The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1859-07-22

Government were to undertake such task,
We might soon be involved IN trouble with
nearly the whole world. To protect our ciIi-
zens against the application OF this principle OF
universal law, In its full extent, we have trea-
ties with several Nations securing exemption to
American citizens when residing abroad, from
some OF the onerous duties required from their
own subjects. Where no such treaty exists
and an American citizen has committed a
cfime or incurred a penalty for violating any
municipal law whatever OF the country OF his
temporary residence, he is Just as liable to be
fried and punished tor his offence, as though he
had resided in It from the day of his birth. If
this has not been done before his departure, and
he should voluntarily return under the same
jurisdiction, he may be tried and punished for
the offence upon principles of universal law
Under such circumstances, no person would
think of conteading that an intermediate resi-
drnce in his own country for years would de-
prive the Government whose laws he had viola
ted OF the power 10 enforce their execution
The very same principle, and no other, is ap-
pllcable 10 the case of a naturalIZed citizen,
should he choose TO return 10 his native couH-
try. In that case, if he had committed an Of
fence against the law before his departure, he
is responsible for it in the same manner as the
natlve-Amercan citizen to whom have refer
red. In the language Of the late Mir. Marcy,
IN has letter of the 10th January, 1854, to Mr..
Jackson, then our charge d'affaires TO Vienna,
when speaking OF Tousig's case, "eyery nation,
whenever its laws are violated by any one
owing obedience TO them, whether he be a
citizen or a stranger, has right to inhct the
penalties I7curred upon the transgresSors, If
found within its Jurisdiction" This principle
is too well established TO admit OF serious con-
troversy. Ii one of our native or naturalized
citizens 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 coun-
try, he would not have the hardihood to con-
tend, upon voluntarily returning within our
jurisdiction, that his naturalization relieved
him from the punishment due to his crime:
much less could he appeal TO the government OF
has adopted country to protect him against his
responsibility to the United States or any Of the
States. This Government would not for mo-
ment listen TO such an appeal.
Whilst these principles cannot be contested
great care should be taken in their application,
especially TO our naturalized Citizens. The
moment foreigner becomes da4nralzed, his al
legiance to his native country is severed for
ever. he experiences new political BIRTH
A broad and impossible line separates him from
his native country. He is no more responsible
Tor anything he may say or do, after assuming
his new character, than if he had been born IN
the United States. Should he return 10 his
native country, he returns as an American citi-
zen, and in no other character. In order to
entItle his original government to punish him
Tor 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 eXpatriation. 1t must have
been of such character that he might have
been tried and punished for i. at the moment
OF hls departure. A future liability to serve in
the army will not be sufficient; because, before
the time can arrive for such service, he has
changed bis allegiance, and has become cti-
6ad r6m sgifs county %#QAd #t r9 BE- s9ge 9es
family, when but twelve years of age and
naturalzed here, who should afterwards visi,
the country of his birth when he had become
a man, might then be seized and compelled TO
perform military service, because, if he had re-
NAMED there throughout the intervening years
and his life been spared, be 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, in my despatch 10
you OF May l2, 1859, and again in nv letter to
Alr. Hofer Of the 14th ultimo, | confne the
ioreIgn jurisdiction in regard to our naturalized
citizens 10 such OF them as "ware in the army
or actually called into it'' at the time ,hey left
Prussia. That is, to the case of actual Decor
ton or a refusal 10 enter the army after having
been regularly drafted and called into il by the
government 20 which at the time they owed
allegiance. il IS presumed that neither OF these
cases presents any difficulty in point OF princi-
pie. Ii soldier or sailor were 10 desert from
our army or navy, for which offence he is La
Bile TO a severe punishment, and, after having
become natuTalized subject OF another coun-
try, should return 10 the United States, il
would be singular defence for him to make
that he was absolved from his crime, because,
after ITS commission, he had become subject OF
another government. 1t would be still more
strange were that government to interpoae in
bis behalf Tor any such reason. Again, during
The last war with Great Britain, in several OF
The States-I might mention PennSylva in
mii,ia-man who was drafted
and called INTO the service was exposed 10 a
Severe penalty if he did not obey the draft and
muster himself into the service, or, IN default
Whereof, procure substitute. Suppose such an
after having incurred this penalty,
bad gone to foreign country and become
laturalized there and then return TO Pennsvlva-
Ria, is it possible to imagine that for this rea-
on the arm of the State authorities would be
aralyzed, and that they could not exact the
enaltya state these examples TO show more
learly both the extent and the limitation of
ightful Hanoverian jurisdiction in such cases.
IL rnnnccihln Ia Ill -.