The Irish republic. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1867-18??, 1868-02-15

to this subject in his last annual The courts of the
onea states have said not directly udiciay that
e1Parlatlon was not the right of American citizen
because was not the right of English subject at the
me OF the adoption of the Constitution. But do not
recognize this the law of this country It is the law
Vi tns country 1t has been sanctioned by solemn
republication Whenever il has been alluded in the courts
Oh tue United States has always been cited English law
ana mat class OF judges who recognized English law at the
Time OF the American Revolution have cited it the infer
enta law OF this country at this time but never believe
declaring it to be American law.
But the Executive department of the Government has
maintained the opposite doctrine in almost every One
or two distinguished public officers have yielded to the judi
cal tribunals and have recognized the doctrine of
and naturalization in the English but they have
declared it the doctrine of the United States On the
contrary in the with Great Britain in all the negotia
lions previous the of 1872 and by almost every lead
ing statesman from that day up this day. representing the
Executive department of the Government has held the
right of emigration and naturalization elsewhere to be the
right of American citizens The report of the committee
quotes the declaration of Mr. Webster upon this question:
where he distinctly recognizes this right which the
American Government has always demanded of foreign
States But naurazed citizens have always been informed
when making application for passports of the laws of foreign
States, and warned of the difficulties which might attend
their visits to such countries But 1t is not recognized
American doctrine of allegiance citizenship When Mr.
Webster Secretary of State he informed by officers
of the Government of the Sandwich Islands that American
citizens settling there and carrying business in
those islands. Mr. Webster in his dispatch replies, in
many words if they have left this country and settled in the
Sandwich Islands, they to be American citizens That
is the doctrine of the Executive Government as understand
ii, at the present time
Every member OF the House Will remember the ground
taken this subject by Mr. Marcy in the Kosza So
that the stands the present time in this light while
the judicial tribunals have occasionally cited the English
law and while there is class of urss who maintain that
in this country this day. the English law existing at
the time of the revolution is the American law by
which we are bound yet no court understand it, has
soemny decided that law to be binding in this country
while the contrary the legislative departments and
especially the executive departments have denied the inter-
has ne n err a @
trne founded feudal ideas of society," and contrary in
spirit in terms and in effect to the doctrines of all dem
ocratic political associations.
The question is asked me by many gentlemen, and doubt
less will be suggested to the House in this debate why has it
not been declared heretofore and why not declared
that the right of expatriaton is right of American c
zens? The is perfectly apparent The Government
of the United States has period in its history made such
such declaration recognizing the right of expatriaon the
part of the people of the United States would be inter-
preted by the Governments of Europe declaration that
from the date of the only recognize the right of expa
ration, and that would eecuay off all the claims of
the naturazed citizens of this country up this day for
protection while in States 1t this that
whenever the question has been presented and such
position has been made without acting afGrmativey
negatively the Congress of the United States has always
dismissed it being unnecessary and inconsistent with the
required and established rights of American citizens.
Mr.. MAYNARD-I would like to ask the gentleman
question in connection with the of Martin Rosetta
Mr.. BANKS-I will hear it if it has reference to my
remarks
Mr.. BANKS-I pray the gentleman who is a native of
New England put his inquiry in the form of question
and not speech.
Mr.. MAYNARD-Martin Koszta was not a naturalized
CITIZEN but who had declared his intention to become
SUCH Does the gentleman intend to provide for that class
of persons?
Mr.. BANKS.-No; do not propose to define natural
izaton The of Martin Kosza is an interesting one
because it brings up in the strongest possible light this
question He was not naturaized citizen He had only
declared his intention to become SUCH He did 60 to his
country. He went to Turkey then friendly now to
the United States and its citizens Martin Koszta being an
Austrian his surrender demanded by Government of
Austria and the Government of Turkey declined
render him the ground that the extradon treaty did
he by force threats of force been deferred to the Off
GERS of the United States.
This shows the importance of this great subject very
clearly Kosza could not travel any State in Europe
could travel to his country could be present
any State in Europe without being liable be surrendered
NV that Government the Government of his native coun
Thus il the claim be allowed all