Page images

past was proper. His supplementary statement, accepted by your predecessor in issuing passport No. 455, March 22, 1900, set forth that it was his earnest desire to retain his citizenship, that the feeble condition of his wife's parents kept him abroad, and that he was actively engaged in the sale of American goods.

The statements of the consul at Zurich and of the applicant's wife, furnished with the pending application, show that he is now himself in precarious health and impecunious circumstances. The Department's circular instruction of March 27, 1899, on the subject of passports for persons residing or sojourning abroad states, as a favorable circumstance in determining the question of whether a passport should issue in cases of this character "That reasons of health render travel and return impossible or inexpedient, and that pecuniary exigencies interfere with the desire to return."

The Department is disposed to conclude that such circumstances exist in Mr. Strahlheim's case, and that the improbability of his carrying out his expressed intention of returning to the United States within eighteen months need not be counted too strongly against him, as his physical condition is, according to the consul at Zurich, pitiable, and his mind, according to his wife, is so unsound that the question of putting him in an asylum has been seriously considered.

Unless further adverse facts than this Department now has before it are developed, you are therefore authorized to issue a passport to Mr. Strahlheim. I am, etc.,

John Hay.


Mr. Hardy to Mr. Hay. No. 63.]


Berne, June 13, 1902. Sir: I have the honor to report the following case of an application for a passport for the supervision of the Department:

Meta Schwarz, born in Germany in 1880, went to the United States in 1892 and left on April 29, 1897, about two months before the naturalization of her father, who emigrated to the United States in 1890 and was naturalized June 21, 1897. Since leaving the United States in 1897 the daughter Meta has resided abroad and has attained her majority. She now applies for a passport and declares her intention to return within two years in the usual form.

Section 2172, Revised Statutes, reads as follows:

The children of persons who have been duly naturalized under any law of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of 21 years at the time of the naturalization of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens thereof.

Wharton, page 406, Volume II, saysSection 2172 of the Revised Statutes is regarded “as applicable to such children as were actually residing in the United States at the time of their father's naturalization, and to minor children who come to the United States during their minority and while the parents were residing here in the character of citizens—”

which would imply that the clause of the statute “dwelling in the United States” means at the time of the naturalization of the parents.

I have issued a passport on the ground that the applicant, living with her father in the United States from 1892 to 1897, left for a temporary absence in Europe for purposes of study, and that she has now the right, on declaring her intention to return, to claim the citizenship derived from her father's naturalization, notwithstanding the fact that she happened to leave the United States a few weeks before the act of her father's naturalization was completed.

Her name appears as a minor child on her father's passport No. 459, issued April 9, 1900, by Mr. Leishman, the fact that she left the United States before the naturalization of her father not appearing on his application.

As the rights of minor children under section 2172, Revised Statutes, appear to be obscure, I have thought it proper to refer the case to the Department for its supervision. I have, etc.,


Mr. Ilay to Mr. Hardy. No. 41.]


Washington, July 15, 1902. Sir: Your No. 63 of the 13th ultimo, relative to the passport of Meta Schwarz, has been received.

In reply I have to say that the Department does not think that Miss Schwarz at the time her father was admitted to citizenship was “dwelling in the United States” within the meaning of Revised Statutes, section 2172. The word "dwelling” is regarded as a word of narrower meaning than “residing." In other words, a person might have a legal residence in the United States while dwelling for the time being in Europe. He can not, however, be “dwelling” in the United States while physically absent from the country.

While the law (Rev. Stats., sec. 2172) permits the minor son of an alien to come to the United States immediately before his father's naturalization here and to leave the United States a full-fledged citizen the day after such naturalization, to construe the statute as conferring citizenship upon a minor who is not in the United States at the time of the father's naturalization nor subsequently would be to open the door needlessly to further abuses.

Inasmuch as the passport has been issued to her, this particular case is ended. But you will be guided by the foregoing in all similar cases which may arise in future. I am, etc.,

John Hay.


Mr. Hardy to Mr. Hay. No. 72.]


Berne, September 1, 1902. SIR: I beg to report that on August 30 last I refused a passport to one Bernhard Kaufmann under the following circumstances:

Kaufmann was born on the 27th April, 1855, in Oetheim, Germany; emigrated to the United States in February, 1872, and was naturalized before the court of the city and county of New York on the 10th July,

FR 1902, FT 1-62

[ocr errors]

1878. He obtained passport No. 8843 from the Department of State on the 11th day of July, 1878, and left the United States in April, 1880.

He first applied to this legation for a passport on February 28, 1896. Mr. Peak, then minister, did not feei authorized to grant him a renewal on account of his sixteen years' residence abroad, from 1880 to 1896. He reported the case to the Department in his No. 9 of March 3, 1896, and in its No. 18 of March 19, 1896, the Department approved Mr. Peak's action.

It is evident that, on being so informed, Mr. Kaufmann went to the United States and procured passport No. 18068, of November 14, 1896, from the Department of State, for he presented the expired passport when applying for the second time to the legation on October 1, 1898. His application showed that he returned to Europe on December 3, 1896, in less than three weeks after obtaining his passport, and after a brief visit only in the United States. Mr. Leishman granted a renewal in 1898 on the presentation of the passport from the Department of State and the usual declaration to return within two years.

