New-York daily tribune., 1859-07-07

M Bots having been invited 10 receive the COM
phment of public dinner in this city replied in the
following terms:
AsToR HoUsE, N. Y, June 81 1859.
GENTLEMEN: Your very acceptable and gratifying
iester inviting me- in behalf Of many citizens who de-
size to meet me- that may partake Of public dinner
to be gwen in this city as testimonial OF their appro
baton f the views presented by me nmy late letter on
the claims Of our adopted citizens 10 the protection OF
the Government, was handed me at a late hoar last
evening.
feel profoundly sensible Of the Obligations which
the generous offer of your hospitality and respect has
imposed upon me- but which hope to be pardoned
for most respectfully declnng-hrst because my letter
wac not written with any vie~ TO get up political
feeling for selfish purposes, whch the acceptance OF
pubic dinner would seem to indicate: and, secondly,
because / have been already more than rewarded in
having been humble instrument, in your hands,
whereby the original views Of this Administration have
tion but have been part abandoned, although they
have not yet entirely assumed that "compeSl0a 10
shsck they must come al last
The Secretary of State has descended from the plat
form upon which the letter lie Cerc had placed him.
and bas LETT thOee parties thtt were In hot haste 10
sustain him standing all alone in their glory but he
has not yet assembled the platform when every Ametr
can will occupy, and which the public voice OF the
coupry will REQ oire him to stand firmly upon, without
or explanations the Administration, OF
which he is the 0Tgan Will De oVerwnelea Win tneh
indigT alton and rebuke. 80 -,
Whether the supporters Of his lie Clerc position will
war upon that which he now occupies, or follow nun
in the various changes, explanations and gradauons
through which il is his destiny to pass, we snail see
anon At all events the sudden ana unexpected trans
ition ofthe Secretary will relieve me OF Gil necessity 10Y
meeting their hastily concOcted criticisms On my own
position and shall leave that matter TO be settled Do
tween themselves and the Secretary.
The questions involved of such magnitude that
that may be pardoned for availng myself OF tns
occasion for further but brief auson to the suheo
especially as 1 do not wish to appear IN the puphc
prints more frequently than absolute necessity may
require.
ibe letter addressed to me asking my views on the
subject was dated the llth my answer was written
ON the 18TH but dated and delivered on the l3th and
and on the evening of that day was advised thai
teesraphic despsich or letter u am not sure which,
had been sent the Secretary of state, informing bim
of the nature Of the correspondence about 10 De pup
hshed and admonishipg him of the necessity for max
ing some explanation or modification of the grounds
taken in his letter 10 lie Cerc and this accounts Tor
the explanatory special despatch sent to The Herald
instead of MI. HOfeI, in CIncinnat TO WHOM II pro-
fesses 10 have been written, and which appeared IN
that paper simultaneously with myietter.
In this explanatory letter the Secretary ssys This
Government is opposed TO the doetrne OF perPe!u3
" allegiance and maintains the right of expatrlston
"ano the hight to form political ties else where;
and that, IN THE age of the world, the idea OF con-
"troling the citizen in the choice OF home, aud
binding him by mere political theory, TO inhabit for
" lifetime country be desres to leave, can hardly
"be entertained by any Government whatever"
Now this is precisely what said and ia just precisely
what the Secretary denied in the lie Cerc letter, TO
r
petoal allegiance referred 10 Is exactly that which
relates 10 the obligations Of all naturaized citizens TO
ackno~lecge an allie glance they have renounced and
perform military service required against the coun-
fry of their adoption which they have 10 detead;
for until they have assumed this Obligation We have
right disposition TO interfere So lax then SO we
and II would have been better II the becrelary had
stopped at that Point; but he goes on with Whist
must be paidoned for saying is an inoomprehensbie
copglomeIation Of Inconsistencies and contradictions,
wholly irreconceabe with tnst portion ot the letter
already quoted the precise intent of whioh cannot be
very well understood unless indeed IL is intended 10
mysffy and coniouBd. He next ssys:
The position Of the United States is, that natural
ICED citizebs returnns to the country Of the birth,
are not liable TO any duties penalties except such as
were existing at the penod of their emigration"
And here the Secretary again falls bsck upon the
petua allegiance TO the native country which be had
the moment before denied. But this view of tie sub
ject is ain qualified by the declaration that f, at
" the time Of their emigration, they were IN the army
or actually called into it, such emigration and
" turai alton do not exempt them from the legG pen
ATTY which they incurred by their eesertion, they
" aherward place themselves voluntarily within the
+" local jurisdiction, &c. have not unaerstooo tnst
Mr. lie Cerc WAS deserter," or hsd otherwise oi
fepded against the criminal code Of the French Em-
pire and yet he was answered, "I0ur naturalization
" in this country will bot exempt you from thai cis
of military service should yen voluntarily repair
:" fhitber."
AS matter of oouIse, il an adopted citizen had IN
Cured penalties in his native land by desenop' mur
der arson robbery, or ether oense he woa'd De Jus.
liable to punishment snd no more 80 thaa would
be it, while sbrosd hsd committed socs oheoses, ana
were to return again and fall into the hAsds Of the
proper authorities. My native citizenship In tie Cni-
ted States could not protect me, and Therefore mss
nothing Whatever to 90 with the question in dispute
But the Secretary says again: 4" But when no pre-
sent liabilities exist sgans them at the penod Of their
emigration, the law Of nations in the opinion OF thus
Government gives right to any country 10 interfere
with natursized American citizens and the attempt to
90 would be considered act unjust in itself and
unfnendly toward the United States" And is this
the lame and impotent conclusion TO which this
Government has arrived that if a foreign Govern
ment should wrongfuny and unlawfuly interfere with
. nataraized Americsp citizen, it would smply be