Year: 1868

| how those same righLs might be relin-
quished at the option of the person in
whom they were vested. But, sir, we are
not driven to this position. Some of the
learned opponents of this question in 1918
made the palpable mistake of supposing
that it was by the legislative power alone
that expatriation could be accomplished,
if, as they claimed, it could be consumma-
ted at all; that the right existed, if it eX


listed at all, either in the nature of a grant
or by the consent of the legislative power
| of the Government. Sir, this is a naked
iallacy; the true question is, that not only
| the right of expatriation, but the whole
power of its exercise, rests solely and ex-
clusively in the will of the individual citi-
zen. And here, sir, allow me to say, in this
connection, that the only objection l have
70 the proposed amendment OF the hOnOra-
BILE gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr..
WooDwARD,l for whose legal learning and
Judicial ex xperience have the very high
est respect, is that it Indirectly recog-
nizes the power of the Government
over the right ITSELF by providing for its
consent to the eXpatriation OF the citizen.
An Acknowledgements of the necessity of
consent on the part of the Government is
an admission of the right and power in
| that Government to withhold its consent
and thus defeat the right. Sir, all we want
of congressional action in regard to this
right is to provide the mode of evidence OF
the intention of expatrfatioR; that, for the
| security of the individual, as we'll as to pre-
vent embarrassment to the Government in
regard to its duty of protection, the evil
dence of intention shall not lie hidden in
the mind of the individual; but that de-
claration of Intention shall be made as a
matter OF record, for the benefit of all con-
cerned. With this mode of evidence estab-
lished there could be no troublesome ques-
ton of fact as to the Intention, for the mere
production of the record would at once
settle all controversy In regard to it.
| The doubt as to the constitutionality of
such law was put upon still another
ground by some of the opponents OF the bill
of 1878, and / recall these circumstances to
justify my position that it is important
now to present ourselves to the world
In an open and unequivocal position
for the very reason that our course
| heretofore has been quite the reverse. 1t
was suggested in that debate that the Cen
eral Government had no power under the
| Constitution, to absolve a citizen of one of
the States from his immediate allegiance
to such State; and do not controvert the
propositions. Sir, L acknowledge myself to
be States rights man in the
strictest constitutional sense OF the
| term; but l do not acknowledge that
any such question was involved in the bill
of 1878 or in the one now under consdera-
ton. To enforce eXpatriation or exile
|
a power anywhere belonging to this Gov
ernment No conservative-mindeds states
man, no intelligent legislator, no sound
lawyer has ever maintained any such pow
er in any branch of the Government. The
lawless precedents created in the delirium
of war, of kidnapping men in one State and
transporting them to another, or of send
ing men by force into exile, as punishment
Tor political opinion, were violations of
this great law of nature as well
as of the Constitution. The infatuated
and misguided men who did this
thing had no more constitutional power to
do it, nor has this Congress, than haYe the
physical power to lit this Capitol from its
foundations and anchor it in the clouds.
The men who debated the question in 1918
failed to see the true distinction. They
misapprehended the point in this: they
seemed to suppose it required the exercise
of some positive affirmative power on the
| part of the Government to accomplish the
fact of expatriation. They failed to COM
prehend that it is not the Government, but
that it is the individual, who has the right
and the only power of eXpatriation. The
| question is right of locomOtion and of dom
icile; it belongs and appertains to the cit
izen and not to the Government; and it is
the evidence of his election to exercise his
right, and not the power to control either
the election or the right itself, which is the
legitimate subject-matter of legislation.
There has been, and there can be, no legis-
lation under our Constitution to control in
any manner the right itself. /


This Government may say, as it
now, in fact, does say in this bill,
that it will defend and protect this
right in behalf of its citizens who
have expatriated themselves from their
native lands. There is certainly no con-
flct of sovereign power in that, as between
MI Il O. IL.


in regard TO his allegiance, both to the
Federal and the State Government, by a law
paramount to both, possesses inheren tly
this right of eXpatriation. A declaration,
therefore, on the part of the Federal Gov
erument of what shall be the evidence of
/ the exercise of that right cannot be held
/ to be an Infringement of the sovereignty of
that State, unless such State can say, what
the Federal Government itself cannot say,
that it has an inalienable and indefeasible
right to the perpetual allegiance of the cit
| iZen.


And now, Mr.. Speaker, wish to say, in
conclusion, that he who seeks to make this
a mere party hobby, and thus pervert its
true character as great national and in
ternational question, must have very
narrow and inadequate idea OF what be-
longs to an expansive and statesmanlike
view of the subject. Is it possible, sir, that
passion and political prejudice have so
warped our minds and blinded our judg-
ments as that no question, however ma
tional, no proposition, however remote from
the arena of party politics, but it must be
dragged into the schemes and calculations
of political campaign to subserve the ends
of few rather than promote the good OF
the many? Such is mordern politics. Sir,
| envy not the man who is unwilling even
to try to lift himself into that higher at
mosphere where the little ends and aims OF
the partisan are lost in the contemplation
, of the nobler duties of an American citizen
upon a great American question. The ILL
timed and unprovoked attack upon the
Democratic party made by the honorable
gentleman from Indiana Mr.. Orthl was
calculated to excite regret rather than in
dignation. Sir, the Democratic party needs
no defense at my hands. l am not bound
to its defense beyond the period in which
have had the honor to be an humble follow
: er of its principles. But, as a general
proposition, L do not hesitate to say that,


whether in war or in peace, in power or out
, of 1t, that proud old party has ever stood
before the Constitution like the sword OF
flame before the gate of Paradise, flashing
out its indignant wrath upon those who
would violate that sanctuary of our rights
There it stands, and there it will continue
to stand. Nothing can either drive or Sc
duce it from that position. 1t stands there
alike Indifferent to the scornful sneers OF
an arrogant majority on this floor or the
idle threats of an unscrupulous band OF
partisan loafers organized as "loyal
leagues" throughout the land. In de-
spite of all combinations and of all
denunciation it will stand by the Constitu-
tion as long as pillar of it remains. Sir,
that was proud boast of the old Roman
| when he said, "As long as Rome stands the
Coliseum will stand" Amid the storms OF
passion and the throes of revolution, how
much prouder and grander is the aspira-
tion and determination, swelling up from
millions Of free American hearts, that las
long as the Constitution stands the Demo-
cratic party will stand"