the inference, it wond be no
proof of what is required A question would still
occur, whether the Constitution had vested the dis
crelonary power Of admitting Aliens, in the Fed
eral Government or in the State Governments.
But it cannot be Il true Inference that because
the admission Of an Alien is Il favor, the favor may
be revoked at pleasure. A grant Of land to an in
dividual, may be Of favor, not OF right; but the
moment the grant is made, the favor becomes II
right, and must be forfeited before i! can be taken
but the pardon is not, on that account the less IT.
revocable. 10 admit an Alien to naturaliza,ion
is as much favor. to admit him to reside in the
country; yet it cannot be pretended, that person
na,urzed can be deprived of the benefit, any
more than native citizen can be DISTINGUISHED.
Again, it is said, that Aliens not being parties to
the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it
secures, cannot be at all claimed by them.
n" this reasoning also. 1t might be answered,
that although Aliens not parties to the ConsIi
tuition, it does not follow ihut the Constitution Ia
vested in Congress an absolute power over them,
The parties TO the Constitution may have granted,
or retained or modified the power over Aliens,
without regard to that particular consideration.
But more direct reply is, that it does not fol-
low. because Aliens are not parties to the Consti
ulion as citizens are parties 10 it, that Wills, they
actually conform to it,, they have right to its pro-
lection. Aliens are not more parties TO the laws,
than they are parties 10 the Constitution; yet it |
will not be disputed, that as they owe on ono hand
a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return
to their protection and advantage
If Aliens had no rights under the Constitution,
they might not only be banished, but even capital
ly punished, without jury or The other incidents
to fair trial. But so far has contrary principle
been carried, in every part Of the United States,
that e,ccp! on charges Of treason, an Alien has,
besides all the common privileges, the special one
of being tried by jury. Of which one half may be
also Aliens
Ii is said, further. tina, by the laws and practice
Of nalons, Aliens may be removed at discretion,
for offences against the law Of nations; that Con-
grcss are authorised to deiire and punish such Of
fences; and that to be dangerous 10 the peace Of
society is. in Aliens, one Of those offences.
The distinction between Alien enemies and Alien
friends, Is clear and conclusive answer to this argu-
mcnt Alien enemies are under the law of nations,
and liable TO be punished for offences against it,
Alien friends, except in the single case Of public
ARE under the municipal law aud must
be tried and punished according 10 that law only.
This argument also, by referring the Alien act,
to the power of Congress to defac and punish Of
fences against the law Of nations, yields the point
that the act is Of penal, not merely of ptcycn-
tive operation 1t must, in truth, be so considered.
And if ii be penal act, the punishment it inflicts
must be justified by some offence that deserves IT.
Offences for which Aliens, within the jurisdiction
Of country, are punishable, are first, offences
committed by the nation Of which they make n
part and in whose offences they are involved ,
Secondly, offences committed by themselves alone.
without any charge against the nation to which J
hey belong. The first is the case Of Alien cne- =,
mics; the second, the case Of Alien friends. In !,
he first case, the offending nation can no otherwise
re punished than by war; one of the laws which
al, T. L