The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-07-19


ing to the common-law doctrine. The King of
England had not given his assent to the expatria
ton of those people. If the Prince Regent had a
right to arrest naturaized Englishmen, Scntchmen,
or lrishmen, in Canada (as the King of Hanover
arrested Mr.. Ernst in his dOminions) and compel
them to fight for him, he certainly had right to
hang them for fighting against him. But Mr.. Madi-
denied This whole doctrine and all its cOnsequen-
ces. He Immediately issued counter proclamation,
declaring that if anv naturalized citizen of the
United States should be put to death on the pre-
tence that he still British subject two English
prisoners should suffer in like by way of
taliation. The Prince Regents proclamation was
never enforced in single instance. principle
which our Government successfully resisted under
such circumstances will scarcely be submitted to
now.
The application of these principles to the case of
any naturaliZed citizen who returns to his nat i've
country is simple and easy enough. He is liable,
like anybody else, to be arrested for a debt or
crime, but he cannot rightfully be punished for the
non-performance of duty which is supposed to
grew out of that allegiance which he has abiured
and renounced. If he was a deserter from the
army, he may be punished when he goes back, be-
cause desertOn is a crime. On the other hand, if
he was not actually in the army at the time of his
emigration, but mere y liable, like other members
of the State, to be called for his share of military
duty which he did not perform because he left the
country before the time for its performance cane
round, he cannot justly be moested. Any arrest
or detention of him on that account ought to be
garded a grave offence to his country. What
acts are necessary to make him part of the army
what constitutes the crime of military desertion-
whether person drafted conscribed, or notified,
but not actually serving, may be called deserter,
if he fails to report himseE-these are questions
which need not be discussed until they arise.
But it may be said that the government of Hano-
yer has right to make her own laws and execute
them in her way. This is strictly true of all
laws which intended to enforce the obligations
and punish the offences Of her own people. But a
law which operates on the interests and rights of
other States people must be made and executed
according to the law of nations. A sovereign who
tramples upon the public law ofthe world cannot
excuse himsefby pointing to a provision in his
own municipal code. The municipal code of each
country is the offspring of its sovereigns will
and public law must be paramount to local law in
every question where local laws are in conflict. If
Hanover would make legislative decree forbid
ding her people to emigrate expariate themselves
upon pain of death, that would not take away the
right of expatriation, and any attempt to execute
such law upon one who has already become an
American citizen would and ought to be met by
very prompt reclamation.
Hanover probably has some municipal legislation
of her own, by which the right of expatriation is
denied to those of her people who fail to comply
with certain conditions. Assuming that such a