ment he crosses the boundary line of the State
with the permanent intention of leaving, the
power of the State over him, both in actual
fact and in moral right, cease absolutely and
forever.
If a citizen of Massachusetts abandons
Massachusetts, be ceases .to be, by the very
fact of his removal, a citizen of Massachusetts.
But if a citizen of the United States leaves the
United States, if he travels as fur round this
world as it is possible for him to go, if he re-
mains away to the utmost duration of human
life, unless he has been permitted by the
Government of the United States, either by
implication or directly, to throw off that
duty, he remains as much a citizen of the
United State's, wherever he may be and how-
ever long he may be absent, as if he had con-
tinued to remain during his whole existence
on the very spot of his birth.
I do not mean to say that the United States
Government has not to a certain extent
waived that right in certain special cases.
The first Chief Justice of the United States,
Chief Justice Ellsworth, expressly decided
that no citizen of the United States, by be-
coming naturalized as a citizen of any foreign
state, could divest, himself of his obligation
to the United States. While that doctrine
has not been universally admitted, it has been
solely denied upon the ground that while the
right remained in the Government to enforce
that obedience, by the general policy of the
Government it bad become an implication, if
not an expressly determined fact, that the
United States had waived that privilege in
time of peace in regard to its citizens who,
bona fide, and without leaving any unfulfilled
obligations behind them, leave their country
quietly and peaceably, and become admitted
as citizens of some other government.
But that privilege, whether expressed or
implied, is only expressed or implied in cer-
tain cases. There is no such right. It is as
true in fact as it is true in law, that if during
a war between this country and any foreign
government, any citizen should leave this
country and become naturalized as a citizen
of the country with which we are at war, and
should be taken, he would be tried and exe-
cuted for treason.
The States have no such rights. The Con-
stitution of the United States says that to he
eligible for certain offices, a man shall be for
a certain term of years a citizen of the United
States, and an inhabitant for so many years
in the State from which he comes. There is
no man who is a citizen of a State, except so
far as it is qualified by actual residence, or
unless the citizen is a resident temporarily
absent. I am a citizen of this State for these
reasons. I believe in the last Legislature the
honorable gentleman from Calvert, (Mr. Bris-
coe,) differed with me upon that subject, al-
though he is now standing upon the extreme
Southern side. I believe now, as I contended |
then, in the proposition before that body that
when a citizen of Maryland temporarily leaves
the State on business or pleasure, without
any intention of remaining, the State of Mary-
land can punish him for an act committed
against its laws even outside of its jurisdic-
tion; but it is only upon the ground that his
residence has not been determined, that though
temporarily absent he is still a resident. That
proposition was not only denied bygentlemen
upon the same side of the body with myself,
but I understood the gentleman from Calvert
expressly to deny that the State of Maryland
could exercise any authority outside of its
territorial limits,
Mr. BRISCOE. Over criminal offences.
Mr. STIRLING, Yes, sir; over criminal of-
fences. Now, does any man undertake to say
that the Government of the United States
could nut punish its citizens for crimes com-
mitted outside of its territory—for treason,
for instance, no matter how permanently the
citizen may have left the country? it he joined
the English when levying war against the
United States? Now, whether this Govern-
ment of the United States is one of delegated
and limited powers, or not, it is still,
under the Constitution, the only nation
of which any person who resides in any
of these United States forms a part, as recog-
nized by the world at large, by the conscious-
ness of every individual, and by every au-
thority which has ever decided upon the ques-
tion; and hence the duty of obedience, the
allegiance which a man owes to this nation,
must in the ordinary acceptation of the terms
be paramount to the allegiance be owes to
any subordinate authority.
Gentlemen have said that it is asserted in
this article that this is a consolidated Gov-
ernment. If gentlemen use the term "con-
solidated" in the same sense that Washing-
ton used it, if they mean by consolidation,
uniting together in the bonds of union and
co-operation, so that they shall continually re-
main one in sentiment, feeling, and destiny,
to the end of time, then I believe this is and
ought to be a consolidated Government. But
if by consolidation they mean that the State
lines are to be abolished, and that the people
of the United States are in any sense to be
fused into one common mass, under a Con-
stitution by which they can exercise a direct
influence in a legal sense as a mass, I avow
and am responsible for no such doctrine.
Here, sir, I may say very frankly, although
it is more a matter of personal explanation
than anything else, that while I avow no such
doctrine, no such construction of the Consti-
tution of the United States, I would much
rather consent to fuse the people of the United
States into one mass than to split them into
thirty masses. If I were brought to the dire
alternative of making a decision, I would
strengthen this Government and sustain re-
publican forms, by bringing the people as |
