Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-08

constitution would not have authorized
Congress to naturalize the subjects of for
eign States if they had not acknowledged
the right OF the foreigner to re-
nounce his allegiance to his native
country and assume a new one
here. Nothing can be more conclusive
than this proposition by way of argument.
But It 1nferentfally acknowledges another
thing, and that is, e conuerso. foreign Gov
ernments, who recognize this principle as
to their own citizens or subjects emigrating
TO our shores. have the right to demand of
us the unqualified recognition of the same
right In relation to our own citizens emf
grating to foreign States.
Sir, failed to comprehend why it was
that the honorable chairman of the Com
mittee on Foreign'A fairs Mr. Banks1 was
so much opposed to the amendment of the
honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr.. Woodward, and to all amendments
whatsoever to the original bill. did not
feel the force of the reasons he gave for his
opposition to those amendments. Sir, the
question is, shall we reverse or sustain our
former position upon this all-absorbing q
question:? Shall we clear away the fog
which envelopes it or increases its density?
d 1t we have been wrong heretofore let US be
right now. The question is squarely put to us
in the first section of the bill now before us.
The proposition is too serious and impor-
tant for us to be trifiiDg with it any longer.
L
have recognized the right of emigration
and expatriation, as well as Just indigna-
tion against those who have refused to re-
cognize it, alike call upon us to take such
: position now as will put an end to- all
doubt and uncertainty in the future. Mr..
Speaker, in the former debate upon the or
iginal bill the singular position OF the hon
orable chairman of the Committee was that
1t is impossible to legislate upon this sub
jeet, and give now, by positive enactment,
the right of expatriation to American citi-
zens, without by that very act enabling
foreign Governments to say to us that up
to this date our citizens had no
right to expatriate themselves and that
in such state of case they would be s'debar-
red from claiming the protection in for
eign States which it is the purpose of this
bill to accord to them" Sir, was that not
"a most lame and impotent conclusion ?''
Suppose they do say so, what then? Could
they not, if we shall remain silent now,
make the same charge at any time hereaf-
ter when we shall assert the right either in
the halls of legislation or upon the tented
field? Can any amendment to bill, or a
refusal to amend it, annihilate the history
OF the past? Can single act done or omit
ted to be done in the past be changed in
the slightest degree by anything we may
now do or refuse to do? No, sir; there
can be no modification of the past; its
can neither be ignored or blotted out. We
may create a new future, but we cannot
make new past. We must act upon this
question now as though it was the first time
iC ever challenged our attention, either as
Judges or legislators. If our course here
tofore in the administration of public af-
fairs in relation to this question has been
indeterminate and vague and uncertain,
will anything we may now do or refuse to
do make our past action or non action any
more direct or Significant? Certainly not
1t is the living present we have 10 deal
with, and not the dead past.
Sir, the logic of the gentleman is about
this: because we have heretofore neglected
or failed to assert and establish 8
great right in behalf OF Ameri-
can citizenship; because we have for
more than eighty years lived without a
law to provide the means for its exercise,
and preserve the evidence of the fact when
so exercised, we should still continue in
that line of policy; and that even now,
when that precious and inestimable right,
so essential to the full enjoyment of the
highest liberty in the pursuit of happi-
ness, is being daily assailed and trampled
under foot by our ancient enemy, we should
absolutely refuse to declare, and define it in
terms befitting its grave importance for
fear that by its assertion now we would
expose the fact OF our former neglect or in
vite an unfavorable Interpretation by that
enemyi Sir, if the legislative power of the
country has been derelict in its duty in
the past, and to the people the stronger
the reason is that it should now act
with promptness and energy in the full
and unequivocal assertion of this great
right of the citizen. We should not only
assert the right, but we are also bound to
furnish the easiest and most appropriate
means for its exercise. If the question of
fact whether it has been exercised or not
rests at large TO be proved like any other
unascertained fact, much confusion and in
convenience will result both to Government
and citizen. Mr.. Webster, while Secretary
OF State in 1851, in the case of John S.
,Thrasher, evidently felt embarrassed in re-
lation. to the character of the evidence. as
to the intention of Thrasher in leaving this
country and residing at Havana. The case
arose out of the invasion of Cuba by Lopez.
The claim on the part of Spain, through
the Governor General of the island, was
that Thrasher had been a resident of Ha-
vana, as a merchant, for a considerable
length of time, and had sworn allegiance
to the Spanish Crown. Mr.. Webster, in
response to a resolution of this House,
said: . -.l.. ..i-.'
There is no evidence in the possession of the
Government to show what was his purpose with re-
gard to his returning to his native country at any
liked or definite time. Other members of his fami-
ly are understood to be. like himself residents in
Cuba-his father having gone to that island some
years ago. These are all the known general facts
respecting the nature of his residence in Havana
which have come to the knowledge of this Depart
I'm questions on this subject. the chief point to be
considered is the aninus n1Gnendi, or intention of
continued residences; and this must be decided by
dence." If it sufficiently appear
that the intention of removing was to make per
manent settlement for an indefinite time. the
right of domicils is acquired by residence of even
few days" ~, a',.,f.i..
[coNcLUsIoN TOMORROW