The New York Herald Newspaper, July 29, 1859, Page 2

2 ANOTHER MANIFEST@ FROM GOV. WIRE. Wis Platform on the Naturalization Question, the African Slave Trade, and Sla- very in the Territories. New York, Jnly 8, 1359. Fo His Excellency Hawny A. Wiss, Richmond, Virginia:— : aetres Sm—Your name having been prominent'y ‘bronght before the American people of the demo eratic party, both in this quarter and in other se:- ions of the Union, as their choice for the nomina- ‘tion of the Charleston Convention as a cendiiate for the Presidency, the undersigned respectfully ask that you will favor them with your oj injons re- garding the rights of our ado) ted fellow citizens, on revisiting the places of their birth, to the protection ofthe government of the United States. “ This subject has been brought to our notice by a ter addressed by Mr. Jolun Appleton, Assistant recut erate; to k of New York, dated M Wasbingio ch 15, 1859. ‘The letter replied to was as follow No. 51 Linenty Srreet, New Yore, aah toa . Lewn Cass, Secretary of State, ington, D. O.:— eo Sin—The question bag been asked mo by @ perty who wishes to visit his — place a4 aeneey)) ether he would not be protect pessport The United States government, he being a citizen of the United States, having become 80 more than tho years ago. He left Hanover when be was 8 years of age, and bas resided in the United Sux Be ‘ans been told that if be returned to Hanover be wi be webjeet either to military duty or to the payment of a ‘ime, as his cevernment would bave « claim upon him for military duty had he in Hanover till he errived at the age cf twenty-one, The party to whom I refer is ‘apxions to visit his parents, and remain with them ashort time; but, until he feels confident of being able to do so ‘without molestation, be is afraid to leave for his native land Bunnst beg leave, therefore, to treabie your Department fe ¢ tte views upor the subject. I nee no reasen why an Am a. wican paesport should not protect him as well aud 88 fo uy tm Hanover as in any other pert of Zurope. I have ‘the Bonor to be, very respectfully, your obedient ee To which the following reply was made:— DEPARTMENT OF STATE, =) Wasniyeron, March 16, 7859. 5 . &. , New Yorw:— bg ny Pad letter of the 11th inetant hes been re- requests governments te give all iawfcl ald aed protection fe its bearer. 1: docs rot exempt bim from acy oDligation penalty which be may have incurred to the govern- ment of hie native country Prier to bis merged sbeuk! voluntari wr e ir, your 0! Fd “= ‘asia JOHN APPLETON, Assistant Secretary of State. And also by e letter from Gen. Cass, Secretary of tate, to Mr. Felix Le Clerc, of Memphis, Tennes- wee, dated Washington, May 17, 1859, in which the feHowing passage occurs:— “Your naturalization in pt you from that claim,”? (the ciaim of the French govern- ment to military service from all natives of France who may be found within ie jurisdiction.) “if you should vobantarily repair thitber’’ (to France). ‘The grounds assumed in the above letters strike Bs as novel and corfrary to the doctrines hitherto put forward and insisted upon by our government, aad in defence of which we waged war with Great country will not ¢: in. The European doctrine denies the right of expa- tyiation, and claims that once a subject is to be always a subject. England has been forced to abandon this doctrine, while the despotic govern- ments on the Continent continue to maintain it. if England is not permitted to re-sabjagate our adopted citizens, how can we consistently submit to its being done by other governments? Wedeny the right of Hanover and of France to @laim forced military service from our adopted @itizens, who may happen to re-visit the homes of their birth, simply because they were born there. They have no more right to do so than had Austria to claim Martin Koszta, or Great. Britain to seize our adopted citizens when doing duty on American vessels under our flag. : Nordo we believe that ‘a passport is a mere certi- fieate of citizenship,” which may be violated at will foreign governments, and the bearer deprived of | ‘ikis liberty on any flimsy pretext or previous obli- dons of mee service, incurred in his in- y or during his minority. The seal of the Dnited States is the sign manual of sovereignty, which should at all times shield her citizens in per- pon and in property, at home and abroad. Secondly, We would be pleased to learn your ‘wiews as to whether States can constitutionally pass Jaws prolonging the period of naturalization beyond ‘the period ot five years’ probation, provided for by the present laws of Congress? and how far tes possess the right to discriminate between the fran- @hise of one class of its citizens over another? Thirdly, We would be pleased also to learn your views regarding the legality and expediency of re- pening the African slave-trade, and, Fourthly, Your views, also, regarding the legiti- mate bounds of Congressional legislation in regard to the Territories, which, while maiataining non- imtervention on the question of forcing or excl! rg slavery from them, yet should claim the constitu- power, if necessary, to protect the rights of persons and property within their borders, leaving ‘the people free at the proper time to form a State eonstitution and seek admission into the Union, whether free or slave States,as they may elect. While we have the honor to be, your obedient ser- ants, Upo.rxo WoLrFE, Dexter Orey, Joun Brapsurn, Jounx Commons, BERNARD SHERIDAN,M.D. W. J. Hennessy, Patrick Locan, Tuomas D. Conroy, Ricnarp Haxzanax, Joun Wagp, N. H. Camppeuy. Joun Berier, M.M. Numan, P. McCarray, Joun Hunnessy, AntHory Conway. And others. RicrMonD, Va., July 15, 1859. GextieMEN—Yours of the 8th reached me the ‘¥5th inet., and I proceed to answer it as briefly and wategorically as possible. I cannot elaborate a re- ply to either question, for each separately would jire—and en one of them, at least I have | jai ate long treatise; and it is desirable that the conclusions should be condensed, without the yeasons for them, in order that they may be read. I will amplify them no further than it is necessary to make myself understood, and to draw the dis- ‘énctions essential to guard the main exceptions to general rules, which affect— Ist. The rights of naturalized citizens to the pro- tection of the United States in the coutries of their Bativity, after they have become naturalized. These ee bring in review the conflict of doc- ‘trines and laws between the old European and the wew American systems of naturalization. Ast. What was the European system? 