Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-01-14

RIGHTS OF NsTURALTEED CETEzESs.
The Constitution OF the United States
provides that Congress may prescribe
uniform rules Of naturalization but
contains no provision whatever as 10 the
rights that are to beposssssed by foreign
ers who may be ~naturalizsd. Nor is
there any statute that defines their
rights: nor has it, so far as we know,
ever been decided ty the Courts what
those rights sre.
The subject is really involved in great
difficulty. None Of the European Gov
eruments have ever admitted that their
subjects could, by e~xpstriation and natu-
ralizstlOn elsewhere, free themselves
from their original allegiance; nor have
the United States ever either legisla-
latfvely or judicialIy declared that their
citizens Gan do 50. On the contrary
they have asserted the continued citizen
shin Of some Of their citizens who
nave emigrsted to foreign coUn-
tries, and OF those who, st home, have
-eudeavoured to divest themselves Of that
citizenship. In the KosZTA case, Mr.
MARCY, 2 great lawyer and able judge,
and then Secretary Of State, cisimed for
the United States the right TO protect by
their cannon against his mother-couu-
Try. 8 foreigner who had only made a
declaration Of his intention To become q
citizen of the United States, vino might
never hsve carried his intention into
effect. and had a right 10 decline doing
so II he pleased and who, If he had
ceased 10 be a subject Of Austria, had
certainly not become q citizen Of the
United States, and therefore had no
country st sll, but was . f'iussaUliiHs,
il allegiance, as Il were, between the two.
The actI0nOf Mr.. MACY wss approved
bv the people Of the United States, and
has never yet been ~repudiated. Accord
ing to that doctrine, 2 man may throw
OF bis allegiance in an instant, By de-
clsring bis Intention 10 lie ~naturalizad
elsewhere. Il is not likely that
other nations will ever ssseut 10 this,
even if they should agree 70 r~slEquish
their claim TO the allegiance Of their sub
ieets naturslized elsewhere.
K Is nonsense to say that the Colonists
who won neutrality-suspicious. by the Rev
oIutionary War, were all subjects or cit
zsns Of European nations; because they
gained another citizenship, not by nsJu-
raIization, but by revolution and the es-
adjustment Of = separate nationality.
The United States have not by any
formal constitutional or statutory pro-
vision. guaranteed to their nsturalized
citizens all the rights Of the native-born,
nor formally stipulated to protect them
At all hazards, against their mother
countries. il is rather singular that they
should never have done so; and the
reason undoubtedly has been, that they
anticipated difficulties with foreign ma
TONS, II they should undertake to guar
antee that protection. Il is true
that they ought, in honour and good
faith, to have given that assurance and
guarantee; and it Is also true that they
did assert the right TO protect English
sr,hisots n~aturalized, and serving a. sea
men on board our vessels Of war, BY the
wa Of 1872, which was fought chiefly
Tor % Free Trade and Sailors Rights"
But. unfortunately, when the Treaty OF
Gbent was made, which ended the war,
rot q single word was said in respect to
ty,s rights Of naturalized citizens nor
was anything settled for which we
fought
The lRv Of Nations is established by
,bs mutual consent OF Nations; ana
Gaorrus, vATTEL, BYSKERsHoEcK,
prpyEypoRF and others are not only its
,utsrpreters, but in large measure its
a,thors. since they have announced
- Of the principles and rules which
80 Nations hsve adopted. Now, it is
certainly not 8 settled principle o. this
,.w~tNations, that a subject maydivest
1.f.,seIf Of his allegiance by becoming
-t,rslized elsewhere, and still less by a
- declaration Of his " TO that
= The right 70 throw aside sllegi-
- involves the right TO bear arms in
vice Of ones adopted country
80 TIE land OF his birth and The
$50 baye not as yet,-ao Nation
-~~recognized this right There ls no
Ito that the English courts, in hold
ia shst The English subject cannot re-
- himself from his allegiance nave
sss declared what tie law Of England
i No Nation could agree thai it,
s..t- could at present throw on the'r
uesa.ce. because fhey could snarmy
-. - re middle Of bst'ie' go over 70
- enemy. without being guilty q hoy
: ssaes 70 DO 50 would be The
-, nas,tvs sf s6 pssibss declarations
: sbsIr intention to cease to be iS euo-
- they might, upon doing So lm
-~e,istesx turn tbeis guns upon the nag
-eSeb they had deserted ana q Mr.
.serxts aoesrlne xas correct, eeais
- enthusiastically transfer their aAe
ana % 50 sizhtfaily.
rs rnfzed sAfss t~6efepfes hsFe 70