Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-01-12
AMERICAN ORGAN.
RALEIaH, On. O, ! January 1860.

RALEIGH, IN C.,) January 1862
MY DEAR Sir propose to go on with my re-
view of Mr.. Wise's manifesto against the Know
Nothings."
He says that Know-Nothingism is, " in its oppo-
sition to the naturalization laws, especially anti
American" And in trying to establish this palpa-
BILE paradox his argument after divesting it ofthe
"chains, slaves" "tyrants," &C., with which he
has allowed bis fancy to riot, in what purports
to be grave discussion Of questions of constitu-
tonal law, is this that prior to our separate ex-
istencc as nation, the nations of Europe main
tanned the doctrine, that no man could expatriate
himself SO far as to absolve himself from the alle-
glance he owed to his native country; and, al
though he might emigrate to some other land, yet
the mother country might claim him as her sub
jcct and was entitled to his services as SUCH under
the dogma, " once citizen, always citizen"
That, after establishing our independence, the
convention Of 1857, in inserting in the constitution
the fourth section, declaring !" the Congress shall
have power to establish uniform rule of natural
ization," was, to "say by public law to all Europe,
your dogma, once citizen always a citizen, shall
cease as to the United States" In the first place.
] take issue with Mr.. Wiseup his premises; and
even admitting his premises to be true, den,nr to
his conclusion
This doctrine Is no mere dogma Of " the despot-
isms Of the Old World, as Mr.. w. says in another
place, but, SO fur as 1t has been brought in public
discussion in this country 1t is part of the com
mon law of England that glorious common law
which is the birthrght Of every American citizen.
as well as every British subject; and out of which
have been eliminated, in the course Of centuries,
the well-established principles of liberty in both
countries.
This doctrine of the common law Of perpetual al
legiance, has been decided in the English courts
again and again. (Sec Hales p. o., 68) FOSTER )
CroDn LaW 4, so, 1873. / Bos. d P, 433,)
and, strange as the declaration may sound to Mr..
W., tell him the tenor of the authorities in
our own country, is in favor Of the same princi-
pie. 1t Is true, the Supreme Court of the United
States has never decided the question directly
they have cautiously avoided it--athough it has
been incidentally brought before them several
tmes-certain 1t is, they have never pronounced
against it, In the case of Talbot u.s. Janson. rs Dal
Las, 1887 whilst the majority of the court gave no
opinion on the question, yet Justices Paterson and
Iedell both inclined strongly to tho English COM
mon law doctrine; and Chancellor Kent, speaking
of this decision, says: the inference ewould seem
allegiance except under the senction of law of
the United States; and that until some legislative
regulations on the subject were prescribed, the
rule of the common law must prevail.
Chief Justice Ellsworth in the United States cir
cult court in Connecticut, in 1897 and Justice
Washington afterwards in the United States circuit
court in Philadelphia, asserted the English COM
mon law doctrine to its full extent--that an Ame-
rican citizen could not, without the express con-
txxgI ~
his allegiance to the United States. (See 2 Cranch
SO note, and United States Us. Giliies Peters G..
O. Rep) The same subject was brought before
the Supreme Court of the United States in 1922,
(see Wheaton 283,) but the court waived the
decision of the question, and In delivering the
opinion Of the court, Justice Story stated q that
the court gave opinion, whether citizen, inde-
pendent of any Legislative act to that effect could
throw off his allegiance to his native country
&c.,-and that II would be sufficient to ascertain
the precise nature and limits of this doctrine Of ex-
patriation, when it should become leading point
for the Judgment of the court
Chancellor Kent, speaking of the decisions Of
the American courts on this question, says |" the
better opinion would seem to be, that citizen cam
not renounce his allegiance TO the United States
without the permission Of government, to be de-
clared by law; and that, as there is no existing
Legislative regulation eon the case, the rule Of the
English common law remains unateredn
This is the doctrine thus expounded by the
highest legal authority In this country, which Mr..
Wise denounces as the dogma Of tyrants, and as
binding in chains Of slavery. Mr.. w. is certainly
mistaken, then, in supposing that the American
revolution established for the first time In the
world, the human right of expatriationp In the
absence OF Legislative provision the law remains as
il was before the revolution. The sort of double
allegiance, growing out Of the obligations which
every one rests under TO the country Of his BIRTH
and those which he assumes 10 the country Of his
adoption, involves difficulty, to be sure, one Of
which both the English and American law-writers
SPEAK Of, without attempting to point out the
Means OF escape from IL.
Blackstone says speaking Of such cases, although
the natural-born subject may be entanged by sub
ecting himself absolutely 10 another, II Is his own
act that brings him into these straits and difficult
ties.n-(See Blackstone's Commentaries, vol p.
87O.) And Chief Justice Ellsworth says I" IF he
embarrassed lhimself by contracting contradictory
obligations, Il was his own folly or his faultSec
2 Cranch, 80, note.)
This claim of perpetual allegiance to the country
Of ones birth Is mainly theoretical only; and my
reading shows me no instance Of its practical exer
else except In time Of war II was out Of this claim
that arose our principal difficulty with Great Brit
ain which resulted in the war of 1919. Mr.. Wise
says that, early in the Revolution, the kings
forces hanged some Of the best blood In the Colo
nies under the maxim once citizen always citi-
zen'n Here Mr.. Wise Is again at fault in bis his
tory am aware that, at the first outbreak Of the
Revolution, all the prominent men who participated
In that great movement were denounced as trai-
tors by the British authorities and would no doubt
have paid the penalty Of treason could their per-
sons have been secured.
They we're traitors according TO the theory Of the
English law, and, in fact according to the theory
OF the public law Of nations-but after what was
first regarded as a mere local insurrection, was
papably seen to be a revolutionary revolt, which
had ripcned into civil war, then, according to the
laws Of nations (see Vattel book Ill, chapter lB)
the British government was compelled 20 yield the
point, that those of the patriots who were taken
with arms in their hands, were entitled to all the
rights and privileges ofbelligerents dgrante beilo.
Otherwise, why did not the Kings forces" hang
every prisoner taken, as q traitorg Mr.. w. no
doubt refers 10 the executions In the South, at a
later period Of the war-the most striking example
Of which was that Of the gallant and lamented
Hayne. But he was hanged, not because, having
been British subject, he could not throw off his
allegiance TO the British Grown. IL was because,
having taken protection, when the country be-
yand tba Efl;sto vhpro he lived WAS under tpmpo-