Year: 1878




May . 1868, which regulates naturalization
and repatriation. If Western producer
brings wheat to New York for sale no ques-
ton is made about the railway over which
1T came, but the inquiry IS whether the
wheat is good or bad and what is the price
of it. Alert politicians are naturally on the
lookout for an opportunity to please what
is called s.the German vote" which is now
so potential in New York and throughout the
West, and yet it will be found on inyestiga-
ton, we think, that the more staid and in
dustrious of our Germa n-American fellow
citizens, who have really cast their lot with
America, tako relatively little interest in
the article Of the treaty which is SO obnox-
ious to those born in Germany who wish to
live there, and yet retain at the same time
the benefit, but not the burden, Of American
naturalization papers.


The Convention which is assailed was
ratified in May 1868, and by its terms, it
was to endure for ten years from that date,
and if neither party gave notice six months
before the 22d of last May of its intention
then to terminate the same, it was to remain
IL
after either party shall have given notice to
the other of such intention. 1t was pro-
posed in the House the other day to instruct
the President to give the last named notice.


The Objectionable feature of the treaty is
generally supposed to be contained in the
fourth article, which recognizes the right of
remuneration Of naturalization and Of repa-
trio lat hat
allied in either country "renews his resi-
dence" in the country of his origin, 'with-
out the intent to return" to the country Of
his naturalization, che shall be held to have
renounced his naturalization" Then fol-
lows this sentence:-


''The intent not to return may be held to
exist when the person naturalized in the
one country resides more than two years in
the other country"


The word resides brings up, it will be
seen, the difficult question about what con-
stitutes residence within the treaty. There
is the same perplexity Of definition and
proof that there is over the five years ''resi-
dence" in our naturalization laws. like
provision is, however, contained in our
treaties with Bavaria, Denmark, Hesse,
Sweden and Norway, Wurtemberg and Mex
leo, excepting that in the last named there
is added the clause that the presumption
may be rebutted by evidence to the con-
trary" All of these treaties distinctly
affirm the principle that naturalized citi-
zen may renounce his acquired citizenship.
Our treaties with Austria and Baden de-
clare that no fixed period shall work such
remuneration, but every treaty we have
made on the subject stipulates that pres.
ence in the country Of origin, when accom-
panied with an intention not to return to
the country Of naturalization, is an aban-
donment of the latter.


We shall get, perhaps, a clearer idea of
what are the rights and duties Of our own
government in this matter Of repatriation if
we reflect moment on what are, in the
absence Of treaties, the rights OF Germany
as an independent Power. Public law
recognizes the right of State to naturalize
the native subjects of the other without
the consent of the latter, and consequently
the right of a subject to change his
nationality. But public law at the same
time recognizes the right Of each State
to regulate the allegiance Of it's own
subjects and prohibit their expatriation.
These two propositions may, at first sight,
seem to conflict when applied to naturaliza-
ton; but they do not, in fact, because
it is not international law which natu-
ralizes an alien, but the municipal
law Of the naturalizing State. Every
local law of naturalization is subordinate
to the rule of public law that every inde-
pendent State is sovereign over its own
territory and all who are within it. There
fore, SO long as the naturalized person re-
mains on the soil of his adopted country he
is covered by the flag Of that country. But
if he returns to the country whose allegi-
ance he has renounced without it's permis-
sion he is, of course, subj ect again to its
laws Upon this rule Of conduct Secretary
Marcy acted in the famous cases Of Martin
j. Koszta and Simon Tousig.


The different treaties which we have ne
gotiated with foreign countries have en-
deavored to define and peacefully regulate
these conflicting rights. Nearly all of them,
excepting that with Great Britain, declare
that to accomplish change of citizenship
person must not only have been natural
lied, but have resided continuously" or
"uninterruptedly" in the country Of adop-
ton during five years. 1t must be plain to
everybody that the United States have the
right to declare under what terms and cir
cumstances they will consent to recognize
one who was once one of their citizens, rs a
British subject, and especially if such an
one returns to the land Of his birth. And
the usefulness Of this line Of remark is that
il brings MS to perception of the fact that,
If we unnecessarily annoy Germany in this
business, there are distinctly recognized
rights of hers upon which she Can safely