Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-08
COLUMBUS, O., WEDNESDAY, MORNING, 1

3
a subject of international law, we owe to
them distinct and unequivocal legislative
declaration; an open and honest avowal,
not only of our future purposes, but also
OF our administrative policy in regard
to our own citizens upon this question of
allegiance. 1t should no longer remain
either in doubt or obscurity. -....,
!, l shall show, sir, before take my seat,
that for some unexplained reason we have
been shy of this question from the COM
mencement of the Government up to this
time. Recent events across the water ad
monish us to change promptly our position
from one of doubt and uncertainty to that
of clear and decided legislative recogni-
tion of this great right of humanity in all
its just forms and bearings. The honora-
BILE gentleman from Massachusetts Mr..
Banks]. in his remarks upon the origi-
nal bill a few days ago, made the dec
laration that the United States has
always openly and frankly acknowledged
the right of expatriation in her own citi-
bodied in that bill the unguarded declara
ton that this principle has "been insisted
upon and maintained by the Government
of the United States" Sir, whether that is
true or not depends wholly upon the mean
ing of the terms used. If the honorable
gentleman means, by the use of the term
: s..Government," to embrace only the execu
tive branch, and which would be very ex-
traordinary proposition to come just now
from that side of the House, the statement
would be partially correct, but not other
wise. But, in its ordinary and natural
meaning. | do not so understand the pub
lie history of this question in this country.
1t may be true ia an unofficial popular
sense, or it may be true even in regard to
anr df11n inf fhrnr 1orh hn
Executive, with other nations. do not
know how this may be, but the assertion is
not strictly correct either in judicial or a
legislative point of view. In that sense it
is not well sustained historical remark.
Sir, in regard to our past public and off,
cial action, especially in judicial point of
view, earnestly indorse the provisions of
the first section of the bill now under con-
sideration. That section reads as follows ::
Be it enacted. DO, That any declaration. instruc-
this Government which denies. restricts imp.irs or
clared inconsistent with the fundamental priuci.
pies of this Government, and therefore mil and
void.
To show the force and necessitysof these
provisions a brief review of the judicial
and legislative history of this question in
this country is not only appropriate but
important. In the first place, in legisla-
tive point of view, the passage. by Con-
gress of the celebrated alien act of 179S did
not very successfully show that we, even
in that early day of our history, "openly
and frankly acknowledged" the doctrine.
1t is true, Mr.. Speaker, that, as a conse-
quence of the passage of that act, the ad-
ministration OF JOHN Adams was over
thrown by one of the most overwhelming
popular demonstrations in the history of
the country but am looking at the ques-
ton, not in its popular aspect, but in that
official and authoritative character in
which one nation recognizes the po-
sition and action of another. The first at
tempt within the scope of my Tinvestiga-
tion or recollection to recognize the prin-
ciple by positive legislative enactment was
In 1914, during the war with England. One
reason, perhaps, why it failed-and admit
it would have been a sound and adequate
one if of constitutional authority-was the
very fact that we were then engaged In
war. In January. 1914, Mr.. Robertson, a
leading Representative from the State OF
Louisiana, submitted resolution to ap-
point special committee to inquire into
the expediency of providing by law for the
exercise of the right of eXpatriation in be-
half of native and naturalized cit
izens of the United States. Like the
present proposition now before the
House, it gave rise to no party feelings or
party action. Federalists ana Democrats
alike voted for and against it. The resolu-
ton was opposed upon various grounds !;
some thought it l-timed and ineXpedient,
others feared it would interfere with pend
ing or contemplated negotiations in rela-
tion to the war; some thought that in its
nature cit was too abstract, others that it
might be in violation of the NUM-
cipal laws of foreign nations; and
some members opposed it for the reason
that it would hold out encouragement
to desertion in the army. The consequence
was that the resolution was laid upon the
table by a decided majority. Again in
1915 several years after the termination of
the war, the same gentleman introduced
bill into this House having the same object
in view. The bill was very earnestly and
ably debated for several DAYS, but was
finally defeated by vote of 20 to 5S.
So much Mr.. Speaker, for the legislative
history of this question. l now propose to
turn tor a moment to its judicial history
1t is a somewhat singular fact that this
question was not mooted either in the pro-
ceedings or the debates of the Convention
which framed the Constitution. 1t was
incidentally touched upon, however, at
very early day in the Supreme Court of the
United States. In the verv first case (Tal-
bot Us. Janson DALI, 133) in which the
question of eXpatriation was alluded to and
incidentally passed upon, and which arose
upon the renouncement of the party un-
der the provisions OF a law OF the State of
Virginia, passed in 1892, substantially the
same as those of my proposed amendment.
Judge Paterson recognized the necessity
of an act of Congress upon the subject. In
delivering the opinion OF the court he used
the following language: oi5ou
"a statute of the United States relative to ex-
patriatOn is much wanted, especially as the COM
mon law of England IS. by the Constitutions of
some of the states, recognized and. adopted. Be
sides. .ascertaining by positive law the manner in
which exparis ion may be effected would obviate
doubt under the suhJec notorious and easy of ap-
prehension and present the rule OF civil cond uct
in a very interesting point" :" ...f .ar.
70, In the case of Murray Us. schooner
Charming Betsy q Cranch, 64) Chiet JUS
tice Marshall intimated a doubt whether a
citizen of the United States can divest him
self absolutely of that character otherwise
than in such manneras may be prescribed
by law. This was in the year 1904. In
1897 the case of Isaac Williams was tried
in the Circuit Court of the United States
for Connecticut, Chief Justice Ellsworth
presiding. The facts were briefly these:
Williams was indicted for accepting COM
mission under the French Republic. and
under the authority thereof committing
acts of hostility against Great
and offered to prove, that he had
expatriated himself from the United States
and became French citizen before the
commencement of the war between France
and England. This raised the direct ques-
ton as to the right of expatriation in this
country without a law of Congress, and
Chief Justice Ellsworth is reported to have
ex plicitly denied the right, and to have as
serted that the common law of England
was the law of the United States on the
subject of expatriation. The prisoner was
= H. i