{"character_count": 4420, "word_count": 785, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9674000144004822], "ccnet_perplexity": [2254.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
DR.. THELLER, in the course of his speech on
TUESDAY evening at the Canada meeting, stated
that he had been convicted of treason-being
found in Canada, in arms, fighting against the
Crown of Great Britain. That he had resisted
this conviction on the ground of his being natu-
ralized citizen of this country; and, as we under
stood him, that he was also an officer of some sort
in the service Of this Government. But the deci-
sion of the Court was, that born subject OF Great
Britain he could not divest himself of that alleg-
ance without the consent of his sovereign, and
therefore he was traitor.


We have, heretofore, had occasion to refer to
this subject. We could not possibly have a
stronger Illustration Of the argument we have at
tempted to enforce, showing that although natu-
rallied citizen is entitled to all the protection of
an American citizen under the present system Of
our naturalization laws, vet he owed, and mightbe
compelled TO pay, divided allegiance And
therefore the Native American, above all others,
had right to prescribe the terms on which aliens
should reside among us, naturalized citizens, or
denizens. Now, suppose Doctor Theller had
not effected his escape, but had suffered the SEN


ence of the Court, would our Government have
been bound to interfere, and seek redress? Would
1t have been justified in retaliating upon an Eng
lshman found here? That is the test.


We were surprised by remark in that very
respectable print, the National Intelligencer, Of
Thursday, this subject, which implies more
than it directly expresses. 1t is editorial COM
ment on quotation from Blackstone: 'Our cor
respondent above states the case doctor Thel-
lers), as it is understood in British Courts, cor
rectly. But according to oar oson doctrine, and
practice, no right whatever is held more sacred
than that of eapatriation." Now if the editors
mean by this to say that the doctrine and practice
of our courts of law have ever overruled this prin-
ciple of the common law of England, we respect
fully and modestly, but peremptorily deny it.
Ifit be so, we ask them TO point to single adjud-
ged case of any authority in which such deci-
sion has been made; and we will then be pre-
pared to understand more fully the grounds upon
which such a decision has been based, than we
possibly can by our own unasssted reason.


We now confne the inquiry to the law Of this
country, expounded by It's Courts, on sub
ject of almost illimitabe interest. We wish to
know if any Court in this country has gone so far
as to say that any Of its citizens shall to-day
be holding an office under it, and tomorrow, with
impunity, step across an imaginary line, expatr-
ate himself, take up arms, and invade our Terrific
ry; naturalized citizen of country with which
we are at war? We wish to know how far man
may 60 in safety, where his allegiance to one
country ceases, and where it begins to another?
We wish to know if a man may come from Eng
land, or the dominion Of the British Crown, to
this country, become naturalized, obtain Office,
secure the secrets Of the State, obtain plats and
models of every fortress, and an intimate person
al knowledge of the resources of the country
Great Britain, throw off his allegiance to this Go
vernment, resume it to the British Government,
invade our Territory, levy war upon this nation,
adhere to its enemies, and give them aid and COM
rial limits, and brought before Court for trial,
and if any Court in this country has gone so far,
or will dare to 60 so far, without some positive
authoritative enactment of the Legislature as to
acquit him of TREASON?


We wish to be clearly understood about this
matter. Our proposition is, that the common law
Of England in regard to the right of expatration,
has never been overruled by any authoritative de-
csion of any Court of Judicature in this country;
and that until it be so, it is and will remain in
force here, unless there be some action of Con.
gress on this subject. This we think Of the ut
most importance, and ought not to be longer de-
layed.


But that is not all; we wish to know if there
is any kingdom of Europe which recognizes thi.
right Of expatriation, except that of France, ane
if that is not limited!


Connected with this subject, intimately blended


with it, indeed, Is another, of the highest import


ance. We see now one Of the fruits of our natu
ralization laws. We see men abjuring the coun