24. What is the system of the United States? ‘Ist. The old. To state the old, succinctly, but sufficiently for ‘the contrast with the new, I will take Prussia for example. What were and are her doctrines of the @bligations of her native citizens, at home and sboad? What are the claims pice them which she vets up? And what protection does she afford them ‘a8 respects foreign Powers and jurisdictions? Mark you, I speak now as to her native citizens alone, who have never renounced their allegiance to her. 1, At home. She requires implicit obedience to all her sover- eign and municipal laws; particularly, Ist, military wervice for a term of years; and, 2d, service in her reserved corps, or system called the Landwehr. And to some extent, 3, civil service of mechanics, especially, for a term of years, in her guilds or cor- rations, to acquire and diffuse a variety of skill the arts. 2. Abroad—she requires them to observe and obey the laws of foreign countries, where they may ‘be visiting, passing or sojourning, of the following Ist. Their criminal codes. They shall commit no ‘effences, no misdemeanors, felonies, or other crimes st the municipal laws of the locality wherever may happen to be. If they do, they are left subject to the penalties of the local laws. |. Their commercial, or revenue laws. They must pay all customs, dues, &c., levied legally, by the local jurisdiction. 3d. Their political laws. They must observe the corporation ices and regulations of the local authorities. 4th. They must be governed by the “local law,” as it is called, in other respects. As, for example, if they sue or be sued in courts foreign to her, she leaves them to the remedies, whatever they are, of the “lex fori ”—the law of the forsam or courts where the suit may be pending. If they make @ contract abroad, she leaves the construction of ‘the contract to the “lex loci contractus ”—the law of log aa where the contraet was made. If they claim dist bation of a decedent's estate in another oot s of a debtor's assets, or claim a debt, or ‘owe a debt, of meum and (uum, abroad, she leaves Aer citizens there to the law of the place, Arq med by the lex loci— especi; to lands and real estate, in a foreigu. jedan by her rs ns, whether by deed, grant, descent, Seine lee Too! rel atta” thi er, sho leaves here the reality i situated. © law of the place se suflice to exemplify the obedi nequires of her own citizens toher anton bo that which she yields from them to the laws of foreign countries. The description of foreign lawa whach she recognizes as binding her citizens abroad. are those of the criminal, commercial, political, local and municipal kind. Against these and the like she is not nationally hound to protect her citi- wens, at Jeast within the pale of civilization. But against attempts at authority beyond the Juricdiction of these laws and the like, she, and every other Buropean Power, claty the right of NEW YOP‘¢ HERALD, FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1850—TRIPLE SHEET. ROTECTION OF CITIZENS. First, mey do not admit or allow of any politic: obligations of their cities oP ee mt ay : Dey Wns on themselves. ‘And ther cit cee a ec enable and indestructible t Pes ‘hey If one of their citizens is pressed int | 0 mii. tary service of a foreign potentate, prir se oF nove- may they wat interpose to protect end release sre Bechuse, by the feudal lav vice is due especially to his owr due by his allegiance to his sove’ 2d, His own sovereignty 1 tary services at home, wi foreign service. And 3d. He might, against hi two masters—he might b ¢ to serve in war against his own sove. ei anil ‘ke compelled to in- cur the penalty of de «th for desertion on the one hand, or for treasen (ym the other, or be compelled to perpetrate dovib! ¢ treason. ndly. Becau’.e rllegiance and protection are cor- rellative obligations. Allegiance is the political Ro esa of the subject, and protection of the s0- vereign. If the suk rJect goes abroad and voluntarily enlists in a foreign service, that may make it optional with the sover eign whether to interpose or not, or how far to clieve him, But we are dealing with com- welary casesin order to extract a rule for that class of cas’ 4, military ser- Cain n; it is «wignty at h ome. mea his mili- A ‘be is pressed into 4 will, be forced to serve . And, y- Prussia ané European Powers all deny the of expatriation without the consent of the so- vert sign, and hold to the maxim of “once a citizen aly -ays a citizen,” and claim the obligations due to al’ egiance for life. They deny the right of natura- ¥ zation to renounce it without their consent. ‘fherefore it was that Great Britain claimed, for example, the right of “ search” of our vessel: the right of seizing those of their crewa w!)) natives of her realm; and it was upon tl that the last war with her for ‘sailors’ rights yas fought. Such is the old, the European system. The new, or American, is precisely the old, except that it re- jects the last dogma against expatriation and natoralization. * 3 The United States of America established the new system and order of human rights, and upset the odious dogma of despotism—“once a citizen, always a citizen.” Necessity, as well as policy and the love of free- dom, compelled them to unfetter the people of the Old World born in chains, in order that “these States” might be populated by a new law of natu- ralization. In their Declaration of Independence they complained of the grievance that the King of Great Britain had “endeavored to prevent the popu- lation of these States—for that purpose obstructing the laws for the naturalization of foreigners, re- fusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither,” &c. And when independence was achieved and the constitution was adopted, one of the first owers proclaimed and specifically given to_the longress was— Article 1, section 8, clause 4—“The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The true idea of naturalization is, according to its legal as well as its etymologieal sense, “when one who is an aiien is made a natural subject, by act of law and consent of the sove- reign power of the State.” The consent of our sovereign power is written in the consti- | tution, and Congress has passed the acts of law. By the leading statutes of April 14, 1802, and May 26, 1824, modified by other statutes, when the alien declares his intention to become a citizen of the United States, he is required first, then, on oath or affirmation before the proper State or Federal Court, ‘to renounce forever all allegiance | and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, State or sovereignty whereof such alien may ae any time be a citizen or subject.” Again: When he has | waited his probation through and applies to be admitted a citizen of the United States, he is re- quired a second time to take an oath, or make affir- mation, before the proper court, “that he doth ab- solutely and entirely renounce and abjure all alle- giance and fidelity to every foreign prince, poten- tate, State or sovereignty whatever, and particular- ly, by name, the prince, potentate, State or so- yereignty whereof before he was a citizen or sub- ject.” Heis required to renounce, also, all heredi- tary titles and ‘all orders of nobility. And the main exception to naturalization in our laws is:--Pro- vided, that no alien who shall be a native, citizen, denizen or subject of = country, State or sover- eignty with whom the United States shall be at war at the time of his application, shall then be ad- mitted to be a citizen of the United States.” Thus by double oaths we require renunciation of all allegiance and fidelity by an alien to the coun- try of which he was native or subject. And we “naturalize” him our citizen. He swears allegiance to the United States, and renounces and abjures ail allegiance to other powers, and becomes ex vi ler- mini, as if ‘native born” in the United States, their country is his country, their flag is his