Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1875-12-17

any power should claim the right 10 land q
| cable on the shores OF the United States
! and at the same time deny TO the United
| States or TO its citizens an equal right Ia
land a cable on its shores. The right to
| control the conditions for the laying OF q
| cable within the jurisdictional waters of the
] United States TO connect our shores will
| those of any foreign State pertains eXclu-
| sively to tue Government OF the United
! States, under sncl limitations and condi-
| lions as Congress may impose. In the abb
| sence of legislation by Congress | was un-
willing, on the one hand, TO yield to for
| eign State the right TO say that lis grantees
| might land on our shores, while IL denied
a similar right TO our people TO land on IFS
| shores And on the other hand / was re-
| luclant 10 deny TO the great interests of the
world and of civilization the facilities oi
such communication as were proposed. ]
therefore withheld resistenco TO the land
| ing OF any cable on condition that the often
sive monopoly feature of the concession be
| abandoned, and that the right of any cable
| which may be established by authority OF
| this Government to land upon French ter
ritory, and 10 connect with French land
| lines, and enjoy all the necessary facilities
or privileges incident TO the use thereof
| upon as favorable terms as any other COM
| pany be conceded. As tue result tberoi
the company in question renounced the ex-
elusive privilege, and the representative OF
France was informed that, understanding
this REIMBURSEMENT to bo construed as
granting the entire reciprocity aud equal
facilities which had been demanded,
the opposition to the landing Of the cable
was withdrawn. The cable under The
French concession was landed in the month
Of July. 1869 and has been an efficient aud
valuable agent of communication between
this country and the other continent. 1t
soon passed under the control, however, OF
those who had the management of the Ca
ble connecting Great Britain with this Con-
tinent, and thus whatever benefits 10 The
public might have ensued from competi-
lion between the two lines was lost. leav-
ing the greater facilities Of an additional
line and the additional security in case Of
accident TO one ofthem. utthese increas-
cd facilities and this additional security, to-
gether with the control of The combined
capital of the two companies. gave also
greater power TO prevent the future con-
struction Of other lines, and to limit the
control of telegraphic communication be-
tween the two continents TO those possess
ing tho lines already laid.
THE DIRECT CABLE-PRovIsIoNs AGAINST
MONOPOLY.
Within a few months past a cable has
been laid, known as the Uniled States Di-
rect District Cable Company, connecting
the United States directly with Great Brit
ain. As soon as the cable was reported 10
existing consolidated company were great
ly reduced. Soon, however, break was
announced in this new cable, aud immedi-
ately the rates of the other line, which had
been reduced, were again raised. This
cable being now repaired, the rates appear
not to he reduced bj either line from those
formerly charged by the consolidated COM
panies. There is reason to believe that
large amounts of capital both at home and
abroad are ready to seek profitable invest
ment in the advancement of this useful
and most civilizing means OF correspon-
denc'. They await, however, The assurance
OF the means and conditions on which they
may safely be made tributary 10 the gem
ersn good. As these cable telegraph lines
connect separate States there are questions
as 10 their organization aud control which
probably can be best, if not solely,
settled by conventions between the respect
i've States. In the absence, however, of
International conventions on the subject,
municipal legislation may secure many
points which appear TO me important if not
Indispensable for the protection of the pub
lie against the eXtortiOns which may re-
| suit from monopoly Of the right OF opera
ting cable kilograms, or from comUina-
tion between several lines:
/. No line should be allowed TO land on
the shores of the United States under The
concession from another power which does
not admit the right of any other line or
lines formed in the United States 10 land
and freely connect with aad operate
through land lines. ..
III. No line should be allowed 10 land
on the shores OF the United States which is
not by treaty stipulation with the Govern
ment from whose shores il proceeds, or by
! prohibition la its charter or otherwise to
| the satisfaction of this Government, pro-
| hibited from consolidating or amalgama-
| ting with any other cable telegraph line or
combining herewith for the purpose OF
regulating and maintaining the cost oftel-
| egraphing.
III. All lines should be bound to give
| precedence in the transmission OF The Utfi-
| cial messages of the Governments of the
| two countries between which ii may be
laid.
". A power should be reserved TO the
| two Governments, either conjonlly or 10
each as regards the messages dispatched
| from its shores, 10 Ii * limit to the charges
10 be demanded for the Transmission of
| messages.
1 present this subject TO the earnest con-
sideratiOn of Congress. In the meantime
| and unless Congress otherwise direct,
shall not oppose The landing OF any tele-
| graphic cable which complies with and as
senIs TO the points enumerated, but will
| feel it my duty to prevent the landing oil
any which does not conform to the first
and second points, as stated, and which
| will not stipulate 10 concede to this Gov
| ernment the precedence in the transmits
| sion of its official messages, and will enter
into satisfactory arrangement in regard
| TO its charges.
| FRAUDULENT NATURALIZATION AND EX.
PATRIATIoN.
Among tie pressing and important sub
jecls TO which, in my opinion, the atten'
lion of Congress should be directed, are
| those in lelalion to fraudulent naturaliZa
lion and expatriation. The United States
with great liberality offers its citizenship
10 all who in good faith comply with the
| requirements of law. These requirements
are as simple and upon as favorable terms
to the emigrant as the high privilege tC
which he is admitted can or should permit
l do not propose any additional require
ments 10 those which the law now de
mands, but the very simplicity and tht
want Of unnecessary formality in our Law
have made fraudulent naturalization no
inirequent, to the discredit and injury o
ali honest citizens, whether native or nat
uralized. Cases of this character are con
tinually being brought TO the notice OF
the Government by our representatives a
broad; aud also those of persons resident
in other countries, most frequently those
who, If they have remained in this country
long enough 10 entille them TO become nat
uralized, have generally not much over
passed that period, and have returned Il
the country OF their origin where they re
side, avoiding all duties TO the UniteC
States by their absence, and claiming 10 bC
exempt from all duties 10 the country o
their nativity and of their residence by
reason of their alleged naturalization.
is due to this Government Itself, aud 10 The
great mass of the naturaliZed citizens whi
entirely, both in name and in Tact, become
citizens of the United States, that the higl
privilege of citizenship of the United State
should not be held by fraud or in deroga
tion of the laws and of the good name o
every honest citizen. On many occasion
it has been brought 10 the knowledge o
the Government that certificates of natu
ralizatlon are held and protection or inter
ference claimed by parties who admit tina
not only they were not within the Unitel