Passports are not required from persons entering or traveling in the Kingdom, but they may be called upon to establish their citizenship, and are consequently advised to procure passports. 117. Switzerland.- Every Swiss citizen is liable, under Swiss law, to military service from the beginning of the year in which he becomes twenty years of age until the end of the year when he becomes forty-four. Every Swiss of military age who does not perform military service is subject to an annual tax, whether he resides in the Confederation or not, or to punishment for nonpayment of the tax if he returns to Switzerland.

If a Swiss citizen renounces Swiss allegiance in the manner prescribed by the Swiss law of July 3, 1876, and his renunciation is accepted, his naturalization in another country is recognized, but without such acceptance it is not recognized, and is held to descend from generation to generation.

Before he returns to Switzerland an American citizen of Swiss origin should file with the cantonal authorities his written declaration of renunciation of his rights to communal, cantonal, and in general Swiss citizenship, with documents showing that he has obtained foreign citizenship for himself, wife, and minor children, and receive the sealed document of release from Swiss citizenship through the direction of justice of the canton of his origin. If he neglects this, and is within the ages when military service may be required, he is liable to military tax, or to arrest and punishment in case of nonpayment of the tax.

There is no treaty between the United States and Switzerland defining the status of former Swiss citizens who have become naturalized as American citizens.

Passports are not required for admission to Switzerland, but are usually demanded from persons sojourning in that country. They do not require to be viséd or indorsed to be valid.

118. — Turkey.—The Turkish government denies the right of

a subject of Turkey to become a citizen of any other country without the authority of the Turkish government. His naturalization is, therefore, regarded by Turkey as void with reference to himself and his children, and he is forbidden to return to Turkey.

The consent of the Turkish government to the naturalization in another country of a former subject of Turkey is given only upon condition that the applicant shall stipulate, either never to return, or, returning, to regard himself as a Turkish subject. Therefore, if a naturalized American citizen, formerly a subject of Turkey, returns to Turkey, he may expect arrest and imprisonment, or expulsion.

Jews are prohibited from colonizing in Turkish dominions.

There is no treaty between the United States and Turkey defining the status of naturalized Americans, formerly Turkish subjects, who return to Turkey.

Passports are required from all persons entering Turkish dominions (Egypt excepted), and persons who enter without passports are liable to fine or imprisonment. The passports should, if possible, be viséd by a Turkish consular officer in the United States.

119. Russia and Turkey; denial of right of expatriation.— It will be observed that neither the Russian nor the Turkish government recognizes the right of its subjects to acquire citizenship in another country; that a Russian who becomes naturalized abroad without imperial consent is liable, under Russian law, to the loss of all civil rights, and to perpetual banishment, and, in case of return to Russia, to deportation to Siberia; and that the naturalization of a Turkish subject is regarded by Turkey as void, and subjects him to arrest and imprisonment or expulsion upon return to that country.

While there are no treaties of naturalization in force between

the United States and these two countries, the United States has, on many occasions, controverted the position assumed by the Russian and Turkish governments, and remonstrated against denial of the rights of American citizenship to persons of Russian and Turkish origin who by due process of law have acquired our nationality. However, as every independent state possesses exclusive sovereignty within its own jurisdiction, if one of its subjects, having renounced his primitive allegiance without the permission of the state, and contrary to its laws, returns and places himself within the jurisdiction of the state, he is subject to the penalties imposed upon him by the laws of such state. would seem questionable, therefore, whether this government, in the absence of a treaty recognizing the right of Russian or Turkish subjects to acquire American naturalization, can properly require those governments to accord to their subjects who have acquired citizenship in the United States the treatment to which native citizens of the United States would be entitled.

It

Halleck, in discussing the subject of expatriation, says: "Admitting, then, that the right of expatriation, in its broadest and most comprehensive sense, is recognized as a maxim of international law, this principle must be subordinate to the universally conceded doctrine of the same law, that every independent state possesses exclusive sovereignty within its own territory; that its laws bind all persons within its own jurisdiction, but cannot operate within the territory of another power. It results, from this view of the question, that, so long as the naturalized citizen remains within the territory and jurisdiction of his adopted country, or within the jurisdiction of any other state than that which claims his primitive allegiance, he retains the national character conferred upon him by naturalization. if, having renounced his primitive allegiance without the consent of his government, and contrary to its laws, he returns to

But

his native state, and places himself within its jurisdiction, he is subject to the obligations, charges, and penalties which the laws of that state have imposed upon him. And this result seems to have been acquiesced in by the Executive Department of the government of the United States, which government is supposed to have adopted the most liberal views with respect to the general right of expatriation and naturalization." 1 Halleck, Interna

tional Law, 356, 357.

A clear statement of the present attitude of this government on this question appears in a letter of Secretary Hay, dated February 19, 1900, to H. G. Garabedyan, a naturalized American citizen, an Armenian, in response to his inquiry whether he would be protected by the United States government, should he revisit his old home in Armenia. Secretary Hay said: "As to our naturalized citizens of Armenian or other Ottoman origin, the situation remains the same, in the absence of a treaty of naturalization between the two countries, the Turkish government refusing to recognize the naturalization of a Turkish subject naturalized abroad without imperial consent since the promulgation of the Ottoman law of citizenship in 1869. The United States controverts this position, but unavailingly. In international law the status of such persons comes under the doctrines of dual allegiance, each government claiming and exacting the allegiance of its naturals within its own jurisdiction and each being incapable of enforcing its own municipal law of citizenship within the jurisdiction of the other. Such conflicts have been adjusted in many instances by conventions between the United States and foreign powers, with the result of a mutual recognition of the validity of the naturalization of a citizen or subject of the one country within the jurisdiction and according to the domestic law of the other; but the conclusion of such a convention with the Ottoman Empire appears to be remote. As

the consent of the Ottoman government to the expatriation of a subject by naturalization in another country is only given upon the alternative condition that the applicant for release from Turkish allegiance shall either stipulate never to return, or agree that, in the event of return, he will regard himself as an Ottoman subject, it follows that the case of permitted naturalization seldom occurs, and that when it does occur it is attended with features which prevent this government from using a free hand in dealing with a question growing out of the return of such a naturalized citizen to Turkish jurisdiction. While the Department and its diplomatic and consular agents in the Turkish dominions will use every effort now, as always, to protect any naturalized citizen of Turkish origin who returns to Turkey, it cannot foresee that he will be permitted to enter the Empire, or that, having entered, he will escape molestation or expulsion.” For. Rel. 1900, pp. 938, 939.

The practice of European countries in relation to the protec tion, in Turkey, of naturalized Armenian or other Turkish subjects of such countries, is shown by the report of Secretary Olney dated January 22, 1896, in response to a resolution of the Senate of the United States directing the Secretary of State to inform the Senate whether naturalized citizens of the United States of Armenian birth have the same rights and protection in Turkey as have naturalized citizens of Great Britain, France, Germany, or Russia. Secretary Olney said: "As to this, the privilege claimed by the government of the United States for such citizens by naturalization in the country of origin is greater than that claimed by any one of the four governments named. A very general rule among governments of the European continent, and one which obtains in principle with respect to Great Britain also, is that no alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the state by naturalization except upon production of