Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1859-07-06
CLEARFIELD, PA, JULY 6, 1859.
PEOPLES STATE TICKET.
FOR AUDITOR GENERAL.
THOMAS E. COCHRAN, of York.
FOR SURVEYOR GENERAL,
WILLIAM II. KEIM. of Berks.
INA PECK OF TROUBLE"

INA PECK OF TROUBLE"
The letter of Gen. Cass to Mr.. LIE Clerc, in
which he saws that naturalization VIII not ex-
empt man from military service, if claimed
by the Government under which he was born,
is source of great concern to the Democratic
press in general, and the Cleartield Republican
In particular. The editor of that pure, gen.
teel, truthful and sinless sheet is in dire trib
ulation lest the letter of Mr.. Secretary Cass
should not be properly understood by the
faithful. His distress is really agonizing, and
his lamentations over the conduct of the OPP
position press, which persists in giving pub
licity to the precious document, are uttered in
the most plaintive and melancholy strains
Occasionally these partake of a wrathful char
acter, and swell forth in severe, bitter, sea-
thing ~ denanciations of the Know y othings,
who, he would have us believe, are ever such
bad fellows, charging them with committing
ssa grand fraud upon natural rights-a wicked
assault upon the spirit and theory of our in
stitutions," and with impairing that ssvaluable
acquisition Of wealth, of labor, and OF indus
try,'' which our country receives from foreign
emigrationl How terrible How awful
Such carryings-on shouldn't be allowed, and
we trust the editor of the Republican win
speedily put a stop to them. The feat could
scarcely fail to immortalze him, and his MEN,
ory would doubtless be forever cherished in
ssthe land of the free, and the home Of the
brave 20
When, few weeks ago, we published the
letter of Gen. Cass, alluded TO, we had no
idea Of seriously disturbing the equanimity OF
our up-street neighbor. But in this it seems
we were mistaken, and we feel sorry for it.
We regret that he should have allowed bis
temper to get the mastery of his judgment,
and whilst attempting to correct others, that
he should fall into error himself. For in
stance, he asserts, in the beginning of his ar
ticle, that ssone of the causes of the last war
with Great Britain, was in vindication OF the
right" of expatriation. Now this, we admit,
is something new to us. We always were
taught that the attempt on the part of Eng
land to come upon our shores, and to enter
our ships, for the purpose of impressing natu-
ralized citizens, formerly her subjects claim
that neither England nor any other European
power has ever yet abandoned-and not a
ssvindication of the right of expatriation,' was
one of the principal causes of that war. Nor
were we aware, until the astute editor of the
Republican enlightened US, that ssthe right of
expatriation'' was ever ssquestioned,'' as he
intimates, by the Known othings. And here
we may as we'll state that his remarks about
the views of the American party, are all bal
derdash. The American party were in favor
of restricting only certain political privileges
of foreigners in this country.
But let us take a glance at this letter busi-
ness. Gen. Cass, IN the first place, writes to
Mr.. LIE Clerc that his naturalization here will
not exempt him from a claim Of military SER
vice there, if he voluntarily returns to his na-
tive land. This was regarded by some as a
tacit admission that the United States Govern
ment lacked either the will or the ability to
protect all those over whom her flag floated,
particularly that class who had renounced al
legiance TO the sovereigns in whose dominions
they were born, and had sworn fidelity to the
Government of their adoption. The want of
precision in paper emanating from the State
Department, allowing all kinds of construc-
tions to be put upon the language, brought a
bout newspaper comment, and some animad-
versions. The Republican, in speaking of the
letter of Gen. Cass, says:
"lt does not say that that sclaim' would be
just one- 1t does not say that it would be
consistent with the doctrines held by the gov
ernment OF the United States-nor does il say
that such sclaim' would be acknowledged nv
our government. None of these things does
it say, or even admit"
Gen. Cass is to blame for not having made
his meaning more clear, and he admits his
wan. of perspicuity by writing another letter,
defining more distinctly s'the position of the
United States' upon the subject. In this Sec
ond letter ne says, if naturalized citizen was
actually in the army of his native country, or
called into it, at the time of his emigration,
and voluntarily returns thither, his citizenship
here will not protect him from whatever pen
atty he may have incurred there by the act of
leaving; but when no personal liabilities ex-
ist against him at the period of his emigra-
tion, the law of nations gives no right to any
country TO interfere with him, and the attempt
to do SO would be considered unfriendly by
our Government. Does this, then, not admit
that, under some circumstances at least, natu-
rallied citizens cannot be protected against
the claims of the Government under which
they were born? Does it not plainly make
distinction between native and naturalized cit
liens, to the disadvantage of the latter? Does
1t not leave us TO infer that, if a naturalized