« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Hay to Mr. McCormick.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, January 18, 1902. Sir: Your dispatch, No. 38 of the 12th of November, ultimo, asking instructions with regard to issuing a passport upon the application of Moses Lilienthal, has been received.
You report that the applicant was born at Jerusalem, Palestine, on January 10, 1856, where he has since resided; that his father was born in the United States (but for what length of time he resided in the United States the application does not state), and that Lilienthal claims citizenship through the native citizenship of his father. You add that Lilienthal is the bearer of a certificate, Form 179, No. 11, issued by the United States consul at Jerusalem, January 29, 1901, which, with Turkish passports, you inclose. You state your belief that the consul at Jerusalem issued the certificate contrary to sections 169 and 149 of the Consular Regulations, and that for this reason, and because you are not convinced of the bona fide intention of the applicant to return to the United States (where he has never been) within two years, you have, pending instructions, declined to issue him a passport.
The Department's instruction of August 15, 1894, to Mr. Buchanan, minister at Buenos Aires (Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 19), authorizes a certificate of deposit of a passport. Such a certificate may properly be issued. But in the certificate submitted in this case, and to which you invite attention, the words “deposit of passport and” are struck out in the caption and it reads: “Certificate of registry of a citizen of the United States." As the document contains a description of the holder, and describes him as a son of a citizen who held a passport, it has doubtless served the purpose of a passport for him. It would seem, therefore, to be an improper document. It should have been based upon the deposit of the applicant's passport. It could not properly be based upon the deposit of the passport of the father of the applicant. It is presumed the consul acted upon the theory that the father's citizenship in this case descended to the son, and that the proof of the citizenship was tantamount to the holding of a passport; but the Department may, on occasion, refuse a passport to a person without denying that he may be a citizen of the United States. Your supposition concerning the impropriety of the issuance of the document by the consul at Jerusalem seems to be correct, and an explanation will be invited from him.
Your question whether this certificate of registry is not a violation of paragraph 169 of the Consular Regulations, which authorizes withholding a passport from one who has practically abandoned his country, and of paragraph 149, which prohibits the granting of a passport to anyone who is not a citizen of the United States, may be answered in the negative, as the document issued was not a passport.
The right of the applicant to receive a passport is another matter. If the father was a citizen of the United States when the son was born, the son was himself born a citizen of the United States. He was, over, as it would seem, born in a country in which the United States exercises extra territorial jurisdiction, and where the general principle concerning indefinite residence abroad is not so rigidly applied. Nevertheless, the circumstances of the present case do not seem to entitle the applicant to such exceptional consideration. Born in Jerusalem
nearly fifty years ago, Mr. Lilienthal has never been in the United States, and while he declares his intention to come hither within two years, this statement, in your opinion, and in that of the Department so far
it is advised, is negatived by the circumstances. Citizenship involves duties on the part of the citizen as well as obligations on the part of the Government. There has been an entire absence of performance of duties of citizenship on the part of the applicant. The fact that he does not become a subject of Turkey does not alter the fact that he is not performing, and never has performed, the duties pertaining to American citizenship. Your action in withholding a passport is approved.
Returning the original papers communicated with your despatch, as requested, I am, etc.,
PASSPORT APPLICATION OF THEODOR F. ALEXANDER.
Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hlay.
UNITED STATES LEGATION,
Vienna, May 7, 1902. Sir: I have the honor to report the following case of application for a passport and to ask the Department's instructions with reference to same.
Although of the opinion that I should grant the application in view of an instruction, No. 52, by Mr. Sherman to Mr. Storer, minister at Brussels, and dated November 8, 1897, I ask for the Department's instructions, as it is not a case in which immediate action is necessary.
