Daily national Democrat., 1859-01-22
Speech of Hon. C. e. DeI.onU.

Ai' DeAOhB lndue speech In the House
on the 10th inst. on the contested election
case of Duncombe and Montgomery, which
the Union characterizes as having been can
able argument" The report of the speech
as given by the Union, is not so full as we
could have wished it, but the aninus of it
may be judged by what is reported:
Mr.. DELoNG-I intend to make no speech f,r 7
am not prepared, and if were, after the eloquent
and talented discussion of the subject by nv hon.
ored and worthy friend Judge Robinson, to at
tempt speech in defense Of the contestant would
be an act OF egotism in the highest degree But
l desire to make one statement, said Mr. DeIonO
and upon that offer two simple suggestions
which, If disposed of, will satisfy my mind, and
shall be able to act He presumed that no peii-
tleman would deny the proposition that, in order
to change mans citizenship and fealty, mutual
| ity and intention is only deemed necessary; that
! DR.. Duncombe is now q citizen of the United
States, for he has voluntarily left Canada as he
Int, and has taken the oath to support our
laws that he did to support theirs. HIS intention
| Is better manifested in the last act from the fact
that he has remained here 81 years. ENJOYING the
rights and privileges of a citizen. And now for
the first suggestion The English Government
still mainttins the doctrine, "once subject al
ways subject" consequently DR.. Duncombe by
! the English common law, is not subject of Eng
! land. Now, if the doctrine of the common law Is
as interpreted by the contestants advocates. that
he is not a citizen Of America then of what coun-
try is he citizen? | answer of none. He must
be balloon, and should be suspended in mid-air
no country claims him, and of none can he be
citizen. Now reason and humanity are against
such a distortion of human rights In this posi-
ton he was sustained by the Chief Justice of the
United States Supreme Court The case of Tai.
bot VS.. Janson, Sd Dallas, page l45, has the fol.
/ lOxxysY NNf hat,, al, ,cI
not be citizen Of the United States Shall he be
cllled human balloon, detached and buoyant in
the political atmosphere, gazed at whatever he
passes, and settled wherever he touches? ?" He
would next proceed to see what is meant by allep-
glance, as defined by our America Encyclopedia
1t Is derived from the word aUtgGh, to bind
Now, it is the doctrine Of the English law that
naturalbOrn subjects owe an allegiance which is
intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be
divested by any act of their own. Does
this doctrine apply to citizens of the United
States? Mnch argument has been expended on
this proposition. A historical view of the princi-
pal discussions in the Federal Courts C the Uni.
ted States fully establishes that the better opinion
has been and is that "a citizen cannot announce
his allegiance to the United States without the
permission Of the Government, to be declared by
law" and that there being no legislation on the
subject, "the rule Of the English law remains un-
altered" This rule Mr.. DeLong applied to the
right to citizenship in this country, how is he to
regain it? He cannot by naturalization, for he is
no alien. To be an alien is tn be foreign born
Mr.. DeLong quoted from the Encyclopedia "An
alien may be defined to be person born out of
the jurisdiction Of the country and not having be-
come naturalzcd citizen " Thus, if Dr. Dun
combe has lost his citizenship by our laws and
cannot recover it, and by the laws of England he
is not citizen there-now the remedy for this
state Of things (said Mr.. DeLong) must lie in the
fact that man can be citizen of one land for
one purpose, while he remains u citizen of anoth-
er. This is disputed by the gentleman from Am
ador, who refers to the last war with Great Brit
ain. Now, the right asserted by the United
States, and finally conceded by Great Britain was
that naturazed citizens were protented by our
flag on sea or land, but not that a British born
subject naturalizcd by our Government might not
resume his native allegiance by returning to his
native land and swearing obedience to her laws
and claiming protection from them. Now, was
not this the case Of DR.. DuncOmbe? Mr. DeIong
again cited the case of Talbot VS.. Janson to show
that though Captain T., who was a native of Vir-
ginia took the oath of allegiance to the French
Republic in the Island of Guadalupe, and was
there naturalized as a FIR nch citizen: and though
.. " th%t time lew of expatration existed in Vir-
ginia, the Court said Il do not think that mere
ly taking such an oath and being admitted there
IN itself is evidence of bona tile cxpatrlation
completely discharges his Obligation To his ma.
tive country. Had there been any restrictions by
our own law on his quitting this country, could
any act of a foreign country repeal that? Ger
talnly not Did any man suppose, when the
rights of citizenship were so freely and honorably
bestowed on Lafayette, that that absOlved him as
a citizen of his own country? 1t had only this
effect: whenever he came to this country and
chose to reside, he was ipso fac,O to be deemed
citizen, without anything further The same
might be said Of other iustrOus characters of
our own Government, uopn whom was conferred
the rights Of citizenship by France. In speaking
of this, the Justice evidently refers to George
| Washington, upon whom the honor was conferred
and who was made citizen of France Mr. De-
| Long also quoted the language Of Chief Justice
| Rutedge in the case above referred to- in which
it is expressly stated "that man NAV at the
same time enjoy the rights of citizenship under
! two governments" He referred, in addition, to
a syllabus Of a decision of the Supreme Court in
Woods Digest, p 743 "a citizen of the United
| States by becoming citizen of another country,
does not cease to be citizen of the United States
nor is he absolved from his original allegiance "
! But what need to multiply authorities in this
case? Summing up the testimony, Mr.. DeLong
said DIR. Duncombe has fairly and manfully at
| tended the committee, and under OATH answered
every question put to him. BY his statement
yon must judge him, and if you refer to that you
will find there that he has sworn that he had held
the office of Councilman of this city, and other
positions, in all of which he has sworn and re-
sworn his oath of obedience to our Constitution
and laws that he has lived here continually for
twenty-one years; that he has on different occas.
ians advised with legal counsel of the highest
grade, the Attorney General Of the State of Ohio,
Caleb Gushing, late United States Attorney Gen
eral, and number of others, from all of whom,
after stating his case in full he has every time re-
ceved the assurance that be had nothing to do ;
that he was beyond doubt what must be his
greatest PRIDE it IS the greatest pride of every
true American II citizenship of our glorious Re-
public. DIR. Duncombe does not want his seat un-
less it belongs to him his history is but the per-
sOnal history Of thousands of adventurous spirits
that have foreshadowed the march of American
civilization. Canada, Texas, Mexico and the Bri-
tish Possessions north of her, all have been the
scenes Of their exploits; and none, dare say
none, have ever thus done with thought, much
more a certain knowledge, that they were there
| by thus forever alternating themselves from this
the land of their love and nativity.
CouRT OF SESSIONS, YESTERDAY. The Court
was occupied all day with the trial of John
Shields, accused of stealing q gold lump,
worth $500, out of mining claim in Plu-
mas county. The jury retired at Z o'clock in