Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1859-06-25
" From the wsshlsesos cpsiIis'ies]
TIE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF NAIUR-
.vvvprN CuT1zpNo

.ct Of Mr. Buchanan's cabinet, to create fal>c i'm
preston a. to the meaning Of General Casss letter
10 Mr. Felix lie Clerc naturalixcd citizen born IN
France, and to make il appear that the Secretary OF
State Department and sought to deny to natuIalixTd
citizens certain rights and immuuisics to which, Is
contendcd, they arc entitled
Nothing can be more entirely at variance with The /
fact In the case Of Simon Tousig. an Austrian sub
ject who emigatcd 10 this country, declared his IN
tention to beconc citizen Of the Un'tcd States re-
turned to the land If his BIRTH and being liable he
fore his emigration to certain penalties under the
municipal law Of Austria. was held To be still liable
aftcr his return but claimed the protection Of the
United States rs relief from the liability, Mr. Mar
cy wrote to Mr.. jackson, United States charge d
affaircs at Vienna, January 10th, 1sc4: "Iousi- |
voluntarily returned to Austria and placed himself
within the reach Of her municipal laws. lie went
by his own free act unlcr their jurisdiction. and
thereby subjected himself to them. II nc had IN
CURED penalties and assumed duties while under
those laws he might have expected that they would
be enforced against him. and should have known
that the political relation he had acquirr'i, IT,
indeed he had acquired any, could not operate a.
release from these penalties Having been oncc SUBJ
ject to the municipal laws Of Austria. and while UNI
der her jurisdiction violated these laws. his with
drawal from that jurisdiction and acquiring differ
cnt national character, would not exempt him from
their operation whenever he again chose to place
himself under them" Wheaton also. while United
States minister ut the court Of Prussia, settled this
point in the case Of J. p. Knockc native Of Prus
STA, Who being a naturalixcd citizen Of the United
States returned Of his own free will to his native
country, and having been called On to perform mill
tarv duty applied to the United States legation for
protection. Mr. Wheaton replied to his application
in the following language:
"Had you remained in the United States or vis-
tied any other foreign country Except prr,ssia) on
your lawful business. YOU would have been protect
cd by the American Authorities mt home and abroad.
in the enjoyment Of all Your rights and privileges
a naturalizcd citizen Of the United States. But hav
ing returned to the country &c your birth. your M
tive domcilc AMI national character revert tso long
as you remain in the PrnsSian domnions.l and You
bound in all respects to obey laws exactly f
yon had never emigratcd"
There is certainly nothing in Gen. CasSs brief let
Ter to Mr. lie Clcrc which can bc Justly said to 60
further than Mr. Marcy, or to curtail or abro.a,c
tic rights and privileges which naturaxcd citizens
possess and enjoy under the municipal laws IL the
United States. by which those rights and privileges
described and limited The fact is that General
Casss letter did not raise the question Of the rights
or liabilities Of the naturalizcd citizen. II mcrciy
stated the fact Of the existence Of certain law of
France by which citizens Of that country held TO
be liable to military service. not with view to cx.
press any opinion as TO the proprcty or improperly
Of that law. but with the benevolent purpose Of
warning natives of France who may have cmi-ratci
to this country before they have discharged their
liability to serve in the French army. and have bc
come naturalizel citizens of the United States that
in case they return to France and bring themselves
within the jurisdiction Of the municipal laws Of
France, they expose themselves to he required to
| fulfill the obligations which they had injured
prior to their emigration In further proof &c this
assertion. We would draw attention to the letter
from the Secretary Of State to Mr. lIo.cr 81 Gin.
cinnati which We publish below. and in which he
clearly enunciatcs the views Of the Government of
the United States both to the right Of cxpar;a-
ton and the protection extended to all those citizens
Of foreign nations who exercise il by becoming na,1i.
rallied citizens Of this rcpublic-pro,cction in all
the privileges Of their adopted domicilc not ONLY
within the limits Of the United States but in cvcrv
country in the world The Secretary explains. with
equal brevitv and effect the position Of the United
States with regard to naturalizcd citizens who NAV
voluntarily return to the country Of their birth
which is that they not liable tn any duties or
penalties except such were cx>tin. at the period
Of their emigration Of which the na,uralixcd ci,i.
zen is always aware. and to which he can only he
subjected by voluntarily placing himself within tho
jurisdiction Of the municipal law Of the country Of
which he is native. It cannot he said that there
j. anything harsh to the naturaixe citizen in this
Interpretation Of the law Of nations since the opera
ton Of the municipal law Of foreign States Tor pcn
alties incurred BY naturalizcd citizens before thcy
left their native country is not confined to them.
II native citizen Of the United States had com
mittcd crime, subjected himself to penalties un
der the municipal laws Of Prussia or France. O,
any other foreign country. in the absence Of an,
treaty stpulations his cxtradtion cannot of course
be demanded from this Government: hut. f he vol
UNFAIRLY returns within the limits Of those counric.
wherein the crime was committed or the penalty in
Cured he would he properly subjected tn the nun
ishment awarded to his offence by the municipa
laws Of those States The principle is that. whcr,
crimes have been committed or penalties INQUIRE,
by an individual under the municipal laws Of tn
State Of his birth, he cannot avoid those pcnaltic
or that punishment by naturalization in forcc,
country in case Of his return to the place Of his ma
tivity. The municipal laws of one nation, whcthc
OF naturalization, exemption. or otherwise, have N
extra territorial effect rs by any Retrospective
energy to repeal the laws Of another State whicl
had been violated by native Of that State prior 4
his emigration here, in case Of his return. lie ha
the same privileges and protection here and else
where as a native, and no more.
1t IS obviously unfair to attempt to constitute an
comparison between the supposed case Of Mr.. /.
Clerc and that Of Martin Kosxta. The latter wa
different from the former in every particular; an
so Mr.. Marcy considered it. as may be seen by ri
erence to his argument in the Tousig case Kosxts
whether he committed crimes against the muuicip,
laws OF Austria or not, did not return within tn
jurisdiction Of those laws, and was therefore, iu
properly arrested by Austrian officials in Smyrns
since no treaty obligation existed between Aas,ri
and Turkey which entitled the former to dcman
the extradition Of offenders Of that character Tha
such case has no point Of similitudc to that sur
posed by Mr.. LIE Clerc, must be obvious to ever
body who gives himself the trouble to reflect Q
who honestly desires to form just opinion.
We confidently believe that the following ofiici.
exposition Of the views Of our Government will Sc
tie the question, and remove the erroneous and III
- u
have sought to create with regard to the action ,
the State Department in the matter Of Mr.. lie Ccr,
DEPARTMENT or SrArIl
Washington, juno IA, 1859. I
SIR: In answer to your letter Of the 10th instan
| have to inform you that the brief letter from th
Department to which you refer. dated the 18th
May last, and addressed to Mr.. Felix Le Clcrc, ",
in reply to an application for information, and y,
principally intended to recommend caution to o,
naturalized fellow citizens natives of Franco in