The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-12-20
Naturalization, and the Rights and
Duties it COnfers.

THR United states Senate yesterday engaged
in q spirited debate on the subject of the right
of naturalized citizens of America to exsmp-
tion from the control of any foreign Government
for political ofenses committed before naturali-
zation. We are glad to see that every
speaker held views substantially the same
that Democrats and Republicans concurred in
the demand that a naturalized citizen was en-
titled to and should exercise all the privileges
Of a native born. The tone of the debate was
exciting, and the language used in all
cases was properly emphatic. AS
1t is probable that the subject will
be well to state briefly the points of difference.
The common law of England and the civil law
of the Continent divided subjects into two
classes, those who owed permanent and those
who owed temporary allegiance to Govern
ment. All persons born under the dominion
of the throne of Great Britain, and almost all
the other European nations, held the same
doctrine, could not divest themselves of
their duties as British subjects. No act
on their part could succeed in dissolving
the bonds of fealty to the crown
of that country. Blackstone lays it down
as law without an exception, that naturaliza-
tion by foreign Government does not release
the British subject, and that by this act he
incurs double duty, which may be in Oppo-
sition to each other, and subject him to in
convenience or punishment. Coke states the
same principle in his day, and even so early
as the days of Bracton and Feta the same
principle prevailed. The result of an enforce
ment of the law is simple. An Englshman
or Irishman comes to America: he is natu-
privileges. He returns to England
on visit, and is liable to
be arrested there for some expression of
opinion which was not at all criminal in
America. The same is the case with Prussia
citizen of that State is compelled to undergo
certain number of years in the military SER
vice. Before the time required he emigrates
to America, remains here for years, becomes
d citizen, returns to his late country
on tour of business or pleasure, and
is seized upon and possibly punished for
not serving the time in the army prescribed
by the Prussian regulations. These are
not imaginary cases. Such have occurred. 1t
was enly within the past three years that our
Admiral in command of the Baltic Squadron
threatened to blow up a Prussian town,
because two of his sailors were captured and
were about to be punished there because of
their having once been Prussians, and having
broken some political law of the kingdom.
The complication arising from this condition
of affairs is extremely embarrassing, to say
the least, and is liable at any moment to lead
to war.
To the view as laid down by the common
law, America has always dissented. She
maintained and still maintains that naturaliza-
ton by law frees the citizens from all other bonds
of allegiance, and exempts him from all ar
rest, except for past violation of the criminal
law, or a present violation of any law when in
q foreign country. 1t washes from him all the
stains of past political ofenses, and to attempt
to arrest or punish him for them is violation
of our national rights, and one which every
Senator concurred in stating is just cause
for war.
The subject, which certainly merits decided
commencement of the session, in the Presi-
dents message. He said: "The annexation Of
many small German States to Prussia, and a
reorganization of that country under new
and more liberal constitution, has induced
me to renew the effort to attain a just and
prompt settlement of a long gvexed question
concerning claims of foreign States for military
service from subjects naturalized in the United
the attention of Congress is respect
fully called to singular and en-
barrassing conflict of laws. The Executive
Department of this Government has hitherto
uniformly held, as it now holds, that natu-
ralization in conformity with the Constitution
and laws OF the United States absolVes the re-
cipient from his native allegiance. The courts
of Great Britain hold that allegiance to the
British Crown is indefeasible, and is not alb
solved by our laws of naturalization. British
judges cite courts and law authorities of the
United States in support of that theory against
the position held by the Executive authority
of the United States. This conflict perplexes
the public mind concerning the rights Of
naturalized citizens, and impairs the
national authority abroad. / called atten
tiOn to this subject in my last annual mes
sage, and now again respectfully appeal tC
Congress to declare the national will unmis
takably upon this important question"
T.. If h. q, - h