The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1859-06-22

| tanned an entirely novel doctrine and
advantage has sought to be taken of it for
! parizan purposes. The Know Moth
ing papers manifest peculiar indigna-
lion at General CAss' alleged surrender of
| the rights of naiuralized citizens and have
suddenly become the Jealous advocates OF
privileges abroad which this would deny al
home. That variegated pollution, JOHN NJ
Boris, has deemed the occasion proper
time 10 write letter, in which he condemns
the doctrine OF the Secretary's letter as
entirely novel and precedent, thereby de-
monsiratng his own ignorance and capacity
10 be leader of The Know Noihincs.
We find in the National Iateiigenee an
article on this subject so thoroughly exhaus-
tive in point Of agument and the citation
of precedents, that we need not apologize
for laying it before our readers, in order
that the question may be fully and fairly
understood - -,
The LIMITlrIoNs OF MuSlCIpAL LAW IN
THE MATTER Of NATURALIZATION Our read
ers are aware that, in answer to an applica-
ton made at he Department of State by
naturalized citizen, who, being a native Of
France, desired 10 know whether his new
citizenship would exempt him from the ot'
legation of rendering military service in case
! of a voluntary return. 10 his native country,
MIR Secretary Cass stated that "the French
Government claim service from all natives
of France who may be found within its
jurisdiction" and added that "naturaliza-
tion 10 this country would not exempt from
that claim" in the case of those who "vol
unfairly repair thi,her"
Though this decision of the veteran Sec
retary is based on well recognized princi-
pies of public law, and is, moreover, sus-
tanned by established precedents in our
civil and disioueaiic history, it seems to
have provoked reclamatons IN certain
quarters, and criticised as implying some
derogalion from the imagined rights and
immunities secured TO naturaixed citizens
of the United States, who, it is contended,
by virtue of their naturalization, are placed,
in relation 10 their native country, as in all
other respects, precisely on the same foot
ing as natural born citizen of the United
States. We believe this opinion to be er-
roneous ; and the attemptto confound the
doctrine stated by Mr.. Cass with that re.
sisted by the United States in the war OF
1912 against Great Britain, proceeds on a
historical misconception of The real position
assumed by our Government in denying, as
it did at that time, and still does, the prin-
ciple of perpetual allegiance" II was
maintained by the Government of the Uni
ted States that this doctrine of perpetual
allegiance depends entirely upon The mum
cipal law by which it is defined and entorc,
ed, and hence British cruiser, in entering
an American vessel in order TO take from i
alleged British subjects, was in reality
claiming TO exercise, under the law o
nations, right which had no existence
beyond the jurisdiction of British law
The ocean was declared 10 be sphere o
International law, and ii was properly held
that any merchant vessel on the high sea!
was, by that law, under the protection o
the laws Of her own nation, and might Just
lv claim immunity from visitation or search
unless in cases allowed by the general con
sent Of nations. AS the doctrine of per
petual allegiance formed no part of the law
of nations, it clearly did not present oneof the
cases which. would justify the assumption
claimed by the British Government. The
duties and relations prescribed by British
law were admitted 10 be valid within the
realm or proper dependencies of Great Brit
ain, but beyond those limits that law haG
no force or obligation which compelled it:
observation on the part OF other nations
who were equally free 10 enact such othe
municipal regulations in the matter of citi
zenship and civil allegiance as might seem
to them expedient.
Hence it will be seen that the pretensior
of those who protest against the principle
recently announced by Mr. Cass involves
in fact, the worst features of the very doc
trine which was made a ground of com
plant against Great Britain in the controver
sy waeed in the assumed right of impress
ment. AS the British Government claimed
force and effect for British law on the high
seas, and TINS sought TO establish an extra,
territorial authority for the statutes of the
British Legislature, so in like manner these
complainants demand recognition for Anne
rican municipal law within the jurisdiction
of foreign States, and that, too, when ou
municipal law contfavenes the municpa
law OF those States. We have but to state
the proposition in order 10 show its ground
lessness in the light of reason, IS we'll as it
palpable opposition 10 the first principles
which lie at the basis of International law
That law assumes, as the condition of i'll
existence and as the guarantee OF its ebserv
ance. the equality of civilized common
wealths; and no member of the internalona
community is entitled 10 claim for its enact
ments respect which virtually supersedei
the authority of other States in the same
premises.
In the case under consideration it is OBJ
, viously the right of the United States, as o
every independent sovereignty, TO natural
, ize foreigners and to confer upon them the
| privileges of their acquired domicile but
as these privileges result entirely from tn,
| ic;paI lo,,, ,rb,ch tho,, -