The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1874-04-30
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.
Hon, Samuel s. Cox, Of New York
Ramarks o

Concluded from yesterday.
Is not the inference pardonable that the
sole purpose of this bill is to curtail the
rights of naturalized citizens tarrying
abroad ? Can such an Inference be hid by
the addition of few general clauses
What need is there for such legislation
Has the American Republic grown so weak
that it must in the ninety eighth year OF
its existence, by public act of Congress,
declare its inability and even aversion to
protect those of its citizens who Tor two
years remain away from its soil? Does
not this sort of legislation oppose the spirit
that speaks through the act Of
1868? Is it not contrary to the spirit
that prompted the naturalization laws from
the beginning of our Government? What
the true intent is of these laws, even of
those enacted under the administration of
the elder Adams and repeated by the act
of 1902, no one has better or more torcibly
expressed than General Cass as Secretary
of State, in his letter of instructions to
Governor Joseph Wright, American Min
lister to Prussia. That letter is dated July
=, 1859; and in it the veteran American
statesman and diplomatist said:
The moment a foreigner becomes naturalized his
allegiance 10 his native country is severed forever
"A A
mpass bile line separates him rom his native coun-
try. Should he return his native country he re-
turns rs an American citizen and in no other char
acter,
The last sentence states broadly as well
as most concisely the true American doc
trine, which was referred to as such by
Lord Tenterden in his Memorandum on
Naturalization and Allegiance, issued from
the British foreign office in March, 1868.
Judge Black, than whom no better inter
prefer of international law ever acted as
Attorney of the United States, ex-
pressed himself in an official opinion with
equal cearness in defining the meaning of
naturalization. In its populot etymOlog-
ical and legal sense, he wrote. 1T (natur-
alization) signifies the act Of adopting q
foreigner and clothing him with all the
privileges of native citizen or subject.
And this very same construction was
adopted by royal commission in England
which had for its chief the Earl of Claren-
don, and among its members such eminent
authorities and writer's as Sir r. J. Phil
more, Baron Bramwell, Sir John Kars.
lake, Sir Rounded Palmer, and Mr.. Yer.
non Harcourt (late solicitor general of Eng.
land, and better known here as 'Histori-
Gus, This commission examined the
whole subject thoroughly and concluded to
abandon the old common-law rule of per
petual allegiance. 1t adopted the Ameri-
can doctrine as eminently in accordance
with the enlarged freedom of the age, and
applicable also to Great Britain hereafter.
Their recommendation was subsequently,
approved and confirmed by Parliament in
the passage Of the naturalization act of
1870, the sixth section of which reads:
Any British subject who has at any time before.
or may al any time after the passing OF this act,
when In q foreign state and not under any disa-
voluntarily become naturalized i'm such STATE
shall from and after the time of his 20 having be-
come natuIalizcd in such foreign state be deemed
TO have ceased to be British subject and be re-
gdrdtd as an alien.
Mr., Speaker, you will observe from this
that 1t is precisely the ground taken by
Secretary Cass and Attorney q eneral
Black, to-wit, that naturalization invests
the foreigner with complete citizenship the
same as birth, aud that as to all other
countries, even that Of his nativity. Can
the United States afford to be less liberal
than Great Britain? Can we be less lib
eral than Great Britain, which regards a
British subject naturalized here as an alien
thereafter within its territories WHY
should Congress, then. make distinction
between these two classes Of citizens rs il
the rights Of the one were not the same
but less than those of the other? This is
done most equivocally by the language of
the fifth clause Of the third subdivision of
section two Of the substitute | have quo
ted, that naturalized citizen becoming
domiciled in the country Of his nativity
which by section means continuous res
idence of two years-shall cease TO be I'M
der the protection of the United States. be
arbitrarily deprived of his rights acquired
by naturalization, and abandoned to the
very power all allegiance to which he had
under oath renowned in accordance with
the laws of the United States.
See how this would work in a supposable
case. John Doe, native Of London and
subject OF Great Britain, cmigrated to the
United States and is here duly naturalized.
After that, tor some legitimate purpose,
he returns say TO Scotland, and remains
there for three years or longer without be.
ing registered at any American consulate
Having completed his naturalization here,
he is under the act Of Parliament of 1870
an alien in Great Britain. But the pro-
posed act Of Congress would deprive him
Of his American citizenship also. He
would therefore in fact be IA man without
Scotland to France and circumstances arise
compelling him to appeal to the interposi-
ton and protection of his home govern
ment. He has abjured his allegiance t.
Great Britain, the country of his nativity.
and being an alien there he has no rights.
He applies 10 the United States. Here he
would be met with an act of Congress of
1874 denying him all right to protection as
A 80
had resided in the country of his birth con
tinuously for two years for which reason he
Is 10 be regarded as having become domi-
ciled there and to have forfeited his claim
to American protection. This will not do.
a native Of Austria (supposing another
possible case) comes to the United States
and IN due time is naturalized according To
law, After an absence of many years from
his childhoOd's home he returns as an
American citizen. Remaining there for
two years he falls under the operation Of
this proposed new law of Congress, and
may by it's operation and by the mere will
OF the American Secretary of State be de-
priyed OF his citizenship. But the treaty
between the United States and Austria( OF
Hungary specially provides that return
to and residence in his original country by
naturazed citizen shall not of itself work
a remuneration of his acquired citizenship
As consequence the man is thrown into
grave doubts as to his true national char
acter, which like Mahomets coffin in the
air may be kept dangling between America
and Austria, neither claiming and both re.
jecting him.
No native citizen can possibly be EXPOSED
to any such difficulties, doubts, and entan.