The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-07-19

eminent successfully resisted under such cir
cumstanccs will scarcely he submitted TO now
Inc application of these principles to the
case of any naturalizcti citizen who returns 10
ms native country, Is simple and easy enough
Hr ts,liabie, like ANYBODY else, TO be arrested
TOT debt or n cfinfe, but lie cannot righ,fully
be punished for the non performance Of 4
duty which is supposed To grow out of that al
legianee which he has abjured and renouneed
If he was descrter from the army, he NAV be
punished when he goes back, because desertion
IL a crime. On the other hand, il he was not
actually In the ARMY Mt the time of hts friiii
grafton, but merely liable, like other members
OF tho State, 10 he called on for his share If
military dntN which he did not perform, be-
cause ne jeft The country befote the tifle for its
performance came rotthu. IN cannot instly bS
moiested Any arrest or detention of him on
maj account ought TO be regarded rs a grave
oi'hee 10 nus adopted country. What acts are
NECESSARY 10 make him part of the army, what
constitutes the crime of military desertion,
Ehetfer rsrsor draftnd eonserioed. or mott
itru, but not actually serving nlay bs islIaa n
o'''tter, IL ne iaiis To report himself-these are
questions which need not be discussed until
'heS arise But 1t may he said that the (;oyern.
iheht 81 Hanover has right to make her own
hWS,and execute them in her own way This il
siflcily true of all laws which are intended to
cntpite 'he obigations and punish the offences
OF her own people But a law which onerates
on IN" interests and rights OF other States or
people, must be made and executed according
go the law of nations A sovereign who tram
excuse hiiliset bs pointing to PROVISION in his
. own municipal todh he rinnicipai totia of
each country is The offspring of its own soyaT-
eign's viii. and public law must he paramount
10 locaf law in every question, where local
laws are III conflict. If Hanover would make Il
legislative decree, forbidding her people to
I einlEratc or expatriate themselves, upon pain
OF death. that would not take aw;iv the right
of expatriation, and any attempt to execute
such n law upon one who has already become
( an American citizen. would. and ought TO be
met by very prompt reclamation
Hanover. probably, has some Inunicipal reg
, uiation Of her own, by which the right of ex-
/ patri1t'on may be denied to those of her peo-
pie who tall TO COMPLY with certan Conditions
Assuming that such a regulation existed in
1901 ana assuming. also, that it was violated
by Mr.. Ernst when he came away the Dues
+ ZION Will then arise whether the unlawfulneSs
! OF his emigration makes his act of natura!iza-
ton void, As against the King of Hanover |
answer, no; certainly not. He is an Ameri-
+ can citizen by our law. If he violated the law
of Hanover, which forbade him to transfer his
allegiance TO us. then the laws of the two
countries are in conflict, and tho law of ma
tons steps In to decide the question upon
prime pies and rules OF our own. BY the public
OF the world, We have tho tIndoubted right to
naturali2e Il foreigner. whether his natural
sovereign consented TO his emigration or not.
. In my opinion, the Hanoyerian Government
cannot Justify the arrest of Mr.. Ernst by
showing that he emigratcd contrary to the
laws OF that country, unless it can also be
proved that the original right OF repatriation
! depends on the consent of the natural soyer-
eign. This last proposition | am sure no man
. can establish.