time, their allegiance and their domicil. The Government of the United States does not maintain, and never has maintained, the doctrine of the perpetuity of natural allegiance. And surely Mexico maintains no such doctrine; because her actually existing government, like that of the United States, is founded in the principle that men may throw off the obligation of that allegiance to which they are born. Mexico herself has laws granting equal facilities [with those of the United States] to the naturalization of foreigners. On the other hand, the United States have not passed any law restraining their own citizens, native or naturalized, from leaving the country and forming political relations elsewhere. Nor do other Governments in modern times attempt any such thing. It is true that there are Governments which assert the principle of perpetual allegiance; yet, even in cases where this is not rather a matter of theory than of practice, the duties of this supposed continuing allegiance are left to be demanded of the subject himself, when within the reach of the power of his former Government, and as exigencies may arise, and are not attempted to be enforced by the imposition of previous restraint, preventing men from leaving their country." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Mexico, July 8, 1842, 6 Webster's Works, 445, 454. "The Government of the United States have no power to extend protection to naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to their native country." (Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bryan, March 21, 1843, 33 MS. Dom. Let. 117.) "From these provisions [of the naturalization laws] it would seem, by necessary implication, that our laws presuppose a right on the part of citizens and subjects of foreign powers to expatriate themselves and transfer their allegiance, and, although the abstract right has not to my knowledge been settled by any authoritative decision, I feel no difficulty in expressing the opinion that the United States, acting upon these principles in reference to the citizens and subjects of other countries, would not deny their application to cases of naturalization of their own citizens by foreign powers, and, of course, to the case of Demerlier, who, if he should be naturalized by France, would, on this view of the subject, be absolved from his allegiance to the United States." Mr. Calhoun, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pageot, French min., Nov. 30, 1844, MS. (2) MR. BUCHANAN'S ASSERTION OF UNQUALIFIED RIGHT. $435. "The fact of your having become a citizen of the United States has the effect of entitling you to the same protection from this Government that a native citizen would receive." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rosset, Nov. 25, 1845, 35 MS. Dom. "The Government of the United States affords equal protection to all our citizens, whether naturalized or native, and this Department makes no distinction between the one and the other in granting passports. "It is right to inform you, however, that difficulties have arisen in cases similar to yours. In more than one instance European governments have attempted to punish our naturalized citizens, who had returned to their native country, for military offences committed before their emigration. In every such case the Government has interposed, I believe successfully, for their relief; but still they have in the meantime been subjected to much inconvenience. Under these circumstances I could not advise you to incur the risk of returning to Oldenburg, if the business which calls for your presence there can be transacted by any other person." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Huesman, March 10, 1847, 36 MS. "A native of the island of Cuba, who has been naturalized in the United States, retains his rights as an American citizen upon his return to that island, at least until he has manifested, by unequivocal acts, his intention to become again a Spanish subject." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Campbell, consul at Havana, July 26, 1848, 10 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 473. "Whenever the occasion may require it, you will resist the British doctrine of perpetual allegiance, and maintain the American principle that British native-born subjects, after they have been naturalized under our laws, are, to all intents and purposes, as much American citizens, and entitled to the same degree of protection, as though they had been born in the United States." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bancroft, min. to England, Oct. 28, 1848, 47 Brit. & For. State Pap. 1236, 1237. "Our obligation to protect both these classes [naturalized and native American citizens] is in all respects equal. We can recognize no difference between the one and the other, nor can we permit this to be done by any foreign government, without protesting and remonstrating against it in the strongest terms. The subjects of other countries who, from choice, have abandoned their native land, and, accepting the invitation which our laws present, have emigrated to the United States and become American citizens, are entitled to the very same rights and privileges, as if they had been born in the country. To treat them in a different manner, would be a violation of our plighted faith, as well as of our solemn duty." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bancroft, min. to England, Dec. 18, For the reply of Lord Palmerston, Aug. 16, 1849, to protests made by Mr. (3) REVERSION TO EARLIER DOCTRINE. § 436. Replying to an inquiry whether Mr. Victor B. Depierre, a native of France, but a naturalized citizen of the United States, could "expect the protection of this Government in that country, when proceeding thither with a passport" from the Department of State, Mr. Webster said: "If, as is understood to be the fact, the Government of France does not acknowledge the right of natives of that country to renounce their allegiance, it may lawfully claim their services when found within French jurisdiction." