The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1859-08-03

The very same principle, and ITO other, is
applicable to the case of "a naiuralized citi-
zen, should he choose tbrtetuff to his native
country. In that case, ifh he had committed
an offence against the law before his de-
parture, he is responsible for it in the same
manner as the native American citizen to
whom have referred. In the language Of
the late MIR. Marcy, lin Ibis s'leusr Of the foth
January, 1854, TO Mr.. Jackson, then bur
Charge d Afaires to Vienna, when speak.
ing Of Tousig's case, "every nation, when.
ever its laws are violated by any one owing
obedience them, whether he be citizen ar
q stranger, has right TO infict the penat-
| ties incurred upon the transgressor, if found
within its jurisdiction" This principle is
to we'll established to admit of serious con
troversy. If one of our native or naturalzed
citizens were to expose himself to punish-
ment by tn commission of an offence against
any of our laws, State or national, ara af
terwards become 'natdralizea subject of a
foreign country, he Wodld have The 'hardi-
hood 10 contend, 'hpon voluntarily returning
within 'ourijufisalctloh, that his natursiiza.
sion relieved him from the phnishmehtdue
ito his crime much less cdhld he appeal TO
tlfa government of his adopted country to
protect hith against his responsibility to the
United States or any of the States. This
Government would not for a momen: listen
10 such an appeal.
Whilst these principles cannot be contest
ed, great care should be taken in fhelr ap.
plication, especially our naturaized 'citi-
zens. The moment q foreigner becomes
naturalized, his allegiance 10 his native
country is severed forever. He experiences
a new political birth. A broad and impass.
able line separates him from his native
country. He is no more responsible for
anything he may say or do, or omit TO say
or do, after assuming his new character,
than if he had been born In The United
States. Should he return TO his native 'coun
try, he returns as an American citizen, and
in no other character. in order to entite
his original Government 10 punish him for
an offence, this must have been committed
whitst ne was subject and owned alle-
glance 10 that Government. The offence
must have been complete before his expa-
irialion. 1t must have been of such a char
acter that he might have been tried and
punished for 1t at the moment of his de-
parture. A future liability to serve in the
army will not be sufficient--because, before
the time can arrive Tor such service, he has
changed his allegiance, and has become a
citizen of the United States. II would be
quite absurd to contend that boy, brought
to this country from q foreign country with
his fathers family, when but IL years Of
age, and naturalized here, who should af-
terwards visit the country of his birth when
he had become man, might then be seized
and compelled to perform military service,
because, if he had remained there through.
out the intervening years, and his life had
been spared, he would have been bound 10
perform military service. To submit to
such a principle would be TO make an
odious distinction between our naturaliEed
and native citizens. For this reason, in my
dispatch to you of May IL, 1859, and again
in my letter to Mr.. Hofer, of the i4th ult.,
confine the foreign jurisdiction, in regard
to our naturalized citizens, TO such of them
as "were in the army, or actually called
into III at the time they left Prussia. Thai
is, 10 the case of actual desertion, or a re-
fusal 10 enter the army after having been
regularly drafted and called into it by the
Government to which at the time they owed
allegiance. 1t is presumed that neither oi
these cases presents any difficulty in point
Of principle. If soldier or sailor were &c
desert from our army or navy, for which
offence he is liable to severe punishment,
and, after having become naturaized sub.
ject of another country, should return 10 the
United States, it would be singular de.
fence Tor him to make that he was absolved
from his crime because, after its commits
sion, he had become subject Of another
Government 1t would be still more strange
were that Government TO interpose in his
behalf for any such reason. Again, during
the last war with Great Britain, in severa
of the States--I might mention Pennsylva
MIA in partcular-,he militia man who was
drafted and called into the service, wa.
expose to severe penalty if he did no
obey the draft and muster himself in
to the service, or in default thereof, pro
cure substitute. Suppose such an indi
vidual, after having incurred this penalty
had gone to a foreign country and become
naturalized there and then returned to Penn
, sylvana, is it possible TO imagine that io
this reason the arm of the State authoritie.
, would be paralyzed, and that they could no
, exact the penalty state these examples
, to show more clearly both the extent ant
f the limitation of rightful Hanovarian juris
} diction in such cases. 1t is impossible Il
foresee all the varying circumstances which
may attend cases as they arise but it ii
j., believed that the principles laid dowr
} may generally be sufficient to guide you
) conduct.
1t is TO be deeply regretted that the Ger
man Governments evince so much te nacity
on this subject. 1t would be better, 70
them, considering the comparatively small
number of their native subjects who return
, to their dominions after being naturalizet
in this country, not to attempt TO exact mil
itary service from them. They will prove
70 be most reluctant soldiers. Ii they violate