Year: 1859

sacramento county, Were UIouSht W Clooe
in that body on Saturday last by the passage
of resolution declaring him ineligible
taking and still being under an oath
of allegiance to the British Government
The resolution was adopted by vote Of SO
ayes-noes 26.


The case, from its novelty, has attracted
much attention among newspaper readers,
who noted with interest the arguments ad-
vanced on both sides of the question; and
now that it is settled we think the general
verdict will be that the decision Of the AS
sembly was correct.


The facts in the case in brief are, that DR..
Duncombe, a native of Connecticut, when
young man, removed to Canada. and there
took the oath Of allegiance to the British
Government, and resided in the Provinces
many years; during which time he exercised
all the rights of British subject and held
political position, being at one time men,
Der of the Provincial Parliament. During
the Canadian rebellion in '37, he was COM
PEELED to flee from the country, being de-
nounced by the Governor General as q rebel,
and came to the United States, where it
seems he has ever since resided without re-
nouncing his allegiance to the British crown.
He was elected to the Assembly from Sacra
mento county at the late election, and his
seat was contested on the ground that he
was not citizen, and SO the Assembly have
decided.


The opposition members of the Assembly,
and the opposition press generally have taken
up the cudgels in defence Of DR.. Duncombe,
but the weight of the argument is strongly
against them, and public opinion is settling
firmly in the belief that the Assembly ma
jority did right in declaring the member in
eligible.


1t is plain proposition that man can
not owe allegiance to two governments at
the same time. In removing to Canada,
and taking the oath of allegiance to the
British Government, DR.. luncombe must
have divested himself of his political rights
as a citizen of the United States-he has
never recovered these rights by any legal
formality. 1t is rue the naturalization laws
of the United States do not provide for
the naturalization of those born within
the Union, but we do not think this omission
helps DR.. Duncombes case, but is the more
unfortunate for him, as it leaves no known
means of re-instating him except by an act
of Congress.


1t is conended by the opposition before
mentioned, that the failure of the naturaliza-
ton laws to apply in case of this kind is
proof positive that Dr. -Duncombe never lost
his natural rights as a citizen, that they were
but suspended during his absence, and be-
came Of full force upon his return.


If this argument be correct it then proves
that the laws of our country are more liberal
to men of foreign birth than those "native
and to the manor BORN" for the theory of
our government and our laws recognize the
right of natives of other countries renounc-
ing allegiance to their governments and be-
coming citizens of this. Our Government
and people have always contenGed for the
right Of men to forswear allegiance and
seek citizenship where they desired The
Assembly in refusing DR.. Duncombe his seat,
have given practical effect to this we'll estab
lshed theory, theory founded in justice
and with strict regard to the individual
rights of men.


The decision may give pain to his con-
stituents, and to the Doctor himself, who has
rested secure in the belief that he was a
citizen. But, as we before remarked, this
is his misfortune. Sympathy was not to be
taken into the account by the Assembly, or
the fact of long residence, but strict COM
pliance with what must be considered the
intent Of the laws regulating citizenship.


The attempt to give this matter partisan
coloring is an act of weakness on the part
of the opposition, that will givn them no
weight in public estimation. 1t is already
perceived that in the Assembly they were
the only party that gave the question that
character, as it appears by the record that
nine Democrats voted in faver of DR.. Dun
combe retaining his seat, while not one of
the opposition voted against him. We be-
lieve the majority acted upon conscientious
grounds and under the color of law, and
that their decision was correct. They had
NO reason to act as partizans. The member
ship was not necessary to increase the Demo