Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-15

though both be subjects of the belligerent which
has made the capture; because the domicilia-
ton Of the one has clothed him with the ma
tionality of the other country for commercial
purposes. So strictly has it been held that do
meditation clothes with nationality for COM
mercial purposes. This principle is acted on
in all cases and, as ! have said already, is
laid down as authority by the very writer's cited
by the Secretary of State.
n / am not DESTROYS to weary the House by
going into the multitude of cases to be found
in the books of England and France and tins
country. nor to fatigue the House by reading
authorities now lying before me- Permit me
to state. however, in general terms, that the
essence of the whole law can be found IN
Kent The case of the Venus illustrates it.
The authorities are clear and distinct ii is
perhaps right and fair TO say that, in all OF
these cases, the American writer's as well as
the American courts have copied and fully en-
dorsed the principles laid down by Sir William
Scott.
In reference to the limitations which have
been made, that this right Of protection should
extend to citizens and persons who have de-
clared their intentions to become citizens,
would repeat what has been said by the gentle
man from Louisiana, that the decision of the
question of Martin Koszta's right TO protection
as an. inchoate citizen has not been contem-
plated by the Secretary's letter. The essential
point of the letter, in that respect was, that
Martin Koszta intended to acquire per-
manent residence in this country and his dec
laration of his intention to become a citizen
was eDidence of his good faith and his intent to
acquire rights Of domiciliation. But what is the
position of an individual who has merely de-
clared his intention to become citizen of the
JTn,t Ry fha nf tho mt N H.
cation laws you recognise the fact that these
persons, so declaring their intentions, owe ale
glance to the country of their origin. By their
terms, before you recognise them as citizens OF
these United States, you require them to make
an express abjuration Of their allegiance to the
country of their birth. You require, in addi
ton, that they shall take upon themselves an
assumption of allegiance to this country. Nei-
Their of these things have been done upon the
part of a man who has merely declared his in
tention to do them al some future day-not
now. but in the future-that he would then
swear and assume that allegiance to you. Up
on a mere declaration of an intention in the
future to do these things, are you to take the
things as though already done, and thereby
create all those legal obligations between the
parties which clothe them with the relative du-
ties of protection aud dependence? No, sir.
The Secretary of State too well understood the
case to lay down any such doctrine. He merely
alluded to the fact that Martin Koszta had
made declaration of intention, in order to
show that his domicil was here, and that his
residence among us was made bona tide and with
an intention so to remain within our community
as to acquire that nationality of character
which domiciiation gives. This point was
well understood and stated to the House by the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr.. SMITH.
The Secretary makes point on the nation
atty, for political purposes, which domiciliation
gives. Why, sir, the whole course and policy
of our government would have to be changed
if this doctrine were avowed and sanctioned by
the American Congress Your usage now is,
to refuse a passport unless the fact of citizen
ship is established to the satisfaction of the au-
thorities of the government. You do not un
dertake to give passports of protection to any
body but those who are citizens. You never
have, and, in my judgment, you never will
The policy of this government has been settled
and uniform. While appreciate all that glow
ing pride and generous enthusiasm which
prompts gentlemen to extend the protection of
the government, even before they become citi-
zens, to those who come to this country from
foreign lands, and while, as all who know me
well understand my feeling toward the emf
grant is as broad and generous as those of any
gentleman upon this floor or elsewhere, still a
regard to the future of this country-a future
which every statesman will at least endeavor to
look to and jealousy guard-will not permit
me to yield to those feelings when they propose
to lead me into the impracticable and the in
defensible
You have, sir, upon the statute-book law
which recognises the very principle of which j
am speaking. You have law there which de-
cares that any man who, owing allegiance to
this government, shall be found in arms and
doing violence on the high seas to her citizens,
though under color of commission, or of au.
thority and direction of foreign prince, shall
be deemed and treated as pirate. That act
shows the rule which you have adopted in refer
ence to the conduct of your own citizens; and
can you adopt diferentrule in regard to the cit
liens of other powers? Bythat act you avow the
doctrine that man owes allegiance to his gov
eminent, and can do no act incompatible with
that allegiance; and if he does, he thereby com
| promits his own safety, and is traitor to the
country to which his allegiance is due. No
domiciliation in another country can exempt
an American from the penalties of that law,
unless he has been relieved from his allegiance
to the United States. To escape the law, he
must show that he owes no such allegiance
| If mere domiciliation could absolve the party,
| the law would be absurd. 1t would be mean
| ingless. By the terms of law, domciation,
though even sustained by commission from a
| foreign government, can avail the party no.
thing. So long as his allegiance is due to the
United States, he is within the provisions Of the
law. There must be an express abiuration of
his original allegiance, and formal assulnp-
ton Of another, before the authority of that
other can be held as a justification for his ODE
dience to it in opposition to the allegiance of
his origin. 1t may be well for gentlemen, be-
fore they enunciate an opinion upon this sub
ject, to examine with some care what ground
our country has taken upon these subjects here
tofore. 1t is quite common thing for Ameri.
can citizens to domiciliate themselves in Eng
land, in France, and in other countries, in or
der to carry on their commercial transactions.
Is it to be said, as it necessarily must be by
the doctrine of the Secretary, that the American
merchant who crosses the ocean and locates
himself in Great Britain for commercial pur-
poses. with the bona tide intention of acquiring
domicil, but with the equally bona fde in
tention to retain his rights as an American
citizen, becomes entitled to the protection of