Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1849-01-12
RELEASE OF MESSRS. BERGEN AND
DVAN

uI 1eHCIHS tletI dsSiStdHCc " TIC 'dte PioJee'eu
Revolution in ireland, and, in consequence.
were, with others, arrested by order of the
English government and thrown into prison.
We are happy 10 learn from The Union, that
at the instance of the President, through the
Department of State, and the American Min
lister, they have been both released. In the
correspondence connected with the subject, it
is admitted that the purpose for which they
were charged 10 have entered the kingdom,
was sufficiently offensive to justify their de-
tention and imprisonment. The American
Minister admits the correctness of the posi-
ton, that the laws of the country are entitled
TO respect, AMI for the breach of them foreign
ers are amenable. But Mr.. Bergen, it was in
sisted, was ready TO establish his innocence of
the charge, and the American ambassador was
directed to demand trial without delay. A
short time (seyen days. after this demand, both
were discharged, with the tacit understanding
that they should quit the kingdom, which it
was understood was mutually agreeab
The correspondence connected with this
transaction is important, as there is inciden-
tally expressed in it the opinion of our gov
eminent upon two questions, under the laws
of nations, OF considerable Importance
II seems that early in August last, an order
was secretly issued and circulated by the gov
eminent in Ireland, directing the arrest of oil
4n7or tho examination of
their baggage, persons, and papers, and their
detention in imprisonment. The American
Minister characleriZes this measure as arhitra-
ry and illegal Judged even by the test OF
English legal authorities and decisions, il was
contrary TO the municipal law, as we'll as a
breach of that technical courtesy among ma
:ions, known as international law. The Min
lister, Mr., Bancroft, goes farther, and claims
tor his country high distinction, for having
abstaned from all Interference with the revo-
lutions now agitating the old world. While
other nations and governments have been in
terfering, the one with the other, she alone
has preserved her tranquility her govern
ment has, beyond all others, maintained the
position of non-intervenlion.
But the most important part of the cores.
pondence relates 10 4 conversation which took
place between the American Minister and the
British Secretary, concerning the right of emf.
grafton and the doctrine of allegiance. 1t is
well known that the English courts and au-
thorities still recognize "the intrinsic perpe-
tuity of alIegiance,' and the "ne creat reg
no" power OF the sovereign, in all their
pristine strictness and vigor. 1t is lamentable
that the former was even supported by the ge
MUS, and settled by the decisions, of such {
man as Mansfield. The principle, as usually
stated, is, &" that natural born subjects owe al
allegiance which is intrinsic and perpetual, ant
which cannot be Invested by any act of thei
own" and the effect of its recognition would
be to render any one of our naturaized citi
zens amenatle to the charge of high treason
if taken in arms against their native country
even though in the service of the United States
1t may not be generally known, that although
the Supreme Court of the United States have
hitherto declined directly asserting the same
to be the law in this country, that the cours
of decision has been uniformly in favor of TIL
English rule. In the case of Mdnks Us. Dt
pont, Peters U. S. Rep. 242, it is eSpressl,
declared to be the general doctrine, that n,
persons could, by any act OF their own, with
out the consent of their government, put o
their allegiance and become Aliens" and moi
withstanding that our naturalization laws re
quire the alien to abjure his former allegiance
without reference TO the consent of bis SOW
ereign, we seeit stated, upon the best legal au
thority in America, that " the weight of au
thority is in favor of the English rule, an
that it is founded upon the most safe and prae
ticabIe principles"
With reference TO this question, Mr. Ban
croft seems, therefore, TO be in error in suppo:
ing Us to occupy the same ground " with ii
Roman republic" in which, according TO Cicer
) it was regarded as one of the frmest foundation
of liberty, that the citizen had the right to sta
{ or renounce his residence and allegiance
> pleasure, (Orat. pro L. C. Balbo Cap. 10
, and believing as we do. TO use the Minister
own forcibe language, that "the doctrine
perpetual allegiance is a badge OF servitude," W
would have been better pleased had he declare
in writing, the new position of the America
authorities and policy, and not trusted to me
verbal statement Of" the American view of Il
question" principle which may yet eau
much ill-feeling and misunderstanding betwet
e the two countries.
D1-Among the recent amendments oficia