flag. He is born anew to liberty, not figuratively as in the spiritual kingdom of grace, but by the adoption of naturalization he is made in fact as if “native,” “one of us!” What the natives owe to the Upited States, the naturalized owe to them; and what the United States owe to the natives, they owe to the naturalized—nothing more and nothing less. To ascertain, then, what they owe to their native, is to ascertain wha€they owe to the natu- ralized citizens and subjects. What protection do they owe to their native citizens abroad? ust at this time the United States have an un- usual number of native citizens in Europe. They have gone for travel, trade, and to look upon the desolations of the wars of despotism, while their own blessed country is smilin; peace and plenty, without a sigh except for Italy and the European millions who are bleeding or in chains! If our travelling natives go to Calais in France, they must beware of violating the criminal code, and avoid violating the lo- cal laws declaring offences mala im se, or mala prohibita—all misdemeanors, felonies, or other crimes; they must also pay, for example, all wharfage dues of landing, and submit to examina- tion of baggage, and pay customs, and observe all commercial regulations; they must be cautions when they get to Paris to observe the en es Jaws; they must submit, in one word, to all the | local, criminal, commercial, political, municipal | Jaws and ordinances. If they violate any of these they will be subject to French jurisdiction, and the United States will not and ought not to interpose for their protection. If any one of them should choose to enlist in the French military or civil ser- vice voluutarily, he must abide its laws. If he de- serts the army, he may be shot as a deserter; if he murders, he may be hung or guillotined. The United States can interpose naught but “ good offices” to relieve him from penalties incurred upon his own responsibility to local laws—as in the cases of the filibusters in Cuba. Bat, on the other hand, if Louis Napoleon dares to seize any of them and force them into his line of the army, or restrains them of their personal liberty for his service, of any sort without violation of any local munici law, | but merely upon the claim that he may enforce | their allegiance and fidelity to his sovereignty because they are in his dominions; then the United States will interpose for their protec- tion, and will deliver them from the usurpation, if that bold bald bird, which has an eyrie some- where near Mount Vernon, has not lost his beak and talons, and forgotten the cunning of his instinst to swoop at any felon hawk that may prey upon the Gallic cock, or any other fowl of European barn yards. And why? Simply for the same reason page why Prussia and France, and any other ‘uropean sovereignty, will not allow their native citizens to be so seized and go served; because these citizens owe their allegiance to their own government, and that government owes to them protection; because these obligations of allegiance and protection are reciprocal and political, and not municipal;,are home and not foreign; are universal and not local; are permanent and not temporary obligations, though they are not perpetual. There is no other reason for tieerpoeag in behalf of natives. If that be the reason for interposing in behalf of natives, why does not the same reason prevail with the United States in protecting naturalized citizens? The same does not prevail with European Powers for protecting their naturalized citizens, for they hold the dogma against expatriation and to the maxim, “once a citizen, always a citizen.” But the same must prevail with the United States; for they expressly meant, by their constitution and laws, to deny and contradict this dogma and maxim and to assert and maintain the rights of ex- patriavion and naturalization. If not, why twice swear the naturalized alien? 1. To “renounce” and “abjure” all “alle- ance,” all fidelity to any other Prince, Potentate, tate or Sovereignty, and, particularly, to the Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty, by name, Be eo he was born a subject? If our natural- d citizen, then, be a native Frenchman, and he returns to France voluntarily, even, he has the eame right to visit France which any other citizen of America has, by , and comity, and recipro- city, between the United Bates and Ta and he ia enntled that country, for lawful purposes, e ig entitle to the cay kind and” dew of protection. If France says he was born hers, and because once | hers, he is hers for life, within her jurisdiction, the | United States is bound to repl, that they have | made him renounce and abjure allegiance and fidel- | ity to France; and 3 2. To swear allegiance and fidelity to the United States. To reply that we have “naturalized” him, and that he has expatriated himself from France, and become, by our sovereign consent, a citizen ef the United ‘States, as if native born, and that now | he owes allegiance and fidelity to us. he owes penalty to Prance for any crime, un- extpiated; if he owes her any due of customs or } commerce; if he beg broken apy police regulations; Hf he has not observed the local laws; if he {5 subject to any forfeiture under munieipal laws, he is subject, just as our native citi- wens are subject, to the local jurisdiction of France—but no farther. He has released himself from allegiance, and owes no longer any political obligation to the Roversigniz of his birth—it was all discharged and dissolved by his expatriation and aeiue zation, and both of these we have guaran- teed. This, 1 know, brings ona conflict of laws. And what if it does? Who would have it otherwise if Europe will not yield? Who would have the United States admitany such claimsand pretensions over her citizens by foreign Powers? ho would have us consent that these ee of despotism should prevail perpetually? itever we may say, our fathors declared in their independence, and it in their standing statutes, dipped in the blood of the Leopard and Chesapeake, that the European degma, because aman happens to be born the slave of a tyrant he shall be bound to his chains for life, and shall never fly to a better country and make that country his own, should be abolished from the earth, so far as our country and its citi- wens ave concerned. And all our laws of naturali- zation will have to be repealed, and we must return. to the dogma of Europe, unless we protect our na- turalized and native citizens equally and alike. The contract for their protection has been made with them by our laws and poticy, and we will retrograde from the stand taken by America if we do not redeem our promise in good faith and with ce courage. Whence came this other sort of fashionable doctrine of ‘* Non-Protec- tion?” Itseems to be an age for ignoring protection by the government of the United States and its departments, just as the United States have gotten strong enough to assert and maintain their obliga- tions of protection to everything sacred belonging to them, at home and abroad. e rights of expa- triation and ‘naturalization were peculiarly Ameri- can, and it was our boast that this was, especially, some new good thing under the sun which the United States had introduced upon the earth, for