Daily national Democrat., 1859-08-20
The Naturalization Question.

| Chlnks our venerable secretary is getting
into inuddle." 1t says
We have now in the official paper of yes
terday, the whole matter more fully argued,
and more inextricably confused, in extracts
from dispatch addressed by the Secretary
OF State to the Minister of the United States
at Berlin. The case which has occasioned
this dispatch is that of naturalized citizen
OF the United States who is a native of Han.
over, and who, when he left his native coun-
try, was neither in actual service in the Han
overian army nor had been drafted to serve
IN it, but who has yet, upon his return to
| Hanover, been deprived of his liberty and
been compelled to do military duty. After
stating the American law of naturalization.
Mr.. Cass says:
"The question, then, arises, What rights do
our laws confer upon foreigner by granting
his naturalization answer, all the rights
privileges and immunities which belong to
native born citizen, in their full extent with
the single qualification that, under the Con-
stituton, no person except natural born
citizen is eligible to the office of President
With this exception, the naturalzed citizen
| from and after the date of his naturalization,
both at home and abroad, is placed upon the
very same footing with the native citizen
II e is neither in better nor worse candi-
ton"
This is clear and decisive enough. If the
naturalzed citizen stands upon the same
ground as the native born, excepting only
the one disability imposed by our Constitu-
tion, then it is clear that no more than the
| American born citizen, when abroad on plea
sure or business, can he be forced into the
military service of power to which he owes
no allegiance. But after stating the broad
principle thus clearly, its natural sequence is
avoided by the following special pleading:
"lfa native citizen chooses to take up his
residence in foreign country for the purpose
of advancing his fortune or promoting his
happiness, he is whilst there bound TO obey
its municipal laws equally with those who
have lived in it all their lives. He goes
abroad with his eyes open; and if these laws
be arbitrary and unjust, he has chosen to
abide by the consequences If they are ad
ministered in an equal spirit towards himself
and towards native subjects, this Government
have no right to interfere authoritatively in
his behalf To do this would be to violate
the right of an independent Nation to legis-
late within its own Territories If this Gov
ernment were to undertake such a task, we
might soon be involved in trouble with near.
ly the whole world To protect our citizens
against the application of this principle of
universal law, in its full extent, we have
treaties with several nations securing exemp-
ton to American citizens when residing
abroad from some of the onerous duties re
quired from their own subjects Where no
such treaty exists, and an American citizen
has committed a 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 and punished for his
otfense as though he had resided in it from
the day of his birth. If this has not been
done before his departure, and he should vol
UNFAIRLY return under the same Jurisdiction,
he may be tried and punished for the offense
upon principles of universal law. Under such
circumstances, no person would think of con
tending that an intermediate residence in his
own country for years would deprive the
Government whose laws he had violated of
the power to enforce their execution. The
very same principle, and no other is applica-
bic to the case of a naturalized citizen, should
he choose to return to his native country
In that case, if he had committed an offense
against the law before his departure, he is
responsible for it in the same manner as the
native American citizen to whom l have re-
ferred."
With all respect to its distinguished author,
this Is yERITABLE NONSENSE. 1t is applying
one set of principles to cases which ere in no
respect parallel The native born American
citizen, when abroad is boRnd to submit
himself uestionably to all the municipal
regulations of the country in which he lives
He cannot, because he has been used to ex-
press himself freely at home claim the same
right in Austria; nor has he a right to COM
plain ifin the country he visits he is subjected
to more stringent laws than obtain in his ma
tive land But he does not become subject
to be seized by an Austrian, a Prussian or a
French recruiting officer, and marched off to
a military depot and forced into three or FIVE
years service as a soldier. 70 become liable
to this he must renounee the allegiance of his
native land and adopt that of the country to
which he has removed And neither-for the
cases are pari passu if the Secretary is right
in the premises he first lays down-can the
naturalized citizen become subject to penal
ties from which the native born ctizeu is ex-
empt when abroad If the naturalized citi-
zen has all the "rights, privileges and immu.
mites which belong to the native born citi.
zen, certainly the immunity from impress
ment into foreign military service must be
included into the catalogue
/