Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1859-07-01
Naturalized Citizens.


away the absurd doctrine contained in the first
careful analysis of both brings to the conclu-
sion that the real practical points in both letters
are identically the same, the only difference being
in the assertion in the letter, that naturalization
here, does not exempt descrters from the penalties
affixed to that crime in their native lend-a fact
never denied. Here is the language of the letter
to Hofer:
"If at that time (the time of immigration TO this
country they were in the army, actually called
into it, such emigration and naturalization do not
exempt them from the legal penalty which they in
cured by their deserton"
In other words we cannot protect foreign Grim
ina, should he voluntarily place himself under the
operation of the law he has offended against This
is news to nobody, and throws no light upon the
question in issue; but taken in connection with
another declaration, it may not be without its bear
ing upon the whole subject. In his letter to lie
Clerc Gen Cas- broadly comedies the European
doctrine of perpetual allegiance, and without allu
sion to crime, the part of the naturalzed citizen
denies the power of this government to protect him
against compulsory service, should he voluntarily
return to his native land In his explanatory letter,
he says
"Host of the Continental European nations have
a system of military organization, by which their
citizens are compelled to serve in the army by con-
scrpton, and not as in France, where the duty is
designated by lot or draft In Prussia, every per-
son is required to take his turn o soldier"
1.-THE condition of American naturalZed citizens
returning to their native country wi ere the system
of compulsory serve prevails and who had left be-
fore performing such service, has frequently been
the subject of discussion with some of the Europe
an powers
Now let us take all the points into connection
and see to what conclusion they inevitably Lead
The letter TO lie Clerc clearly concede the doctrine
of perpetual allegiance and it will be that the
same concession is adhered to through all the cir
cumlocuton of the Hofer letter. Gen. Cass says
that if a man be in the army, or actually called
into it. at the time he emigrates, be is subject to
the penalty for deserton, though citizen of this
country should he return to the land of his birth.
This involves a point of foreign municipal law
which Gen. Cass has no right to construe and if
n country claims the perpetual allegiance of its
subjects, and has law requiring every native male
subject ITO in the army by CONSUMPTION" what
constitutes deerton under the laws of that country?
To serve in the army, is obligation the subject
comes under as soon as he is born, and from which
there no release except in the performance of that
service and it is not for Gen. Cass to say that he
must be 'n the army, actually called into it,
at the time of his emigration in order to make him
deserter or to place him beyond the protection of
this government lie is called into the army at the
hour of his BIRTH ind has only to await his turn to
4 :. g H.,
if they are the true doctrine, give security to
the naturalized citizen beyond the limits of the
United States. On this very point, Gen. Cass says
"The condition of American naturalszed citizens
returning to their native country where the system
! of compulsory service prevails and who had left
before performing such service has frequently been
the subject of discussion it'll of the European
powers
n And to what conclusion has that correspondence
brought Gen. Cass? Thatnaturalized citizens must
c stay where they are if they would avoid compulso-
ry service in the armies of Europe and that the
d of our government is not long enough to protect
n them ON foreign soil; that perpetual! allegiance is
l. though denied by our government-stl binding on
d them-that naturalization here, is no release from
their allegiance to their native land. These are the
f doctrines enunciated in both letters; and if tC
y hide the deformty of such doctrines, Gen. Cas-
II says: The United States therefore, maintain the
e proposition that naturalzed citizens returning tC
= the country of their birth, not HabIe to any d.
ties or penalties erccpt such IN eristenCe
1t The period Of their emigraton' And what duties
IS and penalties are these? None other than those
d which grow out of perpetual allegiance and the
obligation to serve in the army.
But though this government does maintain thu
proposition Just set forth, what is the consequence
of a disregard of it by foreign powers? Does Gen
Cass say that the government will maintain thu
proposition at the point of the sword, if necessary
! to the protection of its citizens? So far from it
he coolly remarks that attempt to interfere witt
our naturalized citizens abroad ''would be cOnsid
cred an act unjust in itself and unfriendly toward
us lie might well have said that the Untct
States maintains the proposition that republican
ism is the best form of government and that tn
establishment of any other is unfriendly toward
:; as.
But supposing Gen. Cass to be right in his inter
In probation of international law, bearing upon thi
NJ point what is the actual condition of the natural
ia lied citizen? lie is citizen whilst within the ter
,e ritory Of the United States, but beyond it. he is
ID foreigner, owing allegiance to another government
And occupying the anomalous position of natur0
,o allegiance to one power and artificial to another
Il with no right, as a freeman, to supersede the on
with the other what will be his condition in tim
!. of war, should he enlist in our army or navy?
~, our government cannot protect him in Europe j
. time of peace, can it do so in time of war? {
~, course it cannot. Then the natuulized citizens VIII
=, enlist in our army and navy and are made prison
Il crS by any European power with which we may !
at war, may if they happen to have been horn sui
No, iccs of that power he shot deserters, and OF
Government is powercss to enforce the trcatmer