the oppressed of all mankind against the old orders of kings which made men slaves. How came our patent to this cherished principle of American law and liberty to be renounced, and by whom has it been renounced? The nation has never renounced it. Aware that any one else has, its indignation will burn consumingly hot. Iam sorry to say, Mr. Wheaton renounced it in failing to draw our Ame: can distinction between ‘ political” and other obli- gations. He adopted the idea of the European code, that an obligation of perpetual allegiance could be “ incurred” by birth; and that such obli- gation could be enforced within the jurisdiction of the nativity after naturalization elsewhere. He laid it down in‘his book, and contradicted the Declara- tion and Constitution and statutes of his new coun- try, which lay down another and new theory of the rights of man, conflicting with the European dogma. He had been so long in Europe, among her courtiers, thut his metal lost the ring of American liberty. Ihave reason to believe that an honorable feiend of mine, Daniel D. Barnard, of New York, whilst Minister at Berlin, did not forget his American les- son, and urged the right of protection to our natu- ralized citizens in Prussia. The cases were referred to the State Department at Washington, and my friend, the Hon. kdward Everett, was then Secre- tary of State, and he, unfortunately, followed the authorities of Mr. Wheaton. Mr. Barnard was over- ruled. He was succeeded by Mr. Vroom, of New Jersey, another able and excellent patriot, who concurred with Mr. Barnard, I believe, in maintain- ing the American doctrine; and he referred the arendon again to the State Department, under Mr. larcy, who returned instructions conforming to those of his predecessor, Mr. Everett. About this time I became possessed of an abstract of numer- ous and flagrant cases of violations of the rights of our naturalized citizens, in Prussia, Hanover, and the Grand Duchy of Oldenburg. I called upon the D ent of State, in person, and presented the question to several of our leading men in public life, and could obtain no second to the views I am now urging. All were afraid of involving the United States in extreme difficul- i if we boldly claimed the fall extent of the American theory. They cited Kossuth, a foreigner, for example, who might induce many of our naturalized citizens to go to Eu- rope for the very purpose of involving us in a war with Austria. This they urged might be done easily in various ways, under the semblance of the rights of expatriation and naturalization. It wasin vain that I urged that the principle of American protection involved no question of protection against a violation of local and municipal law; that it our naturalized citizens did not go abroad with bona fide lawiul and peaceful intent, but aided in conspiring against any foreign sovereignty, they would be punishable for crime in the jurisdiction wherever it might be perpetrated. It was in vain I urged that we were obliged by contract to guarantee ara against all obligations of allegiance claimed by foreign Powers, and that it would be cowardiee and bad faith not to fulfil and redeem our promise before the world and agaiuat the world. Just before this time the case of Koszta occurred. Ittouched every chord in the American heart. True, it occurred in a Turkish port; bat there was the old issue:—“Having been born in Austria, naturalized in the United States, found in Turkey, was he stillacitizen of Austria, owing any allegiance anywhere to her?’ Mr. Marcy claimed that he did not owe it to her, in Turkey, at least, and Captain Ingraham—to his everlasting honor— threw over the man the wgis of the United States, which protected his right of expa- triation from Austria, and his right of natu- ralization in the United States. This gave hope of the open maintenance of our American doctrine. This was in 1853. In 4854 I wrote @ defence of naturalized citizens, and in the ac- companying pamphlet, in my letteron “Know Nothingism,” you will see from pages 14 to 20, in- clusive, that I urged the doctrine then which I urge now. I confess that my object then was to make it popular. But, in spite of what he had done in the’Koszta case, Mr. Marcy followed Mr. Everett, and instructed Mr. Vroop, as Mr. Everett had Mr. Barnard, that our naturalized citizens were not to be protected when they voluntarily returned to the jurisdiction of their nativity from their obligations of allegiance by birth. In other words, that per- sons who had violated no local and municipal laws of that jurisdiction, might, if found within it, be compelled to do military service simply on the ground of birth there, and under the maxim, “Once acitizen, always a citizen.” I regret to say that Mr. Marcy was sustained by the Attorney General (Cushing) under Mr. Pierce’s administra‘ion. And now I regret still more to see that the great author of the treatise against visitation and search, whilst he was Minister ofParis, now Secretary of State, has given this detestable European dogma his sanction too, expreeay, in the letter you quote from him to Mr. F. Le Clerc, of Memphis, and which I have al- ready commented on in a published letter to Mr. M Meyer, of Lynchburg, Va. 8 to the letter of Mr. Appleton, Assistant Secre- tary of State, itis an “eel” too slippery to hold in ae grasp. It is daintily diplomatic and equivocal. tis either nothing at all—don’t touch the ques- tion—or it is stronger than even ae puts the dogma of despotism, J don’t know which. 1. It means to assert that a “passport isa mere certificate” of very little import; or it means, what it says, that it is of the essential importance of a notice to “foreign governments to give all lawful aid and protection to its bearer.” And its 2. Proposition is, either that “it don’t exempt him from any obligation or penalty” to the govern- ment of his native country prior to his naturaliz - tion, “if he should voluntarily repair thither,” not excepting the political obligation of allegiance; or the proposition is, what it says, that it don’t “exempt him from any obligation or penalty which he may have incurred,” &c., without saying whether @ perpetual Ce oe of allegiance could or could not be “ineurred” by birth. This despatch, then, leaves the question dubious and dark; and the last giving out of the State Department, which I have seen in the Constitution newspaper of the 14th inst., headed “The Naturalization Question,” con- tradicts directly the two previous letters and all the previous instructions of the Department. This last is not clear counsel, but it is, as far as it goes, nearly correct—is, at last, a beginning of a re- turn to the true American doctrine; is not, at least, like the others, either diametrically opposed to it or dark and dubious in its diplomacy. I congra- tulate you upon this much gained, and hope, now that the national attention is aroused, we may have henceforth and forever an open, undisguised, manly, firm, ingenuous, patriotic declaration— _ That the native and naturalized citizens of the United States of America, equally and alike, shall be, at every reasonable hazard, protected in their political obligation of allegiance to their own native and adopted land, to which they are either bora or sworn under our laws, at home and abroad, to “ the uttermost ends of the earth.” Don’t let it be longer yielded by a sneaking di- Uhr Already the papers of our State Depart- ment, [| blush to say, are scattered over parts of Enrope to justify the ae nas dogmas of despot- ism. They are giving false notes of our country, and I trust they will be called in, Let the trumpet vive no “ uncertain sound.” So much for naturalization abroad. 