Mr. SHELLABARGER. I answer the Gentleman that it does take effect by act of the severeign in the enactment of the law or edict, whichever may be the channel of commu nicating the national will upon that subject matter; and he will so fin upon an examination of the authorities. I have not appealed to these to show that our Government has the arbitrary power over the citizen which is held by the absolute Powers of Europe, for it is not so. I up cal to these to show that, during all time, an sovereign State which has the power to demand allegiance, and to confer citizenship, and to define its duties, whether that State be, like Austria and Russia, an absolute monarchy, or, like England, a limited one, or, like Switzer land and Rome, republics, they could also with draw the ammo citizenship from them who performed none of these duties. The 2 powers of conferring and withdrawing are in their nature inseparable. That would be a preposterous state of national sovereignty that can define by general law what kit“? of faith, allegiance, and duties done shall alone admit one to become a citizen and to demand his Governments protection, and yet that Government be utter y powerless to de clare by similar law that the citizenship had ceased when all the duties of citizenship were utterly discarded and incorrigible treason was put in their place. THE U.S. I now assert that this very power in question, of withdrawing and withholding either some or all of the rights of citizenship from them who renounce their allegiance, has been exercised byyour Government ever since it was in existence, and by the States before it was a Government. There was not a State in which during the war of the Revolution laws were not passed forfeiting rights of citizenship of them who adhered to the enemies of the country. The dates and titles of these acts will be found in 1 American State Papers, page 198. I cannot here refer tomore thdn one or 2, in every truly g which will give a just idea of the character and legal effect of all. 2 years after the treaty of peace of 1783, Georgia and SCarolina passed laws forever disfmnchising them who ha made war against the U.S.; and Sir George Hammond, the British minister, in his elaborate debate with Mr. Jetferson as to these laws disfrnn chising and impoverishing these rebels, shows that these laws were in force in a majorit of the States ten years after that treaty, and ong after the adoption of our present Constitution. In 1787, Massachusetts passed a law which, for 3 years, excluded from votin", holdin office, teaching school, and keepingehotel, a citizens of Massachuse tts who had the car before engaged in the insignificant rebellion against Massachusetts which was headed by Daniel Shays. Those who had fired on or had wounded any citizen were forever deprived of citizenshi, as was Shays and his principal officers. Afibrward some of them who had fired upon citizens were permitted to recover their. citizenship by prov ng penitence and loyalty, and by ta in an oath of allegiance.