Mr. Seward to Mr. Dayton
Sir: Your despatch of June 29 (No. 322) has been received. If the minister of Switzerland, residing at Paris, had been informed of all the facts bearing on the question which he has raised, I cannot believe that he would have thought it necessary to offer objections against the President’s proclamation concerning the liability of emigrants in the United States to perform military service.
The federal Constitution authorizes Congress to adopt uniform rules of naturalization, and Congress, heretofore, prescribed the conditions of five years’ residence, a preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and a subsequent oath of renunciation of the native allegiance and acceptance of the new one.
But, on another hand, the federal Constitution recognizes a citizenship of each State, and declares that the citizens of one State shall enjoy the right of citizenship in every other State, and leaves it to each State to prescribe the conditions of its own proper citizenship. By the constitutions of several of the States, especially the new ones, the preliminary declaration of intention, above mentioned, entitles the maker of it to all the rights of citizenship in that State, and they freely enjoy and exercise those rights. They enjoy ample protection and exercise suffrage. It was with reference to this state of facts that Congress passed the law which is recited in the President’s proclamation. And they passed another act, which authorized the Secretary of State to extend the protection of the government to all persons who, by any laws of the United States, are bound to render military service. The two laws seem to this government to be reasonable and just, and they constitute a new, additional, and uniform [Page 756] law of federal naturalization. But it was foreseen that some emigrants, who had declared their intention, might complain of surprise if they were immediately subjected to conscription. To guard against this surprise the proclamation was issued, giving them ample notice of the change of the law, with the alternative of removal from the country if they should prefer removal to remaining here on the footing on which Congress had brought them. Surely no foreigner has a right to be naturalized and remain here, in a time of public danger, and enjoy the protection of a government, without submitting to general requirements needful for his own security. The law is constitutional, and the persons subjected to it are no longer foreigners but citizens of the United States. The law has been acquiesced in by other foreign powers, and I am sure that Switzerland cannot be disposed to stand alone in her protest against it.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
William L. Dayton, Esq.