2. The effect of State laws. You ask, in the second place, “ whether States (of our Union) can constitutionally pass laws prolonging the period of naturalization beyond the egies of five years’ pro- bation, provided for by the present laws of Con- fo And how far States possess the right to iscriminate between the franchises of one class of its citizens over another?” In reply to the first clause of this question, I say that the constitution of the United States has given to Congress alone the power “to establish an uri- form rule of nataralization.” Congres cannot renounce or ignore that power, aud the States cangot agsume to exercise it for wrote in their book of constitution, and re-wrote | p | themselves, and they cannot make or modify, | change or abolish the rule established by the Con- gre Sof the United States. If they may, then they would have the concurrent power of nat 4 tion, and the “rule” might not be one bat many, not “an uniform” but many multiform rules of na- turalization. If Massachusetts might prolong them Virginia might shorten the period of probation. An alien landing in the one, and remaining and qualifying there, might take twenty-one years to become entitled to Fee: and immunities of a citizen of the United States, or might never be entitled to them; or, landing in the other and re- maining and qualifying there, might tae but one year to become so entitled, or require no time at all. Such absurdity would destroy the very end of the national power, the unity and uniformity of the rule. A “rale” to be a rale must be “uniform and universal,” True, each State may prescribe the qualifications of their own electors; and the electors ofthe most numerous branches of the State Legislatures, by article 1, section 2, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, are the electors of the federal representatives. Thus,a State may possibly ex- clude foreign born citizens from being electors in her eee but this even is questionable; and whether the naturalized citizen may be allowed to vote or not, in any particular State, still he is a na- uralized citizen of the United States, and of this new birthright he cannot be deprived, no more than the duty of the United States to protect him can be renounced or ignored. If he may not be allowed to vote in one State he will be in another. If Massa- chusetts may not concede to him equality Virginia will. He may be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any State or Territory, or of the District of Columbia, for want of sufficient residence in either to make him a citizen there; thus, he may land from abroad in one State, give notice of his intention in another, travel all the time in many States during his five years’ probation, and finally be admitted in’ any one of them, or in ‘that where he gave notice, without acquiring citizen ship in either; and yet he will be a citizen of the United States. After becoming a citizen of the United States, he may then, for example, come to Virginia with the intent to remain and reside here, and actually reside here the time required by our laws to be a citizen of this State, and thus become a citizen of Virginia as well as of the United States And after he becomes a citizen of Virginia, as well as of the United States, he then has for his protec- tion section 2, clase 1, of ar' 4 of the constitu- tion of the United States, to wit:— “The citizen of each State shall be entitled to all rivileges and immunities of citizens of the several Eiates. nee t Then, if a native citizen of Virginia, the neighbor of the naturalized citizen, may go to Massachusetts, and be entitled, by one period of residence, or any terms and conditions, to become a citizen of that State, so he (the naturalized) may go there, and be entitled to the same pee ae and immunity. Thus, the constitution of the United States protects him with equality of privileges and immunities any- where and everywhere; but to be fully entitled to thot protection he must be both a citizen of the United States and of some particular State, All discriminations between citizens, raising some and depressing others in classes, are anti-republican and odious, and utterly opposed to the laws of Amo- rican citizensbip. Would any, then, be found to sct up the new doctrine of “non-protection,” of ‘‘non-interven- tion,” against the republican equality of the privileges and immunities of naturalized citi- zens? Would any, in this behalf, ignore the powers and duties of government to protect naturalized citizens? Would any allow naturalized citizens to be excluded from States and Territories, by odious distinctions between classes of citizens? Should not all citizens in a republic be equal in their rights of any kind, of persons and of pro- perty? To answer these questions, is to answer your second interrogatory. To admit of such dis- criminations is to countenance orders of rank in citizenship, as bad as patrician and plebeian! 3. Youask my “ views regarding the legality oe expediency of reopening the African slave trade.” This subject is but too fruitful of disquisition and discussion, upon which I cannot enter here. In short, my views are— By article 1, section 9, clanse 1, of the con- stitution of the United States, “ The migration or importation” of certain “persons,” known to be African slaves, may ‘be prohibited by the Con- gress” subsequent “to the year 1808,” I cite what I conceive to be the plain implication of the clause, according to the interpretation of Congress and the courts. Congress passed laws to prohibit the African slave trade by our citizens, and under our flag, in our vessels. The authorities of the United States, in every department of the govern- ment, for nearly half a century, have sus- tained and enforced these laws. For more than three years, as Envoy of the United States at the Court of Brazil, I was zealously engaged in snatch- ing the flag of our country from the pollution of that trade, carried on chiefly by New England’s ves- sels and crews and Old England’s panos da costa— ‘goods fit for the coast of Africa;” and my volumi- nous correspondence with the Department of State, from August, 1844, to August, 1847, will show what effect I gave the laws of the United States for the suppression of the African slave trade, as valid and constitutional Jaws. You will there see my reasons for saying not only that it would be “illegal” and Gated but immoral and disgraceful, for the United States to reopen the slave trade, or to tole- rate the new importation of African slaves into this country. I can easily defend the slavery of the United States, as it now exists and has existed, from first to last, and show that it is now, at least, wellfounded on principles wholly opposed to the reopening of theAfrican slave trade; that the one is wholly irreconcilable with and opposed to the other; and the rodpening of the slave trade would be as offensive to the moral sense of the large ma- donty of slaveholders and of the people of the South as to any other people in our own or in any other country. ‘So much for that question. 