A. M. Alexander, the father of the applicant, Theodor F. Alexander, emigrated to the United States from Prussia, sailing from Hamburg on the 15th day of May, 1854, and resided eighteen years uninterruptedly in the United States to 1872, and was naturalized as a citizen of the United States before the superior court of the city of New York, at New York, on October 1, 1860, as shown by certificate of naturalization presented at this legation. In 1872 he, A. M. Alexander, left the United States and has since that time resided in Europe, having been, until about six years ago, the junior partner in the firm of Alexander Brothers, of New York City, and representing that firm as buyer in Europe, and residing in Dresden until 1876, when he removed to Vienna, which city has been since then and is now his home. He has visited the United States but once since 1872. His son, Theodor F. Alexander, who now applies for a passport, was born in Vienna on April 22, 1881, and has just become of age and declares that it is his intention to go to the United States within two years with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein. He is a student at the University of Vienna and will take his degree in the month of June, 1904, a little over the two years within which he declares that it is his intention to go to the United States, but as I construe the purpose of this declaration and considering the object of the young man's remaining here until June, 1904, it is within the spirit of the regulations. Moreover, A. M. Alexander states that he has three sons who were born in the United States, are now residing, have spent most of their
lives there, and who have undertaken to secure employment for the
ROBERT S. McCORMICK.
Statement of A. M. Alexander with reference to his son's application for a passport.
With reference to my long residence in Europe, beginning with the year 1872, I have to make the following statement: I was junior partner in the firm of Alexander Brothers, of New York, and I came over to buy ds for that firm, going to Dresden, where I remained for four years, visiting America once in the meantime. In 1876 I removed to Vienna, where I have represented the above firm until about six years ago, when I retired from business, and have not been in America since 1876.' My son, Theodor F. Alexander, who was born here in Vienna in 1881, is a student at the Vienna University and will complete his studies and take his degree in June, 1904, when it is his intention, as well as mine, that he shall go to the United States, where his brothers, who were born in the United States and who have spent most of their lives there, have undertaken to secure employment for him. I solemnly declare the above statement to be true, and make it for the purpose of assisting my son to secure a passport.
A. M. ALEXANDER.
Mr. Ilay to Mr. McCormick. No. 45.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, May 28, 1902. SIR: Your No. 82 of the 7th instant has been received.
It appears that Mr. A. M. Alexander, the father of the applicant for a passport, was born in Prussia, was naturalized as a citizen of the United States, and has lived for some years in Europe. His
son, Theodor F. Alexander, was born in Vienna in 1881, when his father was receiving the protection of a passport as a citizen of the United States. Section 1993 of the Revised Stalutes of the United States says: All children
born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be ci izens of the United States.
ere seems to be no doubt that A. M. Alexander was a citizen of the l'uted States when his son was born, his residence and status after that event need not concern us, as the son would be entitled by reason of his birth to the protection of this Government during his minority and until he can elect another nationality. He has, apparently, elected to remain an American citizen by applying for a passport and demonstrating that it is bona fide his intention to come to the United States to live. There is, as this Department explained in its circular instruction of September 26, 1899, entitled “ Passports-Intent to return to the United States,” no definite period of time beyond which the protection of a passport is to be refused to a citizen of the United States. Upon the information submitted, therefore, it would appear that Mr. T. F. Alexander is entitled to receive a passport. I am, etc.,
PASSPORT APPLICATION OF ARMIN FREIMAN.
Mr. McCormick to Mr. Hay.
UNITED STATES LEGATION,
Vienna, May 23, 1902. Sir: I have the honor to lay before the Department of State and ask its instructions in the case of one Armin Freiman, the facts in which are as follows:
Freiman was born at Kis Szeben, Sáros County, Hungary, on or about the 23d day of March, 1877, emigrated to the United States on board the Maasdam sailing from Rotterdam on or about the 28th June, 1893, and resided uninterruptedly at Pittsburg, in the state of Pennsylvania, from that time until the year 1900, and was naturalized as a citizen of the United States before the district court of the United States of America in and for the western district of Pennsylvania, as shown by his certificate of naturalization issued to him by that court on the 230 day of March, 1900. On the 28th July following he left the United States, having remained long enough to become naturalized and so escape the military service required by the laws of the country of his birth. He is now sojourning at the place of his birth and has been for the past two years, and, like many others, in my judgment, having accomplished the purpose of becoming naturalized as an American citizen, namely, escaped liability to military service as above indicated, has no fixed intention of ever returning to the United States.
