The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1867-11-30
COLUMBIA.
aatuEday M0rning, nov. so. iss7.
AN Ola -DSotrlne Revived.

Northern exchanges, to fact which
ahas beeA elieited by the Fenian trials
In England and Ireland, and that is
slae revival by one of the English
~eahrts, of the old claim. sonce o sub
,ilees alwsysa subject, Y and the sus-
sEaining of chat decision by the Eng
.Lish press. II isa decision, however.
rslhat affects host Of naturalized oiti-
Eens Of the United States, and will
,deRbtless receive the attention of the
Government.
In the trial ci Colonel Warren, in
Dublin. as state, by the London cor
geapondent Of the New York Times,
Che prisoner demanded, as an Ameri-
can. the right granted to foreigners
!, N England, of being tried bye mixed
5uEy--half Englishmen and half
oOantrymen of the prisoner-whioh
fright was denied by the Court, on
sshe gronnd that born subject of
9he British Grown can never, by any
sacsof his own, escape from his allie,
glance. This ruling of the court,
which refuses to ;nssuFaa;sized Ameri-
can citizens, the rights given to all
Other nations, is sustained by the
English newspapers. whichquote both
English and American authorities in
It's support, maintaining that q per- II
-auns born in England, but naturalized
in q fnreign State is subject to all
she obligations imposed by his ma
ivity. He cannot shake off his allie
gianee to shis native country, or di-
Szasf himself altogether of his British
character. by a voluntary transfer of
himself to another country. On this
point the London Telegraph says:
-.sA subject of Great Britain can
not, by p process of mere dcnization
abroad, throw off all his obligations
sto his native land. For. example, it
lis Syell settled that, where war breaks
4oat between two States, a person who
has changed hiss domicile from the
one to the. other, cannot lawfully
take up arms with the country of his
adoption, against that OF his birth. "
AS the correspondent says, if this
DE true, the naturalization of foreign
ssrs In America, is solemn farce; he
Shrinking, as all our people thought,
athat the question of perpetual ale
glance had been settled by the war
,sof 1912. The causes of that war, as
duaany of our readers know, were inn
pressment and infraction of neutral
rights by England; yet, strange to
,saay, q treaty of peace was made, with
out any reference in it to the causes
which produced hostilities. though
Sfhs objects were supposed to have
sbeen practically gained. Neverthe-
less, it has always been contended by
the British authorities, among them
&he historian Allison, that the treaty
szas only an adjournment, and not a
settlement of the difficulties between
the two countries. So, in the CORES
pondence between Lord Ashburton
and 4Mr. Webster, which preceded
ehe Ashburton treaty, the former
said that no had no authority to make
any stipulations npon. the subject Of
.Ehe right of search and impressment,
and that the peculiar necessities of
England, in regard to this matter,
growing out of her maritime situa-
tion,. the immense emigration of her
people to this country, and the fact that
every native of Great Britain, ai.oays
,aand perpetuaRy, owes to her the duty
of serving her in war, together with
n similarity of appearance and iden-
Gty of language of the people Of the
two countries, create a necessity
(which precluded entering into any
country upon the subject at that
time.
The majority of our readers will
remember the Koszta case, in, 1853.
The correspondence between Mr..
Webster and the Austrian Minister
Co III, f,1l