4. You ask my “views, also, regarding the legitimate bounds of Congressional legislation in regard to the territories, which, while maintaining non-intervention on the question of forcing or ex- cluding slavery from them, yet should claim the constitutional power, if necessary, to protect the rights of persons and property within their borders, leaving the people free at the proper time to form aState constitution, and seck admission into the ee whether free or slave States, as they may elect?’ This question itself, in the shortest space, states my views in substance with precision. In full, they are contained in a pamphlet entitled “ Terito- rial Government, and the Admission of New States,” being a letter addressed. by me to William F’. Samford, Esq., of Alabama, dated Rich- mond, Va., April 4, 1869, a copy of which I send you. Its length, it being a treatise in fact, enables those opposed to its doctrines to misrepresent it to those who do not read it for themselves. They say it claims ‘a code” by onereas for slavery in the Territories. There isno such claim set up byme. All Task of those who doubt is to read the pamphlet and to find any such claim in it if they can. On the contrary, at page 144, I say:—“That the inhabitants or people of a Territory are sovereign to form for themselves a constitation and State government;” and “that ip their territorial condition they are within the entire control and jurisdiction, or under the entire rule and regulation of Congress, bea to the constitution of the United States; and that the citizens of each and all of the States are alike equally entitled to protection in all the privileges and immunities of persons and of pro- perty, common to equal confederates.” And this right and this Ges as protection is not to be evaded or avoided either by the false ad captandum clamor that “a code” is required to be enacted by Congress for the protection of slave property. ‘This is but to cast odium upon slavery, by creating the impres- sion thata discrimination is necessary to distin- guish it above what is due to other personal and proprietary rights. On the contrary, no such code is required to create either the right or the duty of protection, and no law is necessary to distinguish slave property from any other property. All per- sons and all property, equally and alike, require only not to be assailed and destroyed in, or exclud- ed from the common Territories. All species of rights require laws, it is trne, suited to their cha- racter and their case. Personal property, for ex- a, must have a law that it shall not be “taken and carwed away;” and land, which cannot be “ t@ken and carried away,” must have a law that it shall not be trespassed upon in some other way; and so with slaves and everything else, they must have provisions according to their kind. But the constitution of the United states, and the laws of Con- gress heretofore organizingTerritories,are sufficient, and if amendments of the laws are required, it is the duty of Congress to see that they are provided, of the Executive of the United States to see that they are executed, and of the Judiciary to decide upon the righta under the laws. The slave States ould never pretend to any peculiar privileges, and do not, so far as I know. They ask only that their rights shall not be assailed and invaded, and, if they be assailed, that they may be protected as other fore and proprietary rights are Protected; that they may have equal, confederate, federal pri- vileges and immunities; and they ask for no special or peculiar code. The sole question is:—What pro- tection does the constitution guarantee in the Ter- ories?' We contend that it guarantees all protec- lion required, to all persons and all rights recog- nized within its jurisdiction. To illustrate:—I agree with the true intent and meaning of the Nebraska-Kansas act, as declared by itvelf{—“Not to legislate slavery into the Terri- tory, nor to exclude it therefrom.” So I would say of wheat, corn, horses, oxen, sheep, or any other property. I would leavo ail these to individual will and option. T vould not compel @ man to sow Wheat, nor forbid him to sow it; it would be des- | potic to attempt * ach an act by legislation; but be- canse 1 would n-,¢ compel or prevent its’ produe- tion, would I t'perefore, say, after a crop is made, that I woul’d not protect the husbandman in his labor 0.4 property? So with slavery: whilst I would no¢ intervene to legislate it into or out of any Ter‘ritory, yet if it goes there with its owner, or exirits there as property, would I allow a mob or unjust and unequal legislation to destroy the pro- petty? Leave it to the judiciary, say some. Still a pppaicipel act of\ legislation is required to say what shall be the legal remedy and form of pro- ceeding and to give the courts jurisdiction. Many provisions of the constitution cannot operate with- out a statute—the clauses, for example, as to fugi- tives from justice and from labor cannot operate without a remedial law. In a word, not only do all ersons and all property, without exception and Ristinetion, require laws for protection, but the courts themselves require the authority of legisla- tion, The State of Virginia has now in her new constitution a provision which declares: — “Slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the commonwealth more than twelve months after they become actually tree, and shall _be reduced to slavery under sach regula- tions as shall be presented by law.” ; This has been the constitution of this State since 1851, nearly eight years, and yet it has had no ope- ration and can have none, for want of a statute to define the Proveecings: And, on the other hand, where the Courts have jurisdiction, and have had but to declare un uncon- stitutional law inoperative and void, they don’t act until a case is brought before them, at the expense and trouble and risk of private persons, often ua- able to bear litigation, and then they are slow to act. The Missouri Restriction, for example, re- pealed by the Congress of 1854, was not decided by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional until 1857, thirty-seven years after it passed, and the legislative department itself repaired its own wrong three years before the judiciary did. But this is demanding “‘aslave code,” say the opponents of protection. We say, itis only what the constitution and existence of government im- ply—the primary end of all practical government, the power and duty of protection to all persons and property. The Know Nothings may et: as they have said, against protecting naturalized citi- zens—‘this is a code for the foreigners.” And those who would reopen the African slave trade may alike exclaim against the laws for its sup- pression—‘‘this is a code to abolish slavery.” This cry of ‘a code” ought not to deter any one from claiming the powers and duty of protec- tion from the government to which ailegiance is due. Its first, highest and best duty is to protect. And thus far it has protected all ‘persons and property in the