Technically Freiman may be entitled to a passport, but it seems to me that one should not be issued to him unless he can show evidence of a bona fide intention to return there within two years, as he states in his application.
I ask for instructions, not only for my guidance in this case, but in other similar ones where circumstantial evidence justifies the belief that the applicant has gone to the United States and become naturalized as a citizen thereof only with the purpose of escaping military service in the land of his birth, whither he returns as soon as this object can be accomplished, thus evading his duties as a citizen of the country of his birth and the country of his adoption. I have, etc.,
ROBERT S. McCORMICK.
Mr. Tay to Mr. McCormick.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 21, 1902. Sir: Your No. 84 of the 23d ultimo, relative to the application of Armin Freiman for a passport, has been received.
The case does not, as it appears to the Department, call for special instructions, being adequately covered by the general principles laid down in previous instructions and especially in the circular instruction of March 27, 1899, wherein it was stated:
This Government does not discriminate between native-born and naturalized citizens in according them protection while they are abroad, equality of treatment being
required by the laws of the United States (secs. 1999 and 2000, Rev. Stats.). But in determining the question of conservation of American citizenship and the right to receive a passport it is only reasonable to take into account the purpose for which the citizenship is obtained. A naturalized citizen who returns to the country of his origin and there resides without any tangible manifestation of an intention to return to the United States may therefore generally be assumed to have lost the right to receive the protection of the United States.
It is not to be understood by this that naturalized American citizens returning to the country of their origin are to be refused the protection of a passport. On the contrary, full protection should be accorded them until they manifest an effectual abandonment of their residence and domicile in the United States.
The treatment of the individual cases as they arise must depend largely upon attendant circumstances. When an applicant has completely severed his relations with the United States, has neither kindred nor property here, has married and established a home in a foreign land, has engaged in business or professional pursuits wholly in foreign countries, has so shaped his plans as to make it impossible or improbable that they will ever include a domicile in this country, these and similar circumstances should exercise an adverse influence in determining the question whether or not a passport should issue.
It appears that Freiman lived in the United tes seven years and that he returned to Austria less than two years ago. Whether he has manifested in this brief period an effectual abandonment of his home in the United States is a matter which the legation must decide, weighing all the circumstances of the case with great care. I am, etc.,
PASSPORT APPLICATION OF HARRY FROMMER.
Mr. Ilale to Mr. Hay.
UNITED STATES EMBASSY,
Vienna, October 30, 1902. SIR: I have the honor to submit to the Department the case of one Mr. Harry Frommer, a native citizen of the United States, who has applied to this embassy for a renewal of his passport. The facts are as follows:
1. Harry Frommer, whose father was a naturalized citizen of the United States of Austro-Hungarian origin, was born at New York City, in the State of New York, on the 29th day of May, 1869. He lasť left the United States in June, 1892, the bearer of passport No. 36444, issued by the Secretary of State on the 2d day of April, 1892.
2. On the 3d day of April, 1894, Mr. Frommer applied to and was granted by this mission a new passport, No. 449, stating in his application for same that he intended to return to the United States within six months.”
3. On the 8th day of May, 1896, Mr. Frommer was granted a new passport, No. 668, by this mission, for himself and his wife, Thekla, born at Krakau, Galicia, where the said Frommer has continued to live for the past ten years.
4. On the 28th day of July, 1898, a third passport, No. 952, was issued to Mr. Frommer by this mission.
5. On the 28th day of September, 1900, Mr. Frommer was granted a fourth passport, No. 232, by this mission, he then declaring in his application for same that he intended to return to the United States within one and one-half years, or as soon as he had disposed of his bat business in Krakau.