In September, 1900, Kaufmann again appealed for a renewal and made the same declaration of intent to return. Mr. Leishman declined to renew his passport, holding that in view of his continued residence abroad since 1880, a brief visit to the United States did not constitute residence in the sense of the regulations.

But on the production of a special sworn affidavit to the effect that he would return to the United States within two years, there to reside and perform the duties of a citizen, Mr. Leishman finally issued him a passport (No. 515, September 25, 1900).

Mr. Leishman's letter to the consul 'at Zurich, accompanying this passport, instructed him to warn Kaufmann that a failure to make good his declaration would lead to the refusal of further protection.

Kaufmann now applies, on August 30 last, for a renewal. His application shows that he has not been in the United States since 1896, and makes the same declaration of intention to return within two years.

With the exception of the brief visit, made apparently for the purpose of securing the passport already refused by Mr. Peak, with the Department's approval, he has resided abroad since 1880.

So far as the facts appear, it would seem that he secured naturalization for the purpose of living abroad as an American citizen, thus to avoid the duties of citizenship in the place of his residence.

It is not unlikely that he may return to the United States to secure a passport, as before, and subsequently return to Switzerland, where his interests are. I deem it proper, therefore, to report the case to you. I have, etc.,


Mr. Ader to Mr. Hardy. No. 46.1


Washington, September 17, 1902. SIR: Your No. 72 of the 1st instant has been received, and your refusal to issue to Bernhard Kaufmann a passport under the circumstances detailed in the dispatch is commended. I am, etc.,


Acting Secretary.



Mr. llay to Mr. Pioda.

No. 327.]


Washington, May 6, 1902. Sir: I have the honor, with reference to similar previous correspondence, to inclose for your information copy of a dispatch from the agent and consul-general of the United States at Cairo, and copy of an instruction in reply, relative to the protection requested by Paul Dick, a citizen of Switzerland, living in Cairo. Accept, etc.,


[Inclosure 1.)

Mr. Long to the Department of State.

No. 222.]

Cairo, Egypt, April 4, 1902. Sir: Paul Dick, a Swiss citizen residing in this city, in a communication addressed to this agency and consulate-general, has requested to be placed under the protection of the United States representative here, and I have to request the Department for instructions in the premises. I am, etc.,

John G. LONG, Agent and Consul-General.

(Inclosure 2.)

Mr. Peirce to Mr. Long. No. 122.]


Washington, May 3, 1902. SIR: In reply to your No. 222, of April 4, in which you state that Mr. Paul Dick, a Swiss citizen residing in Cairo, has requested to be placed under the protection of the representative of the United States at Cairo, I have to say that you are authorized to use your good offices in behalf of Mr. Dick, in the absence of a diplomatic or congular representative of Switzerland and with the consent of the Egyptian Government. You will inform Mr. Dick of the limited nature of the protection, and that you are under no circumstances permitted to intervene officially in his behalf with the Egyptian authorities. I am, etc,


Third Assistant Secretary.





Washington, May 29, 1902. Mr. Robert Beck, a native of Switzerland, is established since 1892 as a representative of English and German exporting firms at Bogotá,

a See also, under Colombia, page 289.

Colombia, and has, by registration, placed himself under the protection of the United States representative in that country.

In consequence of the depreciation of the paper money, he was forced to invest a large amount of it in coffee. For the purpose of shipping it, he bought a large number of mules.

These mules are now being taken away from him illegally by agents of the Government; they neither pay any consideration nor give any receipt for them. The finest specimens of them remain in the hands of the Colombian officers, who sell them for good prices.

Mr. Robert Beck has done all he could in order to obtain justice. Everything is useless. He has lost so far over 100 animals, and even some of the coffee (about $800 worth) has been destroyed by the revolutionary forces.

He has addressed himself to the United States representative, Mr. Hart, but without avail. He therefore requests the Swiss legation in the United States to take the proper steps at the State Department in Washington to have these illegal proceedings stopped and force the wrongdoers to pay him a due compensation for his severe loss.



Washington, June 10, 1902. The Department of State received on the 29th ultimo the memorandum of the Swiss legation in regard to the case of Mr. Robert Beck, a Swiss citizen, who complains that he has lost 100 mules, which have been seized by the Colombian authorities during the existing hostilities in the Republic of Colombia; that he has also had some coffee (worth about $800) seized by revolutionary forces, and that he has addressed himself to the minister of the United States at Bogota without obtaining redress.

The Department has communicated the memorandum to Mr. Hart, the United States minister, who is on leave in this country. He reports that he gave Mr. Beck all the assistance, in the way of good offices (by making all proper representations to the Government of Colombia), that he could possibly have given to any American citizen, and that he has been unable to secure the payment of his claim for the same reasons that have made it impossible to secure the payment of claims of United States citizens whose animals have been expropriated as were Mr. Beck's mules.

The Department refers the Swiss legation to Mr. Bayard's note of July 1, 1887, to that legation, pointing out that this Government can only use good offices in behalf of subjects or citizens of other countries who have been placed under the protection of United States diplomatic or consular officers.

a See Foreign Relations, 1887, p. 1076.

« PreviousContinue »