Territories. Whoever drew the Kansas-Nebraska bill put into it special and discriminating provisions by Congress in favor of slavery. Less amount of slave property than of any other property can, for example, take a case upto the Supreme Court of the United States, by its provisions; and, whilst the canvass was going on in Ilinois, an army of the United States, under a law for which the non-interventionist voted in the Senate and House of Representatives, was marching to Utah to protect, it was thought, all persons and property in that Territory, and to put down the Satyr of Lust there, which would establish polygamy and the prostitution of woman, and destroy the sacred- ness of Christian marriage, 80 necessary to identify. offspring ina republic founded on private virtue and the holy family relations and ties. By what code was all this done? By the code of good morals I would drive these beasts of Bacchus from a Chris- tian land! It seems now the whole expense of the Mormon war was to potess federal proteges in their offices. Well, if they may be protected in the Territories, so may I and my pro- perty, and so may our naturalize citi- zens, peacefully and lawfully abroad, be protected in foreign ccuntries, even the countries of their nativity. When the issue of popular sove- reignty was made, to leave the people perfectly free to form their State constitutions, without force, fraud, or dictation or intervention from Congress or any other power, I declared openly for the sove- reignty of the people. But I am utterly opposed to “squatter sovereignty,” and hostile to this cry of “no code” for the sake ot protection, and utterly opposed to the equally vicious doctrine lately put forth, ‘that the Congress may renounce its powers and duties of protection.” If Congress may fail, by ignoring its powers, to protest slave property, so the Executive may fail, by ignoring its powers, as it has done, to protect our naturalized citizens in France, or Hanover, or elsewhere; and if these two may ignore, so may the other co-ordinate de- partment, the judiciar; » And if all say “‘we will not intervene,” what then? Why, anarchy—might will make right, and the whole will end in despot- ism. This republic can’t live long under the effect of such doctrines if they be adopted. No! let us “live and let live” together—love and be Joved in the bonds only of our all protecting Union. Let it be perpetuated forever; let its flag of freedom float protection over all its citizens, everywhere, and over all their property and rights, at home and abroad. It ma: have at times to be surrendered on the battle field; it may be torn by the steel of the foeman’s bayonet; it may be burnt or blackened by the flash of powder in the “sul- phurous siroc of red war;” but never, never, never let it be polluted by the stains of inhumanity or mmorality, or dishonored by the cowardice which renounces protection and ignores the equal rights of American citizens. For these principles, if need be, I would vote to hew down forests of live oak to build ships, dig mountains of iron ore to cast guns, turn all our cotton into canvass and burst it out of its bolt ropes, in battles with all Europe. Boldly avow and maintain these principles, and there will be no need of battles, but we will have everywhere protection and peace. With the highest respect, a truly, HENRY A. WISE. ‘o Messrs. Upozpuo Wore, Dexter Orey, JouNn Brapgvny, &c., &c., &e. Elopement of a Connecticut Man In Indiana. {From the Lafayette (Ind.) Journal, July 26 } There bas been a rumor current about the city for several days past of the elopement of a wealthy citizen with @ woman who was not his wife—leav- ing behisd him the lady lawfully bearing him that relation—for that portion of country which is de- scribed in newspaper geography as “parts un- known.” We were requested to make no mention of the affair for the sake of the friends of the par- ties; but, as all the facts have transpired and are generally known, we feel that we are under no further obligation to keep silence, particularly as the sinning husband appears to be richly deserving of a public exposure. C. Smith. He is a son His name is John of Hon. Perry Smith, deceased, formerly United ‘States Senator from Connecticut. He purchased the Ellsworth residence on South street, a year or twosince, and then removed from New Haven to this city for the purpose of superintending the improvement of a large body of land which he owns near Mount Giboa, in Benton county. Previous to his coming here it is believed that he had formed a criminal intimacy with a woman in Connecticui, who had been reared in the family of his wife, )ut who had married and subsequently become a widow. At all events, shortly after his removal here she followed him, and his attentions to her have been of so marked a character as to excite general notice and to greatly annoy his wife, who on one occasion was 80 exasperated that she threatened to shoot/her rival, and made a search for her for that parpoee, fortu- nately, or unfortunately, w:thout finding her. On Monday of last week the guilty parties held an interview, and were overheard fully discusing their arrangements for an elopement. Smith was to steal his clothes out @f his house in such a man- ner as not to attract th rvation nor excite the suspicion of his wife; they were to meet at the de- pot of the N. A. & 8. Railroad on Thursday night, go to Michigan City and thence east, where Smith said he would be able to procure a com- mission in the United States army, and in that event would bave his inamorata ever with him. In case of failure he would return here, divide his estate with his wife, obtain a divorce, and then marry ‘‘where his heart was.” The programme was full clothes were abstracted from the house in spite of the watchfulness of Mrs. Smith—who was apprised of her husband's purpose—and on Thursday the par- ties left on the route agreed upon. From Michigan City he addressed a letter to his wife, stating tl he had been suddenly called East upon business, and would return in a few days. We have not heard the name of the woman, but she is described ag about forty years of age, small and unprepossessing in person. Smith is about the: same age, has a good address, and is intelligent and well educated. He was, we are informed, at one time a member of the Connecticut Legislature. Mrs. Smith, with her children, left the city yester- day to return to her friends in Connecticut. “She is said to be in the possession of a considerable for- tune in her own right. ANOTHER Fine IN JACKSONVILLE, -FiLA—On the 19th inst. the city of Jacksonville, Fla, was visited by another conflagration. It caughtin a small shed between the kitchen and stable, in the rear of the dwelling house formerly owned by Dr. Holland, but at present occupied by Dr. Holmes Steele. The flames soon communicated with the residence of Mr. William Grothe, which was soon destroyed by the devouring element. From thence the flames soon spread both to the west and north, and the Custom House, the Buffington House (hotel), the private residence of Capt. Paul B. Canova, the law office of Messrs. Sanderson & Forward. the dwell- ing house of Col. J. P. Sanderson, a building owned by Col. 8. Buffington, known as the “California ‘ouse,” the Buffington House livery stable, and some other small buildings adjoining, were all con- sumed. The loss is estimated at $20,000, on which there was an insurance of $5,400—$5,000 on the Bumbgton Hotel, and $400 on the residence of Mr. rothe. carried out. The ADDITIONAL FROM EUROPE, Arrival of the Jura and the Mails by the Europa. Our London, Paris, Berlin, Brossels and Flo- renee Correspondence, The Feeling About the Peace Treaty in London, Paris and Liverpool. Its Effect on the Public Mind of Europe. Opinions ef the Lendon and Paris Press. THE WAY IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT. THE PRESSURE UPON LOUIS NAPODREN, The Revolutionists Denounce Him,. and Did Not Trust Him. Kossuth and Klapka Civil Prison- ers in Lurin. FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF THE PEACE. Mr. Cobden’s Opivion of the Mlinois Centra} Railroad, &0., &., ke The Cunard screw steamship Jura, which left Li, verpool on the 16th of July,reached this port early yesterday morning. The Europa arrived at Boston yesterday, and her mails reached this city in the afternoon. Our correspondence and extracts from our files of papers in to-day’s issue give the public a perfect daguerreotype of the effect produced in Europe by the treaty of peace between Austria and France. Kossuth and Klapka, according to late private letters from Turin in Paris, have both been detain- ed at that place under the strictest surveillance of the French police, to whom instinct no doubt taught that if a treaty was about to be signed be- tween France and Austria, it would not be wise to suffer the two perturbators of Hungarian peace to ran off to Hungary. The republicans in Paris are farious at what they call the slip which has been given them, and are waiting with the greatest anxiety for the next news from Italy. The terms of the second official warning which the Univers, the Catholic organ in France, has re- ceived are as follows:— Considering tbat this article [not the above] gives a culpable publicity te pamphlets printed out of France, and which contain the most shameful attacks against the French people, the government, religion and the army; considering that the extracts from those publications, in- serted in whe Univers are of a nature to excite hatred pe- ween the people and the army, united in a common sen- {ment of order and national glory; considering aleo that the same article contains an attack and an outrage agaiost \he origin of the power which the Emperor hae received irom universal suffrage: It ie hereby ordered tbat a se- yond warning {8 given to the Univers in the peraoo of M. Taronet, the responaible editor, and of if. Lou's Veuiilot, the signer of the article. A Paris letter gives the following explanation of the matter:— The grounds for the present warning were very simple. The Univers, for the purpose of whitewashing tne merce- narfes who lately did the Pope’s bidding at Perugia, and with the intention of discrediting beforehand ‘he reeuits of an inquivy on the subject ordered by the fuscan govern- ment, publisbed some extracts from an account printed in Belgium in 1862 cf the doings of the French troops in Pa- rig in December, 1851. Tne object of the Univers wae to show that, inasmuch as all the statemome of refugees: concerning the coup d’état must necessarily and officially deemed and taken to be untrue, so the French go- vernment ovgbt not to believe apy reports unganctioned by Cardinal antonelli of wnat was done by tbe Swiss guards as Perugia It was held, however, in ministerial counci] that the subject of the coup d’état was one which did not admit of joking, and that the accompaniment of ironical censure was no excuse for reproducing in France pampblets printed abroad, which have becn always sedu- lously excluded from this country, A Paris letter in the Indépendance of Brussels says:— The French troops in Italy will, now that psace is agreed to, be split up into fractions and stationed apart, until ordered home, 80 a8 to avoid the inconvenience arising from large agglomeratiens of men. Their new cantonments wi!l naturally be placed in sheltered > and near rivers. A good many of the relatives and friends of the officers and men are preparing to go to Italy to see pa Pleasure trains to the army are to be or- gar letter in the National Zeitung, of Berlin, states. that the Ceunt and Countess de Chambord have been residing at Rotterdam, but that they have now left that city, having taken a chateau near the Hague, where they propose to reside for some time. The rumor that the Count had disposed of his residence at Frohsdorf is not correct, as, ac- cording to the Austrian Gazette, his intention was to return to Frohsdorf at the conclusion of the. war, It was Captain Corbin, of the staff, who, after the battle of Solferino, was sent by the Emperor of the French with a flag of truce to the headquarters of the Emperor of Austria, to inform his Majesty that Prince Windischgratz had been killed. Cap- tain Corbin, who was accompanied by a trumpeter, had a bandage put over his eyes when he arrived at the Austrian advanced posts, and was led blind- fold to headquarters. There, his eyes being un- covered, he fulfilled his mission. Refreshments were offered him, but he only accepted a glass of tokay. His eyes having been again bound, he was recon- ducted to the French advanced posts. The central dome of the Church of the Trinity, in the large monastery of Jellovodskii, at Makarew, in Russia, a short time since ,suddenly fell in with a tremendous crash. Fortunately no one was in- the building at the time. An enormous plated Ins- tre, suspended from the centre and which dates back as far so 1660, was broken to pieces, a8 were also the statues with which the church was orna- mented: The violence of the commotion was such that the large iron gates at the front entrance were burst open. This building, which dates from 1658,. had been richly ornamented by presents from the merchants frequenting the fair held at Makarew, before its removal to Nijnii-Novgorod in 1817. The Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, has. just (yy 6) ordered prayers to be said during three‘consecutive days for the conclusion of peace. terms th which this order is communicated are not very complimentary to France, which is treated: as the fons et origo mali, and the enemy not only of the church but of religion. These accusations are only insinuated, it is true,as the wily prelate dares not to express them openly, but their male- volence is so ill concealed that it peeps through the. thin disguise in which they are enveloped. Our London Correspondence. Lonpon, July 15, 1859. The Treaty of Peace—How it was Brough, About—The Pressure upon Louis Napoleons ée., &e. In the early part of this year I made you some communications on the then impending war be tween France and Austria, Believing that the peace just concluded will cause as much astonish” ment in the United States as it has done in Europe, I offer a few short comments on recent events, such as the press even in this comparatively free country dare not make, so great is the influence of the social relations among the upper classes, and 80 cogent the reasons for keeping the truth from the people. Lovig Napoleon, having promised free om to Italy