Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-05-27
POINT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

place, and put in prison. 1t is added that
when he first left Germany ne was under
orders to report for military duty. This
is a case in which some very delicate points
of international Law appear. 1t is in fact
case embarrassed by what is called the con-
flict of laws. There are at times situations
of this kind in which the difficulty of solu
ton consists in the impossibility OF finding
4 common standpoint. For instance
What is the rule as to the jurisdiction OF
Governments over persons who have
changed their allegiance? Evidently the
answer to this will not be the same in all
cases. The Government from which the
person has passed to change his natural
ization will naturally be reluctant to admit
his right to repudiate it. The Government
which has adopted him on its side will as
naturally desire to protect him. And
when, as often happens IN Continental
/ States, men emigrate to evade military
1 duties, fresh cause OF embarrassment is
! introduced. There have been many cases
of this kind and the precedents are not by
any means in accord. Thus when Johann
| Knocke, a native. born Prussian, was natu-
rallied in America, and on returning to
| Prussia claimed exemption from military
service, Mr.. Wheaton, then American Min
lister at Berlin, told him that as long as he
was in any other country but Prussia he
would be protected, but having returned
Z" to the country Of your birth, your native
"domicile and national character revert
" $50 long as you remain in Prussian do
minions), and you are bound to obey the
laws as if you had never emigrated. I"
! This rule was observed until 1859, when
the United States endeavored to protect
/ Hofer from the CONSUMPTION. Mr.. Cass
| then asserted that "the moment a for
"eigner becomes naturalized, his allegi.
lance to his native country is severed
forever" This assumption, however,
was not persisted in, and in fact was prac-
tically repudiated during the war of the
rebellion, when many foreigners quilted
the United States to avoid the conserip-
ton there, and afterwards applied for pro-
lection to the United States Government,
when they were called on to serve in the
| Prussian army.
The case OF Simon Tousig seems in point.
He, like Martin Kozte, had only declared
his intention of becoming an American
citizen, however. He was an Austrian by
birth, and on returning to his native land
he was arrested for offenses committed
before he had LETT that country. Mr..
Marcy declined to interfere for him, on
the ground that "having once been sub.
eject to the laws of Austria, and while
under her Jurisdiction violated these
claws, his withdrawal from that jurisdic-
"tion and acquiring a different national
character would not exempt him from
"their operation whenever he again
chose to place himself under them"
Woolsey appears to take the same view
of this class of cases, for he says "There
"is no doubt that State, having under
"taken to adopt stranger, is bound to
protect him like any other citizen.
"Should he return to his native
"soil, and be apprehended for the nom
| "fulfllment OF civic duties which devolved
ION him before his emigration, there
would be no ground of complaint on that
"score." This appears almost to cover the
case of Harstmap, for he has been "appIe.
blended for the non-fulfllment of civic
duties which devolved on him before his
emigration" Perhaps, however, the case
is settled by the terms of the Convention of
1868 between the United States and North
Germany, according to which, if a natural.
lied person returns to the country where
he first lived, he remains liable to trial
"and punishment for an action punishable
"by the laws of his original country, and
committed before his emigration, reserv-
ling always the limitations established by
"its laws or any other remission of liability
"to punishment. Under this provision,
if Harstman can be shown to have violated
German laws in leaving his country origi-
nally, there can be no ground of complaint
on the part of the United States.
And the conclusion is in accordance with
the views of nearly all the best jurists.
Thus Wharton {" Conflict of Laws OBJ
serves that Naturalization, not only
6" under the Constitution of the United
estates, but under the statutes of most
European States, is limited to the estab-
ishment of the citizenship of the person
L" naturalized in the naturalizing State. 1t
does not confer any special civil status
g nor, while removing disabilities arising
L" from foreign birth, does it remove those
" arising from conviction of crime" Thus
also it was held in the French Court of
Cessation that while the terms Of natural
ization are settled by the country which
the emigrant enters, the terms of expatria-
ton are settled by the country which he
leaves. On the whole, therefore, the
weight Of authority is against Harstman,
who seems to have got himself into scrape
from which the United States cannot help
him. 1t can protect its own citizens under
ordinary circumstances, but it cannot IN
dertake to bear them harmless when they
are apprehended for ofenses committed be-
fore they had renowned their foreign al
legisnce, or had entered its jurisdiction.
Mr.. Sargent will find this case confronting
him at his entrance into Office, and we have
no doubt that he will bring to bear upon it
all his acuteness, knowledge of the law,
and perseverance. Harstman, however,
has apparently more to hope from the
friendliness existing between Germany and
the United States, than from the strength