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Nones, June 1, 1852, S. Ex. Doc. 38, 36 To the same effect, see Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tolen, June 25, "The doctrine of inalienable allegiance is no doubt attended with great practical difficulties. It has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and by more than one of the State courts; but the naturalization laws of the United States certainly assume that a person can, by his own acts, divest himself of the allegiance under which he was born, and contract a new allegiance to a foreign power. But, until this new allegiance is contracted, he must be considered as bound by his allegiance to the government under which he was born, and subject to its laws; and this undoubted principle seems to have its direct application in the present cases. "The Prussian Government requires of all its subjects a certain amount of military service. However onerous this requirement may be, it is purely a matter of domestic policy, in which no foreign government has a right to interfere. It appears that there is no exemption from the obligation to render this service in favor of persons wishing to leave the country, unless they apply for and receive from the proper authorities what is termed a certificate of emigration." This emigration certificate' seems, like an ordinary passport, to be granted as a matter of course on application. When the vast extent of the Prussian military establishment is considered, and its importance in the monarchy, such a regulation, in reference to persons wishing to emigrate, who, as you are aware, now amount to many thousands annually, can not be regarded as otherwise than liberal. But even if a different system prevailed, and if the previous rendition of a certain amount of military duty were made the condition sine qua non of granting the 'emigration certificate,' however oppressive the rule might be, a foreign government could have no right to interfere with its execution. "If, then, a Prussian subject, born and living under this state of law, chooses to emigrate to a foreign country without obtaining the 'certificate' which alone can discharge him from the obligation of military service, he takes that step at his own risk. He elects to go abroad under the burden of a duty which he owes to his Government. His departure is of the nature of an escape from her laws, and if, at any subsequent period, he is indiscreet enough to return to his native country, he can not complain if those laws are executed to his disadvantage. His case resembles that of a soldier or sailor enlisted by conscription, or other compulsory process, in the army or navy. If he should desert the service of his country, and thereby render himself amenable to military law, no one would expect that he could return to his native land and bid defiance to its laws, because in the meantime he might have become a naturalized citizen of a foreign state." Mr. Everett, Sec. of State, to Mr. Barnard, min. to Prussia, Jan. 14, With this instruction, Mr. Everett enclosed a copy of the letter of Mr. In the case of Mr. Grill, a naturalized citizen of the United States, whose "With reference to our verbal conversation, some days ago, in relation to the liabilities to which emigrants from Prussia and other German States, who have become citizens of the United States, are subjected when they voluntarily return to those States, after having left their native country without the necessary permission of emigration, and without fulfilling their military duties prescribed by law after having attained a certain age, I beg leave to inclose hereby an extract from the laws of Prussia and from the constitution of Prussia on this subject, by which you will perceive that Prussia does not pretend to enforce any allegiance upon the said emigrants, but that, if they return to Prussia, they are made responsible for having violated our laws in the cases above mentioned and are considered as criminals forfeited to the punishment of the law, from which no citizenship of any nation can liberate them.” Baron Gerolt, Prussian min., to Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, July 11, 1853, The extract enclosed by Baron Gerolt was from the laws of Prussia of "Prussia. .. claims the right to exact military service from her subjects who have emigrated to or have been naturalized in other countries without having procured a certificate of emigration, and she has in many instances enforced the performance of that duty upon those who have returned to that country. The interposition of the Government of the United States in behalf of such as were naturalized in this country has not been effectual in inducing her to forego this claim." (Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bielfeld, July 6, 1853, 41 MS. Dom. Let. 442.) "This Government cannot rightfully interpose to relieve a naturalized citizen from the duties or penalties which the laws of his native country may impose upon him on his voluntary return within its limits. When a foreigner is naturalized the Government does not regard the obligations he has incurred elsewhere, nor does it undertake to exempt him from their performance. He is admitted to the privileges of a citizen in the country, and to the rights which our treaties and the law of nations secure to American citizens abroad. In this respect he has all the rights of a native-born citizen, but the vindication of none of these rights can require or authorize an interference in his behalf with the fair application to him of the municipal laws of his native country when he voluntarily subjects himself to their control in the same manner and to the same extent |