Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1868-02-19
Cpnnrtssional
RIoBTs or AnERlcAY cIrIzbNs.
nrMARKs oF MI. WooppnIpeE oF WI

lIt
cr successful negotiation or foreign war. II be-
comes u.s. then, TO consider it in view Of the great
responsibility resting upon us. involving, as It
NAV, not only the future peace OF our kcpuhhc,
but also the destiny Of the present ruling nations
Of Europe, 1t rises above party. 1t rises above
the making or unmakiug of Presidents. ltassumes
the proportions Of great national question, cnun-
ciating the inherent right Of expatraton and the
determination Of our government TO extend here
after the same protection OF person and property
to the naturazcd and uative-born citizen. Eu-
rope and more especially England, for many years,
both as a matter Of humanity and public policy,
mas stimulated emigration 10y granting subsidy
TO individual enterprise in that direction, ana nave
at various times discussed in Parliament the pro-
priety and necessity of making the plan OF emigra-
ton national overburdened with taxes and crowd
ed with population too large Tor her capacity OF
PRODUCTION, deportation became a necessity, and
the Unitcd States, with its free institutions and
vast extent of unoccupied and fertile public lands,
presented the greatest attraction. Our fathers
ioreseeing that our vast territory must to great
extent be occupied by those owing natural alleg-
ance to foreign Powers, provided by law plan
whereby they could divcst themselves Of that allie
glance aud become subjects and citizens Of the
Republic.
Sir. the law by which we declare that under GER
tain regulations foreigners may acquire all the
rights OF natiyc-born citizen, would seem to I'M
a
native-born citizen of the United States may eX-
pairate himself and assume allegiance to a foreign
Power. The judiciary Of the country, however,
seem to have avoided any authoritative expression
upon this point and % is perhaps fair 10 admit that
IN the judicial tribunal the commoH-law doctrine,
that a subject cannot CNpatrate himself without
the sanction of tie Government to which he owes
the allegiance OF birth, is inlcrentNly, at least,
maintained That it has been may hc a matter Of
some surprise when we reflect that before for
eigner is admitted % ihc privileges of citizen he
is required, under oath 10 al ute forever. all iide
ity and allegiance 60 every foreign prince pOteu-
tate. or sovereignty whatever. aud more particu-
larly all allegiance 90 the sovereign TO whom he
owes the natural allegiance which attaches to birth
10 would naturally bee supposed that the laws regu-
htiug naturalization were based upon the idea
that subject can cxpatrate himself and fully and
forever throw of his natural allegiance. This is
undoubtedly the view OF the most approved writ
crs upon public law. 1t is the doctrine of Gro
thus, Puncndorf Natel and many others; and
Cicero says that il is one OF The rmrst foundations
Of Roman liberty that the Roman citizen bad the
privilege to stay or rcnounce his residence in the
State at pleasure. The proposition that once
citizen alwa, a citizen is based upon the f'udal
systems under which there were no free citizens.
The subject was born and chained TO the soil as
the vassll Of lord or superior lie had no voice
in the direction of public affairs. Government,
such as it was, was not made for him or 10y him;
he was made for the Government; Government
was cruelty and law was brute force; manhood
had no place, and the individual man no personal
rights; and it was from tins source and system
that Blackstone derived bis idea of inleielsible
and perpetual allegiance to the English Crown.
And hence he says that 10 is principle of uniycr-
sal law that the uatUal-horn subject of one prince
cannot by any act of his owu--no, not by swear
ing allegiance to auother-put of or discharge
T MS q % DO IL
raj allegiance was intrinsic, aud primitive, aud an
tccedent 10 the other aud carnot be Invested with
out the concurrent act Of that prince 20 whom IL
was first due Is such a doctrine based upon any
true philosophy Us it in accord with the progress
and the civilization Of the nineteenth century, Is
j. consistent with our fundamental declaration that
all men areendowed with celainiualieuable rights,
among which are life, liberty and the pursuit Of
happiness? What, sir, does that comprehensive
phrase, the pursuit Of happiness meany Is it
to be controlled by the accident OF birth? Is it TO
be crcumscubed by certain defined limits Of loco
motion? Does it subject man forever TO an al
lcgianoe, cast upon him by reason of the domicile
of his parent, to a Government under which the
poor never grow rich and the humhle-born never
/ rise Is 1t to be obliged TO uphold by life and
limb Government which, by its customs or its
laws, disregards or tramplcs upon or neglecs the
rights of even its humblest citizcn2 BY means.
/ sir And yet, If the Common-law doctrine Of the
81.
trammels imposed upon our republican idea that
the pursuit Of happiness which includes the entire
well.doinp and well-being of man, is an inalirua-
bic ight The theory OF our Government, sir. is
that all men are created free and equal and the
foundation of our Republic is laid in that great
.princple, which underlies all true manhood thai
In strict .ulcction TO enlightened and lust law ev
ery man shall bee protected in all his natural right
and e, 10, the fnll and free exercise of that con
science which is part Of God within the human
som In Europc such an idea is not recocnized
or. if recognized, is not accepted. There man il
made for the Government, not Government fol
: man. Here the power is in aud Of the people
and the Government is ma Re hy Them and for them
Our Institutions are free and invite the people o
all nations TO come and enjoy them with US, an,
@ prescribe the regulations under which they ma,
:, become citizens of the Republic. Now. sir. thu
q obligations Of the citizen and the Government ar
4 reciprocal The subject abardons that TO whic
he is entitled when free from the restraints of Al
. orpauizcd society. He no LONGER protects him
D self bv natural law, which is simply the law O
force but Yields fealfv. allenance, ODE Hence Il
n an organized Government Then the faith am
, honor OF the State are pledged to his protection
ii Sir, wherein are the Obligations Of natu,alize
II citizen less or different than the oblgationS0f
r. native-born citizen? Are thew not the same? 1
not each equally bound bv his oath TO regard tn
law and support aud defend the Coustitution
u Tn H. sir if the obligations are the same wherei
. does the duty Of the Government to each differ
e Certainly nowhere We cannot plead dherenc
. in obligation. We can only Mead non possuau
in view of the old feudal doctrine stated by Black