The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-07-27
The Naturalization Question.

arisen In the Kingdom oil hanover, 10 reier 70
it again.
The case is that Of a naturaliZed citizen o.
the United States who is native Of Hanover,
and who, when he left his native country, was
neither in actual service in the Hanoverian ar
my nor had been drafted to serve in it, but who
has yet, upon his return to Hsnover, been de-
prived of his liberty and compelled to do mill
tary duty.
The intervention Of our Government having
thus become necessary, the whole subject ofthe
rights Of our naturalized citizens has received
the renewed and careful consideration Of the
President, and his views, as we'll as those oil his
entire cabinet, upon this important subject
will be found in the following extract which
we are permitted to make from a despatch
transmitted few days ago from the Depart.
ment of State to our minister at Berlin in re-
lation to the case referred to. - ,4
1t is impossible to add anything to the strength
and clearness Of this statement; land We are per
suaded that it will meet the fuN zconcurrencc o
every rejecting man in the country Washing
ton Constitution.
Ertract Of o despatch from, tire Department o.
Stnte to the Minister of the United States a
Berlin, dated July 8, 1859.
The right of expatriation cannot at this day
he doubted or denied IN the United States
| The idea has been repudated evor since the or.
igin of our government, that man is bound tc
remain forever IN the country OF his birth. and
/ = A L =, r.
and consult his own happiness in selecting a
new home. The most eminent writers on pub
| lie law recognize the right Of expatration. n
! This can only be contested by those who in the
nineteenth century are still devoted to the an
cient feudal law with all its oppression. The
doctrine OF perpetual allegiance is relic of bar
barism. which has been gradually disappearing
! from Chrstendom during the last century
The Constitution OF the United States recog-
nzes the natural right Of expatriaton, by con-
erring upon Congress the power "to establish
uniform rule Of naturalization" Indeed it
was one of the grievances alleged against the
British King in the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, that he had "endeavored to prevent the
population of these States-for that purpose OBJ
structing the laws Of naturalization Of foreign
ers, refusing to pass others to encourage their
migration hither," &c. &c. The Constitution
thus clearly recognizes the principle of expatri-
alton in the strongest manner 1t would have
been inconsistent in itself and unworthy of the
character Of the authors of that instrument to
! hold out inducements to foreigners to abandon
| their native land, to renounce their alleeience
to their native government and to become cti-
zens Of the United States. if they had not be-
come convinced OF the absolute and uncondi-
tional right of expatriation. Congress have uni
formlv acted upon this principle ever since the
commencement Of the Federal Government
They established "a uniform rule OF naturalza-
ton" nearly seventy years ago. There has
since been no period in our history when laws
for this purpose did not exist, though their pro-
visions have undergone successive changes
The alien, in order to become a citizen, must
declare on oath or affirmation that he will sup
port the Constitution Of the United States; and
at the same time, he is required to absolutely
aud entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance
and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate,
State or sovereignty whatever, and particularly,
by name, the prince, potentate, State or sover-
eighty whereof he was before citizen.
The exercise OF the right of naturalization,
and the consequent recognition of the principle
of expatration are not confined to the Govern
ment of the United States. There is not a
country in Europe. believe at the present mo-
ment, where the law does not authorize the nat
uralization of foreigners in one form or other.
Indeed in some Of these countries this law is
more liberal than our own towards foreigners.
The question, then, arises what rights do our
laws confer upon foreigner by granting him
naturalization? I answer, all the rights, privi-
| leges and lmmnnities which belong to a native
horn citizen, in their full extent, with the sin
Cle qualification that, under the Constitution,
"no person except natural-born cltlzenls ELI
! gihle to the office President" With this ex-
ception, the naturalzed citizen from and after
the date Of his naturalization, both at home and
abroad, is placed upon the very same footing
with the native citizen. He is neither in bet
ter nor worse condition. If native citizen
chooses to take up his residence in foreign
country for the purpose OF advancing his for
tune or promoting his happiness, he is whilst
there bound to obey its municipal laws equally
with those who have lived in it all their lives.
He goes abroad with his eyes open; and il
these laws be arbitrary and unjust, he has cho-
sen to abide by the consequences. II they are
administered in an equal spirit towards him
self ard toward native subjects, this govern
ment have no right to interfere authoritatively
in his behalf To do this would he to violate
the right Of an independent nation to legislate
within its own territories. If this Government
were to undertake such task. we might soon
be involved in trouble with nearly the whole
world To protect our citizens against the ap-
plication of this principle Of universal law, in
! its full extent, we have treaties with several
nations securing exemption to American citi-
zens when residing abroad from some of the 0.
nerous duties required from their own subjects.
Where no such treaty exists and an American
citizen has committed a crime or incurred a pen
atty for violating any municipal law whatever
Of the country Of his temporary residence, he
is lust as liable to br tried and punished foI
his offence as though he had resided in it from
the day OF his birth. II this has not been done
be fore his departure and he should voluntarily
return under the same jurisdiction, he may be
tried and punished for the offence upon princi-
ples of universal law. Under such circumstan-
ces no person would think of contending that
an intermediate residence in his own country
for years would deprive the government whose
laws he had violated Of the power to en- force
their execu n. The very same principle, and
no other, IS applicable to the case OF naturali.
zed citizen, should he choose to return, to his
native country. In that case, if he had com
mitted an offence against the law before his de-
parture, he is responsible for it in the same man
ner as the native American citizen to whom
have referred In the language Of the late Mr..
Marcy in his letter of the 10th OF January, 18-
| 54, to Mr. jackson, then our charge d'affaires
to Vienna, when speaking Of Tousigs case, ''ey.
cry nation, whenever its laws are violated by
any one owing obedience to them, whether be
be citizen or stranger, has right to infict
! the penoties incurred upon the transgressor, if
found within its jurisdiction" This principle
is too well established to admit OF serious con-
troversy. If one of our native or naturalzed
citizens were 10 expose himself to punishment
by the commission of an offence against any OF
our laws. state or national, and afterwards be-