Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-09

should be furnished the citizen of showing
the intent with which he left his country.
MI. MORGAN. In the grand question
of the right of repatriation my
colleague and myself fully agree /;
but l hold that the best evidence
OF the intent to expatriate ones self is
the very act of eXpatriation; and that no
government should impose conditions as
to the exercise of this right. If Covert
ment can impose conditions upon which a
I citizen or subject can expatriate himself
then it has equal power to prohibit expa
trlatlon altogether. Now. sir, suppose that
we did enact a law providing thata decla-
ration before competent tribunal should
be held to be the evidence of the intent to
expatriate ones self; and that the Gov
ernments of Europe adopted similar regu-
lations, could we, with such a law upon
our own statute book. naturalize any sub
ject of such foreign Power who did not
bear with him the evidence of having de-
clared his intention to expatriate himself
before he LETT his native country? Ger
tainly not; And yet, sir, to refuse to nat
uralze him would be admitting that ex-
patriation was privilege granted by a
prince, instead OF being an inalienable
right derived from Almighty Goa. I77
Mr.. VAN TRUMP. My colleage misap-
prehends me. do not mean to assume that
the citizen who does not file his declaration
of intention may not avail himself of his
inherent right of eXpatriation. The amend
ment which propose is in aid OF his right,
not restrictive of it. But.1 do not see the
objection which my. friend Mr.. Nor
gan]. and the chairman of the com
mlttee Mr.. Banksl fancy they see, to
even legislative declaration of the right.
1t is not that the declaration is essential
to the right itself, but that it is notice to
the world that we G6iim it in behalf of our
citizens, which would make such legisla-
tion proper and expedient. Jog
Mr.. MORGAN. SOne word, sir, In reply
to the question propounded to the honor
able chairman of the committee on Foreign
Affairs Mr.. Banksl by the gentleman from
Massachusetts Mr.. Elliott, and 1 will yield
the floor. The honorable gentleman asked
whether the provisions of the third section,
if they became law, would not involve
us in a foreign war within two weeks after
the arrest OF subject of European Pow
er by the Government of the United States.
On the contrary, sir, if this bill becomes a
law it Will act as preventative instead of
a provocative of war. For when, by the
solemn act of this Government, it becomes
known to the nations that American
citizens, whether native born or natural
ized, cannot, with impunity. be treated by
foreign Powers as their subjects, fruitful
cause of misunderstanding will at once and
forever be removed. Heretofore the prin-
ciple on which we have acted in natural
izing aliens has not been well understood.
1t has been supposed that although we
conferred the rights of citizenship on for
eign born subjects, that although they dis
charged all the duties of citizens alike in
+ peace and in war. that the Government was
not bound to protect them as citizens when
abroad if they happened to be claimed as
the subjects of the monarch within whose
realm by chance they were born, until at
last the voice of the people and the dignity
+ of nd hat noIN ~ a
say to the world that there is no distinc-
tion between a native born and natural
lied citizen, and that citizen of the Unit
ed States cannot owe allegiance to any 9TH
er Power. --- ...-a s-,-r-r q
Sir, the Governments of Great Britain
and the German States have not only
recognized the right, but have en-
couraged the eXpatriation of their
subjects during the entire history of our
Government. Knowing that their subjects
came to the United States with the eX press
purpose of becoming citizens, the princes
of Europe have encouraged immigration
to our shores, and thereby released the i'm
migrants from their allegiance to the Gov
ernmenJs under which they were born,
even if any release were necessary, which
1 deny. Then, sir, this act declares-what:
That if any citizen of the United States
has been arrested and is detained upon the
} allegation that naturalization in the Unite1
States does not operate to dissolve his alle-
glance to his native sovereign, or if any
citizen shall have been arrested and de-
tanned, whose release upon demand shall
have been unreasonably delayed or refused
the President shall be and is empowered
to order the arrest and to detain in custody
any subject or citizen of such foreign
Government who may be found within
the Jurisdiction of the United States, and
that the President shall, without
delay, give information to Congress of any
such proceeding. But it has been objected
that such an arrest on our part would be
making the innocent suffer for the act oi
the guilty. To which L reply that the peo-
pie OF a country, whether citizens or SUBJ
iects, are responsible for the action of its
Government so long as they owe it allegi-
ance. 1t is true that instances OF hardship
may sometimes happen. Ii, in consequence
of some tlagrant wrong committed against
our rights by a foreign potentate, we be-
come involved in war, who, sir, would suf-
fer? The prince who committed the wrong
or his unfortunate subjects, who were
made food for gunpowder? Suppose thai
case occur with the most powerful OF the
nations. An American citizen is arrested
on the shores of Great Britain British
subject is arrested on the soil of the Uni
ted States-and what then? The gentle
man from Massachusetts says war; but
reply not war, but peace. Neither the Uni
ted States nor Great Britain desires to &c
to war without grave cause, and negotia.
tions would follow, and the result would be
treaty recognizing the natural and inner.
ent right of eXpatriation.