Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1859-07-22
poIitital.
THE NATURALIZATION CUES
TION.

tration on this question, that we embrace
the opportunity furnished by practical
case, which has recently arisen IN the
kingdom Of Hanover, to refer to it again,
The case is that of naturalized citl-
zen of the United States who is native
of Hanover, and who, when he left his
native country, was neither in actual SER
vice in the Hanoverian army nor had
been drafted to serve in it, but who has
yet, upon his return to Hanover, been
deprived of his liberty and compelled to
do military duty.
The intervention of our Government
having thus become necessary, the whole
subject of the rights of our naturalized
citizens has received the renewed and
careful consideration of the President,
and his views, as well as those of his en-
tire cabinet, upon this important subject,
will be found in the following extract
which we are permitted to make from q
despatch transmitted few days ago from
the Department of State to our minister
at Berlin in relation to the case referred
TO.
1t is impossible to add anything to the
strength and clearness of this statement;
and we arc persuaded that it will meet
the full concurrence of every rejecting
man in the country:
Extract from despatch of the Depart
ment of State to tie Minister Of The
U. s. at Berlin, dated July 8, 1859.
The right of repatriation cannot at
this day be doubted or denied in the
United States. The idea has been repu.
dated ever since the origin of our Gov
ernment, that man is bound to remain
forever in the country of his birth, and
that he has no right to exercise his free
will and consult his own happiness by
selecting new home The most emf
ncnt writer's on public law recognise the
right of expatriation. This can only be
contested by those who in the nineteenth
century are still devoted to the ancient
feudal law with all its oppression. The
doctrine of perpetual allegiance is relic
of barbarism which has been gradually
disappearing from Christcndom during
&
the last century.
The Constitution of the United States
recognises the natural right Of expatria-
ton, by comforting upon Congress the
power to establish a uniform rule of
naturalization" Indeed it was one of
the grievances alleged against the Rri- !
fish King in the Declaration Of indie |
pendence, that he had "endeavored to
prevent the population of these States
for that purpose obstructing the laws of
naturalization Of foreigners, refusing to
pass others TO encourage their migration
hither," &c. &c. The Constitution thus
clearly recognises the principle Of expa-
triaton in the strongest manner. Ii
would have been inconsistent in itself
and unworthy of the character of the
authors Of that instrument, to hold out
inducements to foreigners to abandon
their native land, to renouncc their allie
glance to their native government and to
become citizens of the United States, if |
they had not been convinced Of the abso-
lutte and unconditional right of cxpatria-
ton. Congress has uniformly acted upon
this principle ever since The commence
ment Of the Federal Government. They |
established ga uniform rule of natural
ization" nearly seventy years ago. There
has since been 70 period in our history
when laws for this purpose did not exist,
though their provisions have undergone
successive changes. The alien, in order
to become a citizen, must declare on oath
or affirmation that he will support the
Constitution of the United States and,
at the same time, he is required to abso-
lutely and entirely renounce and ALLURE
all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign
prince, potentate, State or sovereignty
whatever, and particularly, by name, the
prince, potentate, State or sovereignty |
whereof he was before q citizen.
The exercise Of the right Of natural
ization, ard tho consequent recognition
of the principle of expatriation, arc not
confined to the Government Of the United
States. There is not country in Eu-
rope, believe, at the preseLt moment,
where the law does not authorize the ma
turalization Of foreigners in one form or
other. Indeed, in some Of these coun-
tries this law is moro liberal than our
own towards foreigners.
The question, then, arises, what rights
do our laws confer upon a foreigner by
granting him naturalization Ianswer,
all the rights, privileges, and immunities
which belong TO natiyo-born citizen, in
their full extent, with the single qualif-
cation that, under the Constitution, ono
person except natural-born is eligible
10 the office Of President" With this
the naturalizcd citizen from
and after the date Of his naturalization, I
both at home and abroad, is placed upon I
ihe very same footing with the native
citizen. He is neither in better nor a I
worse condition. If a native citizen
chooses TO take up his residence in for
oign country for the purpose Of advance
ng his fortune or promoting his happi-
ness, he is whilst there bound to obey its
municipal laws equally with thosc who
nave lived in it all their lives. lie goes
abroad with his eyes open; and If those
avs be arbitrary and unjust be has la.yT
N 70 abide by the conscSucne Al
hey are administered p tgnA spirit
owards himsolswfrLIAM BFI native SUI
!. mo Ws, PLOw CAg ~ iieP,,t ~
[ HANDLES, jast rccciyY his bfhaii -
srrl 20 wyiolate Tbs sightu