National Republican., 1883-06-25
THE RIGHTS OF ALIENS.
Full Opinion Of the Court Of Alabama Claims
in the Case Of Cassidy.
A Ruling Of the Former Court on the
Same Question Reversed.
The Real Reason Which Induced President Lincoln 10
Give Up Mason and Slidell.
A Subject Of Great Britain Entitled to
Recover.

court Of Alabama claims in the case Of John
Cassidy VS.. Tho United States, written by
Judge Harlan:
The claimant in this case alleges that he
was born in Ireland that he resided between
the thirteenth day of April, 1861, and the
ninth day of April, 1855, both days included,
at the city of New York, and while at sea, on
American vessels under tho register and flag
of the United States; that he was naturalized
as citizen OF the United States during the
year 1886; that he has not been naturalized
in any other country than the United States
nor taken any steps toward being so natural
ized; that while serving as mate on the
United States vessel Golden Rule for wages,
making a voyage from New York city to As
pinwall and return, on the twenty-sixth day
of January, 1863, said vessel was attacked,
captured, and burned on the high seas, with
q large amount of valuable personal property
owned by him, by the confederate cruiser
Alabama He therefore prays judgment for
the value of his property thus destroyed and
for wages while thus deprived of employment.
The counsel Of the United States domurs on
two grounds:
L. Because the ppdtioner was born beyond tho
limits and jurisdiction of the United States, to
wit, within the Jurisdiction, authority, and do
minion of the queen of Great Britain and Ireland,
aud was not naturalzed rs a citizen Of the United
States, at the time Of his alleged loss
2. Because the said claimant was at the time OF
his alleged loss British subject and was not en-
titled to the protection OF the United States, as
against the violation OF neutral obligations and
duties on the part OF the government OF Great
Britain.
Under the former clause of this demurrer
the right Of all persons, although residing in
the United States. or sailing under its flag on
the high seas, other than citizens of the
United States, to recover in this court, is do
MED.
The second clause of the demurrer ospe-
cially denies the right of subject of Great
States or sailing on the high seas under the
protection of its flag, to recover in this court
for damage done by confederate cruiser.
In considering these objections separately,
and in the order in which they are presented,
it may be observed that the acts Of June %,
1874, and of June 8, 1882, do not describe the
persons of legal claimants other than by desig
mating the classes Of claims which arc prov
able before this court In the 4th and 9th
sections of the latter act IL is provided that
judgments shall be entered by the court for
the amounts allowed by it for two classes of
claims viz:
That the first class shall be for claims directly
resulting from damages done on the high seas by
confederate cruisers during the late rebellion, in
cluding vessels and cargoes attacked on the high
seas. although the loss or damage occurred within
four miles of the shore excluding claims which
have been proved pursuant to section eleven OF
%, 1s74) The second class shall be for claims for
the payment of premiums for war risks. whether
phlu 10 COTpOrduOnS, uScnlS, OF lnulVlQuhlb atter
the sailing OF any confederate cruiser.
Inferentially, the owners Of all such claims
thus described may appear in this court rs
claimants, mako the necessary proof, and re-
cover judgments for the amount of their
several losses. And If this act stood alone all
persons who suffered such losses would be
lawful claimants without regard to their
character, place Of residence, or citizenship.
But this act revives the act of June 20, 1874,
so far as its provisions are not repealed by
this act. And section 12 of said act provides
(omitting all the restrictive clauses which do
not affect the question under consideration):
That no claim shall be admissible
orisng in favor OF any person not entitled, at the
time Of his loss, to the protection OF tho United
person who did not at ali times during the D. late ate
rebellion bear true allegiance to the United
States.
Does this provision exclude all claimanta
other than citizens Of the United States?
The lawful claimant, it is clear, must have
been at the time of his loss entitled to the
protection of the United States, and also at all
times during the late rebellion have borne tr 10
allegiance to the United States. The absence
of either quality-"true allegiance or title
to protection in the premises" would be
fatal, But all citizens, criminal as well as
law abiding, were entitled to the protection
of the United States. Hence, If congress in
tended to apply the beneficial provisions of
this law to to citizens only, the preceding re.
strctive clause excluding claimants not ''en-
titled at the time of their loss to the protec
tion of the United States" would be mean
ingess. Tho court, however, is not at lib
orty to depart from the rule observed by all
courts in the construction of statutes, which
requires that Interpretation to be adopted
which will give force and meaning to all Of
its parts, IL that is found to be practicable
within the obvious purpose of the legislature
In this case the obvious purpose of congress is
to provide indemnity for damage done on the
high seas by confederate cruisers. This
damage fell on citizens and resident aliens "a
common. The restrictive clauses under con-
sderation do not contain either the words
'citizen" or ALIEN The language used
would exclude portion of both classes
Citizens" who did not bear true allegiance,
aud "aliens" not entitled to the protection
of the United States in the premises" But
the latter clause cannot have any application
to citizens. Then to whom does II apply
Clearly to some class of aliens or it must be
nugatory.
But was there any class of aliens who, at
the time these losses accrued, possessed both
necessary qualities that is, who bore true
allegiance to the United States during the
late rebellion" and who also were entitled
to the protection of the United States in the
premises"
This inquiry makes il necessary TO ascer-
tain the true meaning of the term "allegi-
ance," as used in this act. Its literal mean
ing IL nuellty 10 cause, principle, aYOca-
tion, person, prince, or state" Its political
meaning is "the tic or obligation binding a
subject or citizen to his prince or govern
ment, involving obedience ON tho part of
the subject or citizen, and protection on tho
part OF the prince or government Allegiance
is the ligament by which tho one Is attached
TO the other. Giving the term this narrow
meaning, it cannot be properly applied to a
resident alien. In this restsicted sense the
claimant at bar was not capable, at the date
of his loss, of bearing true allegiance TO the
United States" for he was not naturalzed
citizen of the United States at the time of his
loss But, as we have seen, the word has a
broader meaning, and may be ftly used 10
describe that fidelity only, which is due from
an alien to the government of the country in
which he is residing, manifested by cheer
ful obedience to its laws. including equitable
sonal services, for its support and defense In
this sense an alien may bear true allegi-
ance" TO the country of his residence or domi-
cie, without violating the paramount alle-
glance which he lawfully owes to his own
sovereign.
And in the absence of the first ground of
demurrer in the case at bar it would not seem
necessary TO add that resident alien so per-
forming his duty is reciprOcally entitled to
the protection of his natural rights of person
and property equally with native born and
naturalIzed citizens.
The right of aliens to residence and domi-
cile is recognized by the government of every
civilized country; notably by tho govern
ment of United States. And the reciprocal