New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-06-24

The doctrine Of perpetual allegiance, whatever
objections may be made to 1t, seems to be founded
upon some pretty strong aud obvious anaogles.
However decidedly the fashionable politics, phil
osopby of the latter halt of the last century might
lean to the idea of allowing every man to thick,
choose ard act for hlmseif-what has been called
ind slduul sovereignty that philosophy DID
not deny the existence of certain obligations whch,
as they are imposed upon every individual Without
bis consent or participation, 81 he has no power u
shake them ofr. The obligations aud duties which
parent owes to a child. aud child to parent, do
not depend upon the will or consent of either, nor
does the law 10 the sanction which 1t adds To GER
tain Of those obligations, recognize IN either any
power Of remuneration. Ii Was undoubtedly those
snalogiss, the same which 10 many Languages have
sssmilsted the names OF father and of country,
that gave rice to the idea of perpetual allegiance
If son cannot renouncs the obllg cations which he
owes to his father, how can the subject or citizen
free b.mself at bis own mere will and pleasure from
the duty which he owes to his country
Even the doctrine of contract as the origin OF
government and the has Of the mutual Obligation
OF sovereign and subject, does not 10 the least in-
terfere with this dOctfioe Of perpetual allegiance,
since even in the case Of civil cootrscts system
of Jurisprudence allows one Of the parties, at his
own mere pleasure Or caprice, and without the
consent Of the other party to the contract to dls
charge himself from the obligations thence arising
Nor doesl the idea aud practice Of naturalization
an idea and practice familiar to the English law
as well as our own-necessariy conflict with the
doctrine that no man can by his swn mere act,
shake off the obligations which his birth has i'm
posed upon him. The great object of naturslza-
ton is to give within the jurisdiction of the country
that grants it, the rights and privileges of .
natural. born subject, which does DOT necessarily
Include the release of the party naturazed from
any prior obligations TO which he may be liable.
1t is worthy of notice that the Naturalization act
passed by the first Congress under the Federal
Constitution did not require on the part Of the
persons naturalzed any renuncistion of any prior
Obligations. That act authorized all Courts of
Record to the application of al en- free white
persons who bad resided within the United States
for two years, and, proof of good character and
their taking an oath Of affirmation 10 support the
Constitution, 70 adm: ouch persons as citizens;
but no person who had been disfr,nchissd BY any
State unde. any laws passed during the Revolution
was 70 DC readmitt,d as citizen, except BY q
legislative act of the state to which be had for
merly belonged. This frs, Naturalization act was
passed in 1890. Another set, substantially ihs.
ahsh Is now in force. was passed IN 1894. By
that time. = considerable stream OF emigration
was setting t. tho United State, BAT, - al great
extent, of . diiferen. character tom that which
now aows thi.her. Instead of being mainly made
up a. now, Of persons coming in pursuit Of en-
pl yment or pecunisry advantage. it Was largely
composed of political refugees, driven from Europe
BY the political agitstions tina. prevailed there.