Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-01-12


their monarch masters. Spurning the dogma, and
the tyrants who boasted the power to enforce Il,
the fourth power which the convention OF 1887,
that formed our blessed constitution enumerated, is
"The Congress shall have power to establish a
uniform rule Of naturalization"
In the first place, deny Mr.. Wise's position,
that England or any other foreign power, ever
warned" our government that we should not
naturalze their subjects without their consent,
and Mr.. Wise cannot produce any such declara-
ton, either in proclamation, order in council, or
diplomatic communication. Proud and naughty
as Britain is, she would not dare thus to speak to
the United States. She may have stated, and has
80 done, that she would not renounce her claim to
the allegiance and services in time Of war Of her
subjects and that, although we might naturalize
them, yet we did it in the face Of that claim which
she would not relinquish. This claim she asserted
in virtue Of her law that existed before this coun-
try was settled; and I have already shown, that
our courts have never ignored but have the rather
asserted the same doctrine for our own govern
mcnt
From the collocatioE Of Mr.. Wise's sentences,
and the sequence aimed at in the manner Of stat
ing his proposition, ho would have his readers to
infer that the naturalization provided for in the
Constitution Of the United States was by way Of
denial and in defiance Of this claim of the British
government; and that the naturalization offoreign
was new and agreat principle then for the first
time sprung upon the world, as a sort Of defiant
proclamation, by land Of liberty against the des-
potisms Of Europe. What arc the facts? What
is the history Of this matter? Naturalization is
purely question of municipal regulation, which
each country provides for in the manner and form
that suits its best II is one of the few questions
Of mere municipal law that our federal constitu
tion does provide for; and for the reason that,
like all other of the municipal questions provided
for, it was Indispensable that the rule Of natural
zation should be uniform in every State in the
Union.
Because, II the citizens Of one State were to be
entitled to tho privileges Of citizen in every other
State, then, of course the rule by which for
egncr is made citizen should be the same through
out all the States. And the Congress alone was
the only power having Jurisdiction broad enough
| to make and apply the rule. Mr.. Wise might as
well have said that the authority conferred on
Congress by the very same clause containing this
/" fourth power" to establish uniform rule " on
the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United
States" was intended for the purpose Of "spurning
| the dogma of tyrants."
| This question of naturalization was no new
| thing, either in municipal or national law. Eng
land had her laws of denization by letters patent
from the Crown, and of naturalization by act of par
lament long before America was settled She
has them now well defined by the decisions of her
highest courts and when parliament naturalizes
foreigner, the doctrine Of the English law is, that
such naturalzed person does not thereby throw off
his allegiance to the country of his birth. (Scc
Bac. Alb. Aliens, al Woodeson 1921
Subject to this condition, l think am warranted
in saying, that the right Of the citizen or subject to
emigrate-to leave his native country and take up
his abode in any other he may choose--has never
been practically denied in time Of peace, in modern
times. The practical application Of the claim of
every government, to the allegiance and service of
those born within its jurisdiction, has not been
tested except in time Of war. This question was
involved in the difficulties that led to our last war
with England But | think Mr.. Wise has mistaken
the real point at issue IN that controversy II was
not any obligation by which 1--WE had rcciprocally
undertaken to protect the former subjects Of
Great Britain, who had been impressed from on
board our ships, 7" in consideration of their oaths
Of allegiance and fidelity to the United States, that
induced us to go 70 war. That protection was due
them, as long as they were on our soil, or (which
is tantamount) treading the decks of our ships-so
much due that If Great Britain had requested this
government, no matter how respectfully, to sur
render them to'her, we should have been not only
justified In law, but bound in national honor, to
have refused.
But, suppose these naturalized foreigners had re-
turned TO any portion of the British donnions, and
there been impressed into the British service-sup-
pose they had been impressed from on board the
ships Of some other foreign power, In which they
bad entered into serviceor on the territory Of
other government TO which they might have gone
does Mr.. Wise suppose, in either case we ever
would have gone 10 war, because OF an obligation
we had rcciprocaly undertaken TO protect them "
We certainly would not.
According TO my understanding Of the public
law--and certainly, according TO the practice OF
nations--the duty Of protection TO q naturalizcd
foreigner inures to him only so long as he remains
upon the soil, under the shelter Of the flag Of
bis adopted country, at least as against the land
Of his birth.
No, IL was much gravcr offence than that Of
claiming the allegiance and the services OF those
born under her dominion, and who had adopted
our country as their home, that England commit
ed against us. II was because she srroganuy
claimed the privilege Of violating the ssnctity Of
our flag on the high seas, and of searching for
those she claimed her subjects; OF arrestng the
progress Of our commercial marine In Its pathway
over the ocean. This was the wrong and tho in
suit for which we appealed TO the arbitramcnt Of
the sword. This was 20 much more serious cause
Of complaint, than the mere claim, founded on the
law Of perpetual allegiance, that the latter was en-
trely merged In the former And II Mr.. Wise will
take the trouble TO read again the diplomatic cor
respondence which has several times taken place
between the fhnctionaries Of England and this
country, ON this question, he viii find that IL Is the
claim Of the right of search, which we have again
and again tried to induce England 20 relinquish
and which she never has renquished TO this day,
which has been the bone Of contention, and not
the claim Of perpetual allegiance, resting on her
law maxim Of Memo potea crners patridm."
This last claim we have never asked her to
surrender and we could not do 80 consistent
ly, when we have neither law or judicial decision
disclaimiDg II for our own country.
Mr.. Wise cites the case of Prussian subject
who came to this country, was naturalizcd, and
Afterwards returned TO Prussia, was seized by the
Prussan authorities and forced into military SER
vice, where he Is now. He has applied to the
United States for protection, and Mr.. Wise asks,
with apparent seriousness, "Would the Know
Nothings' intepose in his favor or notT Really
this IL amusing. Which is the proper department
Of the government for one laboring under oppres-
sion from foreign power TO apply TO ? The Er.
ecutivc Of course. Why don't Mr.. wise ask the
President, whom he assisted In electing, and
whose administration he cordially approves Of and
supports, whether he and his cabinet win inter
posen in this mans favor or not?
IL the naturalization law confers on this man the
right Of citizenship, and he is thereby entitled 70
tho protection Of tho povornroant no matter whc-