Daily national Democrat., 1859-07-29
Naturalization Q1estion---A Case i'm
Point.


until the times of Lewis Cass and James
Buchanan, refused to recognize the Eu-
ropean doctrine of perpetual allegiance, and
that the Federal Courts have only been wait
ing for some case to arise under the precedents
set by that department, to decide in confor-
nifty with its views. We have further said
that any concession 10y an American states
man. abating the tithe Oft hair of the Amer.
lean doctrine, in favor of the European prin-
eiplc, was gross insult to public opinion
and violation of the spirit of our free in
stitutions. In regard to the Cass letter, we
stated and we think maintained the posi-
ton, that to acknowledge the authority OF
the conscription laws of Europe over re-
turning naturalized American citizen, was to
acknowledge the doctrine of perpetual allie
glance, for this conscription authority was
nothing more than one out of the many OBJ
legations appertaining to perpetual allegiance.
We deny the doctrine of perpetual allegiance
in any of its shapes or phases, whether it
appears under the form of n coEscription
law or any other enactment or authority
which pretends to deny the right of an
adopted citizen of America to absolve himself
from all the obligations of allegiance to the
country from which he came. If he has
committed any crime, that is a different
thing, but these conscriptiCn laws claim n
man from his birth and deny him the privi-
lege of expatriation IN toto, without the con-
sent of his native country. Our Govern
ment has always, until the advent of the
present odious Administration, asserted the
right of free born man to go where he
pleases, to live where he pleases, and to re-
nounce his allegiance to any potentate, prince
or power Of the earth.
We find that n case, precisely covering
this whole matter, and directly relating to
these identical laws Of conscription, is of re
cord in the archives of our Government. The
New York Express thus cites the case, and
we call very particular attention to it, for it
settles the question at issue:
Francis ALBERT native of the Department de
Var, in the South Of France, left there during the
drawing of the conscription of 1889, and was
tually drawn as a conscript, and was therefore,
an echdpe de N cOnScrjptioH. He arrived at New
Orleans; made the usual application for citizen
ship, and was duly naturalized in 1915 He was
successful in business, in Louisiana, and in july
1882 after an absence of nearly fourteen years,
he returned to visit his family in his native vii
lage and under the vigiIant police in France, be
was arrested in twenty four hours after his return
He Immediately wrote to Mr. Hodge the nearest
American Consul The latter, that he might the
better attend to the case, Immediately requested
that Mr.. Alllbert might be brought to Marsellles
which request was promptly acceded to by the
Generaln-Chief commanding the military divis
ion. He was there brought before the Iri6UuaI |
de GuerFe as an HSOumiS and condemned Mr.. |
Allibert was willing to pay four thousand francs
for substitute, but Mr. Hodge would aot allow
him even to make the offer, but obtained re-
hearing of his case, appeared in person before the
Tribunal de Guerre, and pleaded the case; and
after two trials and detention of six months, be
was acknowledged an American citizen, and or
dcrs came from the Minister Of War, at Paris di-
rectng his release. Mr.. Hodge gave him pass.
port, which was vised by the police, and with
which be remained few weeks with his family,
travelled through France, and embarked at Hayre
IN his return to the United States
The correspondence on file in the Department
If State gives full details Of the case, and Mr..
Everett the Secretary of State under Mr.. Fill
more, on the Sd of March, 1858, the last day he
Vas IN office wrote complimentary letter to Mr..
Hodge in which he says:
''The Department was gratifed to learn that
Mr.. ALBERT whose arrest and imprisonment as
an LqSOumiS, although naturalized citizen of the
United States, as mentioned in your cOmmunica-
ton, has been released. This is undoubtedly due
to the firm and decided stand maintained through
out the long controversy, in yonr official cores
pOndence with the authorities on the subject.
al is Ouch n he desired that thiS rasp may he
considered as precedent, as you intimate, and
that hereafter naturalized citizens of the United
States may visit France without danger of arrest
for military service. In this event, hurful
source of irritation and unriendy feeling will be
lvOided."
Here then is distinct acknowledgement
on the part of France herself of the very right,
to naturalized citizenship which
Lewis Cass comedies and surrenders France
acknowledges in this instance that her con.
scription laws cannot reach naturalzed
American citizen, and Lewis Cass and James
Buchanan say to France, every well, you |
do not claim the authority but we concede
it to you of our own free will and pleasure
Take our naturalzed Americon citizen and
do with him MS you please"
Was there ever anything more disgraceful
Every precedent, established by our Govern |
ment, bearing upon this doctrine of perpetu-
al allegiance, is opposed to the position taken
by the present Administration, and it is the
duty of the country to rebuke this base de-
parture from the fundamental principles of
our Government
If not only Democratic but Wing Admin
istrations of our Government have denied the
right of foreign powers to meddle with our
naturalized citizens, we should suppose that
the question was about settled. When we
speak of Democratic Administrations we have
no allusion to the Old Blue Light Federal
Administration OF James Bucharan-an Ad-
ministration which would first seek to over
throw the rights of citizens at home, by rob
bng them of their sovereignty, and then re-
fuse to protect them in any of their rights
abroad.
QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE
\ FAscINATING, "NIcE You've MAN"-Lola
Montez, in her book, "The Art of Beauty"
lays down the following rule among her