Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1859-07-22

|
ernment were to undertake such task.
we might soon be involved in trouble
with nearly the whole world To PRO
tcct our citizens against the application
OF this principle of universal law, to its
full extent, we have treaties with several
nations securing exemption to American
citizens when residing abroad from some
OF the onerous duties required from their
own subjects Where no such treaty
exists and an American citizen has com
mltted crime or incurred penalty for
violating any municipal law whatever of
the country Of his temporary residence,
he is just as liable to be tried aud pun
ishcd for his offence, as though he had
resided in it from the day of his birth
If this has not been done before his de-
parturc and he should voluntarily return
under the same jurisdiction, he mnv be
tried and punished for the offence upon
principles of universal law. Under such
circumstances, no person would think of
contending that an intermediate residence
in his own country for years would de-
prive the government whose laws he had
violated OF the power to enforce their
execution. The very same principle,
and no other, is applicable to the case of
naturalized citizen, should he choose to
return to his native country In that
case, if he had committed an offence
against the law before his departure, he
is responsible for it in the same manner
as the native-American citizen to whom
| have referred. In the language of the
late Mr.. Marcy in his letter of the 10th
January, 1854, then our charge dafTaires
to Vienna, when speaking of Tousig's
case, "cvery nation, whenever its laws
are violated by any one owing obedience
to them, whether he be citizen or a
stranger, has right to infict the penal
ties incurred upon tho transgressor, if
found within its jurisdiction" This
principle is too well established to admit
of serious controversy. If one of our
native or naturalized citizens were to ex-
pose himself to punishment by the com
mission of an offence against any Of our
laws, state or national, and afterwards
become a nnturalizcd subject of a foreign
country, he would not have the hardihood
to contend, upon voluntarily returning
within our jurisdiction, that his natural
izaton relieved him from the punishment
due to his crime; much less could he
appeal to the government of his adopted
country to protect him against his re-
sponsibility to the United States or any
of the States. This Government would
not for moment listen to such an appeal
Whilst these principles cannot be con-
tested, great care should be taken in
their application, especially to our natu-
rallied citizens. The moment a foreign
er becomes naturalized, his allegiance to
his native country is severed forever -
He experiences a new political birth.
A broad and impossible 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 as
suming his new character, than if he |
had been born in the United States --
Should he return to his native country,
he returns as an American citizen, and |
in no other character. In order TO en-
title his original government to punish
him for an offence, this must have been
whilst he was subject and
owed allegiance to that government. -
The offence must have been complete
before his expatriation. II must have
koou IF euoh N obo,oo4n, tbaf bo -; ,,I /. !
have been tried and punished for it at
the moment Of his departure. A future
liability to serve in the army will not be
sufficient because, before the time can
arrive for such service, he has changed
his allegiance, and has become citizen
Of the United States. Itwould be quite
absurd to contend that n boy, brought
to this country from foreign country
with his fathers family when but twelve
years Of age and naturalized here, who
should afterwards visit the country Of
his birth when he had Become a man,
might then be seized and compelled to
perform military service, because, if ne
had remained there throughout the in.
tervening years and his life had been
spared he would have been bound to
perform military service. TO submit 10
such principle would be to make an |
odious distinction between our natural
lied and native citizens For this rca-
son, in my dispatch to you Of May II,
1859, and again in my letter to Mr..
IIofcr Of the 18th ultimo. / confne the
foreign Jurisdiction in regard to our ma
turalized citizens TO such Of them MS
"wero in the army or actually called into
IT, at the time they left Prussia. That
Il. to the case Of actual dcsertion or a
refusal to enter the army after having
)cen regularly drafted and called into it
~ the government TO which at the time
hey owed allegiance. 1t is presumed
hat neither Of these cases presents any
liiIiculty in point Of principle. If a
Oldicr or sailor were 10 desert from
,ur army or navy, for which offence he
5 liable TO severe punishment, and,
liter having become naturalized sub
Get Of another country, should return
o the United States, it would be a sim
yular defence for him to make that he
was abs0lged frola his crimo because,
.ftcr is eonmisi9n hc> had become
'uoject of anoihefe arnmcnt. Itwould
Je still u.6o arrange sere that govern
ncptfc intorposo ia hiu behalf for any
,nch reason Again Turing the last
psr with Great Britain. in several Of
nc sta,es--,I Aight mention Ponnsyl-
sania ID particular the militia-man who
vas .sfted and called into the service
VA exposod 10 a severe penalty If he did
iol obey the draft aud muster himself