The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1868-02-16


cruel and unjust, the writer thinks that no
man is bound to comply with them. On
this subject, Deyattel says: "The -seve-
reign abuses his power, and reduces his sub
jects to slavery, an insuPportable slavery,
I if he refuses them the permission of lles+iag
his dOminions for their own advantage,
when he might grant it to them>without in
convenience, or danger to the state" Fur
thermore, Wheaton says: Every man has
a right to quit his country in order to settle
in another, when, by that step, he does not
expose tbe/welflre of his country" And
again =" Whatever may be the extent of
the claims of q mans native country upon
his political allegiance, there can be no
doubt that the native-born subject of one
country may become the citizen of another
In time of peace, for the purposes of trade. y
The foregoing is surely consonant with
sound reason, as there is no law of ma
ture to compel~a man to remain in one
place in preference to another; and
! surely, a man satisfies all civil obligations if
he observes the laws of the land as long as
they afford him protection and it matters
not that as 8 civil or military officer, he
takes . special oath; for that oath only
strengthens his natural obligations; but it
superinduces no new obligations, for citi-
zen in the private walks of life is as amen
able to the laws of his country for treache-
~, or treason, as any officer, whether civil
or military. =
he .r,f,; chn111a
have been decided. The war of 1912 should
have put an end to it; the speech of the
Hon. William CASTOR is stronger and more
forcible on it than any "Monroe doctrine"
Besides, there is q decision of the Court of
Kings Bench which should place England
hors du combat on the subject. Wheaton, in
his "Treatise on International Law" gives
an instance of an Englishman who emigra-
ted to the United States, became citizen,
tradedwith the East Indies, and consequent
ly clashed with the privileges of the East
India Company, as no Englishman could
trade to or with that country, except the
East India Company. Yet the Court of
Kings Bench decided in favor of this Eng
lishman, as not being any longer an English
]
the judges foreseen Fenianism, the decision
might have been reversed.
Should all the foreigners in this country
be denied the privilege of becoming citizens
of the United States, what anendless source
of annoyance would it not be to them. There
| are but few States in the Union in which
| there are not laws obnoxious to foreigners
holding property. Why should the United
States tender an oath of allegiance to for
eigners, exact all the duties of citizens of
thom-to serve on juries, to be drafted into
the army, ETC., if they do not intend to ex-
tend to them the protection afforded to ma
tive-born citizens? 1t is, indeed, a strange
anomaly to sec man, perhaps, drafted into
the service of the United States, and after
having served faithfully, to return to the
land of his birth to recover or to recuperatc
his hcalth-shattered in such service-again
] drafted into the service of his king or prince.
It is indeed a paradox, to think that man
should be the subject of two independent
powers. You cannot serve two masters .
1t is both unjust and ridiculous on the part
of the United States, to exact military ser
vice of foreigners, to expose lfe-and limb
on the bloody battle field, and then leave
perclance, that same individual 30 languisf
away in a British dungeon, or a Prussian
camp, for language spoken in the United
4 States. If this be the protection foreigner