Daily national Democrat., 1859-07-17
The Rights OF Foreign Bom citizens.

may claim his military services If he revisits
the old country-has hatched up an explana-
ton of the lie Clere letter, by which to APP
pease or mollify the just indignation which
il has aroused in the public mind. The Ad-
ministration papers, after fully indorsing the
lie Cerc letter, without waiting for any ex-
planation now endorse the explanatory let
ter as well, and probably would endorse a
hundred things totally different and antago.
nistic, should they emanate from the Federal
mandatory of opinions at Washington But
what is the true character of this explanato
ry letter? Read it. 1t is addressed to A.
V. Hofcr, of Cincinnati:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WASHINGTON, June 18th, 1859.
SIR:--ln answer to your letter of the 9th in
stant have to inform you that the brief letter
from this Department to which you refer, dated
the 18th of May last, and addressed to Felix lie
Clerc, was in reply to an application for informa-
ton, and was principally Intended 10 recommend
caution to our uaturalized fellow citizens, natives
OF France in returning to that country, as the op-
eratiOns OF the French cOnScription law were pos
itlvely known, and might bear Injuriously upon
that class Of American citizens. Most ofthe con-
tlnentaI European nations nave q system OF MILL
itary organization, by which their citizens are
compelled to serve in the army by conscrption,
and not as in France, where the duty is designa-
ted by lot or draft. In Prussia, every person is
required to take his turn as a soldier.
The condition of American naturalized citizens
returning to their native country, where the sys-
tenn of compulsory service prevails, and who had
| left before such service, has consequently been
the subject of discussion with some of the Eu-
ropean powers. Quite recently it has risen be-
! O. y
! resCntatve Of the country at the Court of Berlin
has brought the matter to the attention of the
| Prussian Government. In the instructions sent
him. May 10Th, 1850, it was explicitly stated that
this,Government opposed the doctrine of perpetu-
al allegiance, and maintains the right of expatria-
ton and the right TO form new political ties else
where. Upon this subject It is observed that in
this age Of the world the idea of controlling the
citizen in the choice of home and binding him
by mere political theory to inhabit for a life
time country which he desires to leave can
hardly be entertained by any Government. The
United States, therefore, maintains the proposi-
ton that naturallzed citizens returning to the
country of their birth are not liable to any duties
or penalties ercept such iCeFe in existence at the
period Of their eHigrdtion
IT, at that time, they were in the army or ac-
tually called into 1t, such emigration and natural
ization do not exempt then from the legal penal
| ty which they incurred by their desertion. But
this penalty may be enforced against them when
ever they shall voluntarily place themselves with
in the local jurisdiction of their native country,
and shall be proceeded against according to law.
But when no personal liabilities existed against
them at the period Of their emigration, the law of
nations, in the opinion of this Government, gives
no right to any country to interfere with natn-
| rallied American citizens and the attempt to do
so would be considered an act unjust in itself
and unfrendly towards us. Jurisdiction cannot
Of course arise in the case of the naturazed citi-
| nor -bo in tbo Cd Il
when he voluntarily returns to his native coun-
! try that its local laws can be enforced against
him. am, sir, your obedent servant,
(Signed) LEWIS CAss
Now, the true Interpretation of this very
ingeniously worded letter shows it to be a sim
pie reiteration of the ground taken in the
lie Clerc correspondence France has con.
seription law, says Cass, und so have other
European nations Under these conscription
laws, subjects owe and must perform, at
some period or other, military service to the
country. If they leave before that service
is performed, they still owe it, and cannot
return to their native country, without being
subject to the obligation The United States
he says, maintains the proposition that nat
uralized citizens, returning to the country of
their birth, are not liable to any duties or
penalties, ereept such as were in existence a,
the period of their emigration" We do MOI
see that the exemption amounts to anything
Naturalized citizens are not liable to any du
ties or penalties, except such as yere in erist
eRce at the period of their emigration Il
would be very queer thing if they were
liable to only such duties or penalties as were
in existence after their emigration. It is nc
comfort to a foreigner to inform him that his
obligations to his native country, of which it
is alleged that he cannot rid himself, accrued
or existed before he left the country, and not
after,oardS. The very trouble that he has to
meet, the very essence of the whole difficulty,
is with regard to those same "duties" and
penalties" which already existed at the pc.
riod of his emigration. Mr. Cass SAYS the
naturalized citizen cannot divest himself OF
the Obligations and effects of those duties
ard penalties. He is not liable "to any duties
or penalties, ercept such as were in existence
at the period of his emigration" Marvellous
privilege Wonderful exception After
stating that conseription laws are in force in
nearly all the European nations, the duties
and penalties" of which are perfect at the
period of a mans emigration, he then add.
that the naturalized citizen is subject only tc
) those duties and penalties, should he evel
conclude to revisit his native land. That il
to say that he can never divest himself of th,
obligations which then attached to him, anC
: the fact of his becoming an American citizei
entities him to no protection at the hands o
+ the American Government, should he happei
: ever to wander within the limits of tn,
l. country which claimed his original allegiance
According to this, man has no right (,
'f change his residence Mt all; where he wa
It born there must he stay, OF take the characte
It of fugitive liable at any time to be appre
5 hended by the Government from which h
escaped If she can claim him, under he
d conseription laws, why cannot she claim hir
under any other of her laws. as well? Tn
fact is, the doctrine is contrary to the geniu
and spirit of our Government, and is repua
nant TO the general sense of the people ]
is palpable departure from the time-honol
ed principles of the Democratic party an
grossly yoative Of all American preeeden