The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-05-20

msans Of the right Of expauiation We paid this
passing nstcs in cur paper OF last Friday, but |
The interest Of the subject and its imporsnce It the
present moment, has induced us to recur to il more
i lsisure and 10 give it that examination which
haS compelled us to modify the views which we
then somewhat hastily expressed.
We presume that we may regard that journal
a. fully admitting that the departure of an armed
force from our Shores to act against Spain, were
there an existing war between that Government
and the Cubans would be breach Of international,
as well as Of our municipal law, whether their arms
were carried on their persons, packed in boxes,
and slowed in the holds Of the vessels. But if it
is our duty to prevent our citizens from going in
armed bodies 70 assist the Cubans when in open
revolt, Il would appear almost any mind that the
obligation was increased, when there was no war
except the private one which these men were about
Ito wsqe IL il mot one Of the chief duties OF our
Government to restrain he citizens from infringing
,bo.e ne,oeful relations which it pretends to pre-
..rvs towards other nations, and the advantages Of
vbioh !, claims from them? Would not any other
j course be in the highest degree dishonorable and
Iderrsdina? II 80, does not every man who, with
ont authority from his country, violates this peace,
cast upon her - much dishonor as it is within the
power Of any individual to do? Does he not man
fest an utter disregard for that national honor,
which, hitherto nviolate, it should be the pride Of
every American to preserve untarnished and intact
and in so doing, does he not prove himself un-
worthy of his country? If these questions are an
swered in the affirmative, as we humbly conceive
that they must be, what becomes of the miserable
clubbing in which that journal INDUCES upon the
word nsufrality? The obligation Of Govern
IL l. Al
it states the disgrace of those who would violate
it, is only rendered Of deeper dye. That journal
says: "We would have the good faith of our
Government in all things sacredly preserved"
How comes it then, that it is inviting to the
commission of acts which manifestly violate that
good faith which set at nought the treaties of
| country, and those principles of morals which
should govern it in its relations with others? The
Government says to Spain" our citizens shall
not wage war upon you, nor shall ornaments be
obtained here for your annoyance" What can be
greater breach Of good faith than to violate this
compact, which is binding upon every individual
citizen? We wish the Delta would give us cate
gorical answers to these questions, and tell how
reconciles the breach of the most solemn treaties
with national faith.
We commend to its perusal and animadversion,
the following piece of "hollow, hypocrtical and
uamanly morality" from the pen of Andrew
| Jackson:
So long as Mexico ful6ls her duties to us as
they defined by the treaty. and violates none OF
the rights which are secured by it to our citizens,
any act the part of the Government of the Uni
ted States which would tend to foster spirit of
sistance to her government and laws, sohatever
may be their character form, when admins
tered within her own limits or Jurisdiction, would
e be unauthorized and highly improper" Letter te
Gov Cannon, Of Aug 6, 1886: so Niles Regis
y ter, 412.
If we have hitherto argued this question as one
f Of neutrality, it because we were under the
4 impression that the Delta regarded Cuba, by q
fiction Of law, being in state of actual insur.
rection, and we were willingto give it the benefit
: of that hypothesis. 1t now, however openly avows
that there is war, and no government either
legal OF de facto, under the commission of which
! these men acting. What is the position, then
in which it places them? That Of band of law.
less adventurers, about to wage private war
without the sanction Of any public authority what
ever. Is such a thing to be tolerated, in the mid
die Of the nineteenth century? The absence @
the desire Of plumber is the only thing which dis
j. tnguishes it from piracy; and it would not PEI
e haps, be very harsh judgment which should Sc
It even that in the confscation Of the public domai
+ which was intended But admitting that it
not PIRACY, it is still very high offence agains
the laws of the land, and one which no man ca
commit without covering with dishonor both hi
: country and himself In regard to the commits
sions issued by this Junta, las they term them
seIves,) we would call attention to the following
remark of Chief Justice Marshall, in the case
the United States VS.. Kntock, 5 Wheat, l49
Il so far as this court can take any cognizance
that fact, Aury can have no power, either Briga
;, der Of the Mexican Republic, a Republic of who's
d | existence we know nothing, or as Generaissm
r, Of the Floridas, province in the possession
re Spain, to issue commissions to authorize private
o public vessels to make captures at sea-"
s We come now to the right of expatriation. tt
only fixed decision this subject, by the Supren
- Court, Of which we aware, is to be found
the case of Shanks VS.. Dupont, 8 Peters, 246,
ct which that tribunal, speaking through Judge Stor
81 says:
1.-The general doctrine is that no persons can,
m any act Of their own, without the consent Of Il
-, Government, put of their allegiance and Decor
~ aliens. If it were otherwise, then femeali
y, would, by her marriage, become, ipso facto CT
n zen and would be dowabe Of the estate of her h,
a band; which is clearly contrary to law"
be The opinion Of Mr. Justice johnson, upon h
~ case, sustalnS tnese views more al large, anu
well worthy of perusal. The same thing has be
several times decided by inferior and local trbun,
sst But it is unnecessary for US to press it to t
extent, and while we cannot give the same wei!
he to mere diplomatic correspondence, which we
ZEN to the decisions of courts, we willing
ew admit, for the purposes Of the present discussi
that an American citizen may cast off, at his o
IN will, the allegiance which he owes to his count
81 Yet there are certain limitations which inhere
ny the nature Of this right and which have been
,ed quently asserted and enforced by those tribun
mr. In the case Of the Santissima Trinidad, Whea
ian 2s3, Judge Story says;
ur. Assuming, for the purposes of argument, I
81 an American citizen may, independently of ,
q. legislative act to this effect, throw off his a
A' glance to his native country as to which we G
ex opinion, il is perfectly clear, that this cannot
done without bona fds change of domicil UNI
8. circumstances of good faith 1t can never
~ asserted as cover for fraud, OF as justification
NV the commission of crime against the country
~, for violation Of its laws when this appears
If the intention of the act"
on The same doctrine was either expressly or
ma pliedly sanctioned in all the which we CT
n's in our previous article, for the parties to tn
ross claimed to have changed their allegiance. |
ged indeed but the extension to this subject of pr
pie familiar to every lawyer, that what is done
wn. fraud Of the law is null and void, and is to
for regarded as it it never had been done. We
consider this principle then as incontrovertible,
al, applying it to the present ease, ask, if the
Ives tended change of allegiance of these men had
artl. other object than evasion of the law?