The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1859-08-03
! Number 7.


then our charge d'atftires to vienna, when speak
ing Of Tousig's case, every nation, whenever its
laws are violated bya any one owing obedience to
them, whether he is a citizen ora stranger, has
right to infct the penalties incurred upon the trans
gressors, if found within its jurisdiction" This
principle is too well established to admit OF serious
controversy. If one Of our native or naturalized
citizen were to expose himself to punishment by
the commission of an offence against any of our
laws, State or national, and afterwards become
naturalized subject Of foreign country, he would
not have the hardihood to contend, upon volunta-
rily returning within our jurisdiction that his
naturanization relieved him from the punishment
due to his crime; much less could he appeal 10 the
government Of his adopted country to protect him
against his responsibility to the United States or
any Of the States. This government would not for
a moment listen to any such an appeal.
Whilst these principles cannot be contested,
great care should be taken in their application, es>
pecialy to our naturalized citizens. The moment
foreigner becomes naturalized his allegiance to
his native country is severed forever. He expert
Fences new political birth. A broad and impasaa-
bic line separates him from h S native country. He
is no more responsible for anything he may say or
do, or omit to say or do, after assuming his new
character, than if he had been born in the United
States. Should he return to his native country, he
returns as an American citizen, and in no other
character. In order to enttle his original govern
ment to punish him for an offence, this must have
been committed whilst he was subject and owed
allegiance to that government. The offence must
have been complete before his repatriation. II
must have been Of such character that he might
have been tried ard punished for it at the moment
of his departure, A future liability to serve int
army will not be sufficient; because, before the
time arrive for such service he has changed his
allegiance, and has become citizen Of tho United
States. 1t would be quite absurd to contend that
aboy, brought to this country from foreign coun-
try with his fathers family when but twelve years
of age and natnraized here, who should afterwards
visit the country of his birth when he had become
a man, might then be seized and compelled to per-
form military service, BECAUSE if he had remained
there throughout the intervening years and his life
had been spared, he would have been bound to
perform military service.
| To submit to such principle would be to make
an odous distinction between our naturalized and
native citizens For this reason, III my dispatch
to you Of May u, 1889, and again in my letter to
Mr. Holer of the l4th ultimo, | confne the foreign
jurisdiction in regard to our naturalizcd etizensto
such Of thenias "were in the army or were actual
ly called into it" at the time they left Prussia.
That u.s. to the case of actual desertion refusal
to enter the army after having been regularly
drafted and called into it by the government to
which at the time they owed allegiance. 1t is pre-
sumed that neither of these cases presents any diff.
fculty in point of principle. fla soldier or sailor
were to desert from Our army or navy, for which
I offence he is liable to severe punishment, and,
after having become naturalized subject Of an
other country, should return to the United States
lit would be singular defence for him to make that
he was absolyed from his crime because, after its
commission, he had become subject ofanothcr
Il government 1t would be still more strange we're
that government to nterpose in his behalf for any
such reason.
| Again, during the last war wifi Great Britain,
in several of the Statcs-I might mention Pennsyl-
vania in particular--the militia man who was drafted
aud called Into service was exposed to severe
penalty if he did not oboy the draft and muster
himself into the service, Or in default thereof pro-
cure substitute. Suppose such an individual
after having incurred this penalty, had gone to a
foreg country and become naturalized there and
: then returned to Pennsylvania is it possible to
imagine that for this reanson the of the State
authorities would be paralyzed, and that they could
not exact the penalty state these examples TO
show more clearly both the extent and the limita.
ton ofrightfal anoverian jurisdiction in such cases.
It is impossible to foresee all the varying crcum.
stances which may attend cases as they may arise
but it is believed that the principles laid down may
S generally be sufficient to guide your conduct.
Its to be deeply regretted that the German gcv'
ernments evince 50 much tenacisy on this subject
It would be better for them, considering the con-.
g paritively small number of their native subjects
who return to their dominions after being natural
s. lied in this country, not to attempt to exact mill
tary service from them. They will prove to be
most reluctant soldiers. Ifthcy violate any law q
their netiye country during their visit, they are
:, OF course, amenable like other American citizens
: It would be sad misfortune If, for the sake Of ~
), advantage so trifing to such governments the!
should involve themselves in serious difficulties Will
a country so DESTROYS as are ofn,antaining witt
them the most friendly relations. 1t is fortunat
that serious difficulties Of this kind are mainly cor
!, fined 10 the German States-and especially that th
!. laws OF Great Britain do not authorize any compu
j sorry military service whatever
e. eYr The Democratic State Convention OF Cal
rs fornia, on the Odd, put in nomination Mi'son
10 Latham for Governor, and J. G. Downey, for Lieu