, 1859-08-19
Rights Of NsturaIized Citizens In Foreign
Countries.

The letter of Gen. CAss in relation to
the power Of foreign Governments over
their former subjects who have become nat
uralized citizens Of the United States, and
afterwards retarn within the jurisdiction Of
the country to which they formerly owed
allegiance, has occasioned considerable
comment No Iittle surprise has been ex-
pressed at the Secretarys opinion, as if it
contained an entirely nov Ell doctrine and
advantage assoaght to be taken Of i! for
partizan purposes. The Know-Nothing
papers manifest peculiar indignation at
Gen CAss' alleged surrender Of the rights
of naturalized citizens, and have suddenly
become the Jealous advocates OF privileges
abroad which they would deny at home.
That variagatcd politician, John NJ. Bolts,
has deemed the occasion a proper one to
write letter, in which he condemns the
doctrine of the Secretary's letter as entirely
novel and without precedent, thereby DEM
onstrating his own ignorance and capacity
to be leader of the Know-Nothings
We find in the National Iatelligenoer an
article on this subject SO thoroughly ex-
haustive in point OF argument, and the CT
tation of precedents, that we need not apol-
ogize for laying it before our readers, in
order that the question may be fully and
fairly understood
The LIMITATION OF MUNICIPAL Law IN
THE MATTER OF NATURALIZATION. = Our
readers are aware that in answer to an ap-
lplication made at the Department of State
by na;uralized citizen, who, being ma
tive Of France, desired 10 know whether
his new citizenship would exempt him from
the obligation Of rendering military service
in case Of a voluntary return to his native
country, Mr. Secretary Cass stated that
the French Government claims service
from all natives of France who may be
found within its jurisdiction" and added
that naturalization in this country would
not exempt from that claim in the case Of
those who voluntarily repair thither."
Though this decision Of the veteran Sec
retary is based on welkrecognized princi-
pics Of public law, and Is, moreover, sus-
tanned by established precedents in our
civil and diplomatic history, it seems to
have provoked reclamations in certain
quarters, and is criticised as implying some
derogaton from tire imagined rights and
limmuuities secured to naturalized citizens
, of the United States, who, it is coHended,
by virtue of their naturalization, are placed,
in relation to their native country, as in
all other respects, precisely on the same
footing ns q naturalborn citizen of the
United States. We believe this opinion to
be erroneous; and the attempt to confound
the doctrine stated by Mr., Cass with that
. resisted by the United States iu the war OF
1912 against Great Britain, proceeds on
historical misconceptions 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" 1t was
maintained by the Government of the Uni
ted States that this doctrine Of perpetual
allegiance depends upon the municipal law
by which i, is defined and enforced, and
hence British cruiser in eNering on
American vessel in order to take from It
alleged British subjects, was i'll reality
claiming to exercise, under the law Of na-
tons, a right which had no existence be-
yond the Jurisdiction Of British law. The
ocean was declared to be the sphere Of in
ternatioDal law, and it was properly held
that any merchant vessel on the high seas
was, by that law under the protection of
the laws Of her ewn nation, and might
Justly claim immunity from visitation or
search, unless in cases allowed by the gen.
eral consent Of nations. As the doctrine
Of perpetual allegiance formed no part Of
the law of nations, it clearly did not pre-
sent one of the cases which would justify
the assumption claimed by the British Gov
ernment. The duties and relations pre-
scribed by British law were admitted to be
valid within the realm or proper depend
encies of Great Britain, but beyond those
limits that law had no force or obligation
which compelled its observation on the
part OF other nations, who were equally
free to enact such other municipal regula
tions in the matter Of citizenship and civil
allegiance as might seem TO them expedi-
ent.
Hence it will be seen that the preten-
sion of those who protest against the prin-
ciple recently announced by Mr.. Cass in-
wolves, in fact, the worst features Of the
yery doctrine which was made ground Of
complaint against Great Britain in the
, controversy waged in the assumed right OF
, impressment. As the British Government
claimed force and effect for British law on
the high seas, and thus sought to establish
an extra-territorial authority for the stat
utes of the British Legislature, so in like
|, manner these complainants demand recogni-
ton for American municipal law within
the jurisdiction Of foreign States, and that,
too, when our municipal law contravenes
the municipal law Of those States. We
have but to state the proposition in order
, to show its groundlessuess in the light Of
reason, as well as its palpable opposition
. to the FIRST principles which lie at the basis
of international law. That law assumes,
, as the condition OF its existence and as the
guarantee Of its observance, the equality OF
t all civilized commonwea!ths; aud no mem.
; Der of the international community is enti-