Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1859-06-07


II number of American citizens were arrested an
. held to military service in Prussia and Han
over, and even in the little Grand Duchy q
}. Oldenburg.
$ The present junior editor of the Enquirer
i held, at that time subordinate diplomatic
y position ut the Court of Berlin Entirely dis
n approving the decision Of the State Department
and not entitled, by rank, to hold official com
munication on the subject with the head of the
Department, he devoted some months of labor
I to the preparation Of complete abstract Of
the papers in each case, and the further prcpa.
ration Of such an argument as the materials at
his command and his leisure from official ,l,l.
ties would permit This abstract and argt;.
ment were placed in the hands Of a prominent
friend OF the Administration, to be employed
for oral relnonstrancc at the State Depart.
mcnt
The Hon. Peter ID. yroo,n of New Jersey,
succeeded Mr. Barnard in the mission to Bcr-
lin, and it is due to both these gentlemen TO
state. that their efforts for the liberation of our
citizens were unremitting, and not without IA
vorablc effect IIampcred, as they were, by Off
cial Instructions their good offices were employ
cd untirinely at the Foreign office and among
the diplomatic corps, in endcavors to secure the
release Of every American citizen impressed in
any part Of Northern Germany. In one in
stance, when the Pr,lssian Government made
rcqusiton on the authorities Of Hamburg for
the arrest and delivery Of one Of our natural
lied citizens. from whom military service was
claimed, Mr.. Samuel Bronlbcrg, an officer Of
extraordinary efficiency, then United States
Consul at Hamburg, added his efforts to those
OF the American Minister at Berlin and sue.
ccedcd in preventing the arrest. The Sccrcta.
~ Of the State approved this, on the ground
that no third power could property interfere in
disputed case Of allegiance, and on the further
ground, that the person concerned was an
American sailor, and as >uch entitled t" the
very fullest extent Of protection.
I We refer to these facts to show that the mat
ter referred to by Mr.. Cas- letter cannot in
any manner be regarded a> a mere abstraction.
At this time, American citizens throughout tic
continent Of Europe are in the actual perform
ancc Of forced military service, for terms vary
ing from four 10 seven years.
There can be no doubt whatever. that the
legality or illc:ality Of this claim for military
service, resolves itself into the question Of ale
,ll,
which the subject owes his sovcrcign-onc Of
those 'luties which, combined, constitute what
is meant by allegiance So long As Il man ewes
allegiance to a sovereign, just SO long, and no
longer can that sovereign impose on him the
burden of military service.
During the present century, different govern.
mentS have maintained three different rules Of
principle, as regards thi, matter of allegiance
The doctrine which Great Britain asserted
fifty years ago, i> that allegiance is perpetual
enf1lR, rs'iauucti hle,"e pfartrc' 'sscrt1or,
of which involved that nation in hostilities
with the United States in 1872.
For long time, most of the nations Of con-
tincn,al Europe have acted upon the asSump-
ton that allegiance is dissoluble, but only with
the consent of the sovereign, and to the extent
that the sovereign may prescribe.
Thus the Prussian Constitution proTdcs !
that emigration or cxpatriation shall be subject |
to no restriction, except for the purpose Of en-
forcing from each native of Prussia the term
of military service, to which every citizen Of
the kingdom is liable. Similar legislation has
been adopted by France and most of the other
continental powers.
The doctrine asserted by the Constitution !
and laws of the United States is, that each IN /
diyidual citizen may. at his own option, a1lnrc 7
all allegiance to one sovereign, and contract
entire obligations of allesaI.cc to another So
vercign, provided only that the remuneration
and act Of naturalization be performed bo""
.hie.
With MS citizens are ntarnli:|, i. C, MT
tire.i,ed, and thus guaranteed the full extent OF
protection against the claims for service or al
lcgiancc made by any foreign government, TO
which protection any n"tire citizen would be
entitled. BY obliging a man to ''renonnce all
allegiance" to every foreign potentate our gov
ernmcnt obliges itself to protect him against
every claim to his allegiance which may he
pretended by any foreign potentate. Without
this, there would be- no reciprocity Of protec-
ton and allegiance.
The cases which now present themselves
involve a conflict ofawS The question to be
decided is. which law ought to govern, accor-
ding to the dictates Of right and justice
/ IF two nations cannot agree on this point,
an appcal to arms is the only escape from sub
mission to wrong OH the part Of the injured
contestant.
We will not go so far as to advise resort to
I hostilitics-ccrtainly not Immediate resort TO
hostilitics. The laws Of these foreign nations
arc the necessary consequence of the theories
! of government under which they arc establish
ed. Their execution involves no '"'>nt'o"@t
insult to onr national dignity. Itispurey the
result of the great moral conilict-thc tranSu-
lar strife which is now in progress between the
pruciplcs of the Divine right Of popular sovc-
reirntv the Divine right OF Kings or Olisarchs,
and the athcistic denial Of all principle, which
bases the fabric Of government in each instance
! on some narrow view of mere expcdicncy. 1t
NAV be that We must finally submit. 1t may
be that the attempt at this time To Yindicate
the rights of orr frllow-citizcns, would raise a
world in arms against us. It may he that or
dinary prudence reuuires submission.
Still the ultimate question is one Of iorcibe
maintenance of right or submission to wrong.
And the Constitution Of the United States pro-