New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-07-16
THE NATURALIZATION QUESTION
rron The csn.titntien. Jais a


so much misappreh. nson prevails in reference To
the views of the Administration on thus question, tnat
We embrace the opportunity furnished by practicai
case which has recently arisen IN the hngdJm vi .
Hanover, to refer 10 1t again.
The ease il that OF ,tnralized citizen Of the United
States who is a native If Hanover, and who, when ITO
LETT his native country neither IN actual service IN
the anoverian army nor had been drafted 70 serve IN
it, but who has yet, upon his return TO Hanover, oeeh
deprived OF his liberty and compelled to do military
duty.
The intervention of our Government having Tins be-
necessary, the whole subject OF the nights OF our
naturaized citizens has received the renewed and
careful consideration of the President and ms views,
as well those of his entire Cabinet, upon tins inn
porthnt subject, will be found IN the following extract
which permitted to make nom dispatch
transmitted few days ago from tue Department OF
State TO Minister at Berlin in relation TO the case
referred to-
Eriraef # dispatch from me Department, Of State to
The MiHster tie Uaded States at Berlin, dated
Jug 1853.
The tight Of expatriltion cannot at this day be
doubted denied in the United States The idea has
been repudstei since the origin OF cur Govern.
ment tina, Il man is bound to remain forever in the
country of his BIRTH and that he has right to
else bis free will and consult bis own happiness by
Letting a home. Tue most eminent writers on
public law recognise the right of expatration. This
can only be contested by those who in the nineteenth
century still devoted 10 the ancient eldal law with
all It's oppression. The doctrine Of perpetual allegiance
il n relic of barism which has been gradually dis
appearing from Chrstendom during the last centdry.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes the
natural right of expatraton by comforting upon Con-
gees the power to establish uniform rule of nstu-
TsliZatiOn.' Indeed, 1t WAS one OF the grievances
alleged against the Brtsh King IN the Declaration Of
Independence, that he had " endeavored 20 prevent
the population of these Staes-Or that purpose OBJ
strpc,Dg the laws OF naturalization OF foreigners re-
" tuslng 10 pass Others To encourage Their mSfsuM
hther." &c. The Constitution thus clearly recog-
nzes the principle of expatriatlon IN the strongest
msnrer. IL would have been inconsistent in itsel
and unworthy Of the character OF the authors OF that
instrument 10 hold out inducements to foreignerso
abandon their naive land TO their allegiance
to II cir native government and TO become citizens Of
the nted States, if they had not been convinced oil
the absolute and ditional right Of 2stratlop
Congress have uniformly acted upon this principle
since the common cement Of the Fede al Govern
ment. They established "a uniform rule Of ns.ural-
cation nearly seventy years ago. There mas snce
been period in history when laws for this Plr-
pose did not exist, though their provisions have under
gone successive changes. The allen, in order 70 BE-
come a citizen, must declare oatn or affirmation
that he will support the Constitution Of the United
States and at the same time he is required 10 sb'o'
uiely aud entirely and abjnre al allegiance
and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentae, sac
sovereignty whatever, and particularly, By name,
the prince, potentate State or sovereignty gbereofbs
was before a citizen.
The exercise of the right of naturalization, and the
consequent rec gntOn OF the principle OF expatrlsonI
are Rot confined 10 the Government OF the Unfei
States There is no. country in Europe believe,
at the present moment where the law does not auh0r
lie tie naturalization Of foreigners in one form or
other. Irfeed in some Of these countries this law IS
more liberal than Own toward foreigners.
The question then arises wha, rights DO Our laws
oorfer upon foreigner by granting him na.Gr.lLa-
ton answer al the nights, privileges, aud iinmu
mites which belong 10 nstivebon citizen, IN then
full extent, with the single qualification that, under the
Constitution, no persOl except anatura born clazsn
ais eligible 10 the Office Of President WITH this eI
ceptor the naurelized citizen, from and after tho
dse If biz naturalization, both at home and ABROAD
placed upon the very footing with the native
citizen He 10 neither 10 better nor wor-e comb
tou II native citizen chooses to take up his resi-
dence in foreign country tor the purpose OF advanc-
inc liz fortune or promoting HE happiness. he is while
there b, u1d TO obey is municipal laws equally with
those vho have lived il i all tier lives. lie goes
abroad with his eyes open; and II these laws %
arbitrary and Just he has chosen ID abide by toe
conseQut noes. II they are administered IN an eql@
spirit l. ward himself ard toward native subjects, tp
Cover EFT have night TO interfere authori;atvey
In lie behalf. To DO THIS would be to violate the rgm
Of al ildepen6ent nation 10 legislate within re OWE
territories. Il this Government 10 undsrAs
such talk W might soou be involved il tsOube viz
IesTy tie whole worlc. To protect our citizens sgA
the application Ct this principle Of universal las,
full exert. We have treaties with several nations
currg exemption to America citizens when resalns
abroad from Of the oLerpus duties required iio
Their own subjects Where no such treaties exs, az
az American citizen has committed a crime % lne1.'SI
penalty for violating any municipal law whsfevs' =.
the country OF his temporary residence ne = 81
liable 20 be tried and punished for his ofense as
he had resided in il from the day Of his birth ~
hss rot been doIe before his departure, and ne
voluntarily return under the same jurisdiction, L.
be tried ard punished foT the ofeDse upon prinePor
universal law. Under su b circumstances, 10 -.
would think of conienGng that an internedisis tbs
.sLee u liz OWE country iJf years w9..a 1eP'''