proof that his change of allegiance is permitted by the sovereign of whom he is already a dependent. In the case of Great Britain this rule is somewhat differently applied. The British statute: of naturalization prescribes that the naturalization of an alien shall be without force and effect should he return to the country of his original allegiance, unless by the laws thereof, or by treaty between that country and Great Britain, his change of status is recognized, and an indorsement in the language of the naturalization act is made upon all British passports issued to aliens as follows: This passport is granted with the qualification that the bearer shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject previously to obtaining his certificate of naturalization, be deemed a British subject, unless he has ceased to be a subject of that state in pursuance of the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect.' The United States minister at Constantinople has heretofore reported that naturalized Armenian or other Turkish subjects of Great Britain, France, Germany, or Russia, returning to the jurisdiction of Turkey, are not claimed by their adopted governments as citizens, nor protected as such, except upon proof that their change of allegiance has been permitted, or is recognized, by the government of Turkey." Senate Doc. No. 83, 54th Congress, 1st Session.

This government has declined to press claims against the Russian government, preferred by naturalized American citizens of Russian origin, for acts committed by Russian authorities, upon the return of such persons to their native country.

120. Treatment of American Jews in Russia.-Naturalized Americans of Russian birth, of the Hebrew race, are not allowed to enter Russia without special permission, and they, in common with other Jews, are subject to restrictions and limitations as to residence, etc., in Russia. While the United States has taken

the position that the right of a citizen of the United States to the protection of this government has no relation whatever to the religion professed by him, and that American citizens when in Russia should be treated alike without distinction of creed, this question, and the refusal of Russian consuls in the United States, under the instructions of their government, to visé the passports of American Jews intending to visit Russia, have provoked much diplomatic correspondence. These questions are still open ones between the two governments.

The latest published correspondence on the subject is in the case of Waix, an American citizen of the Jewish race, who applied to the Russian consul general in New York to visé his passport, in order that he might visit Russia. The consul general informed him that he must get permission from the minister of the interior at St. Petersburg to visit Russia before his passport could be viséd.

ment

Our minister at St. Petersburg, Mr. Breckinridge, represented to the Russian minister for foreign affairs that it was not "constitutionally within the power of the United States governto apply a religious test in qualification of the equal rights of all citizens of the United States," and that it was therefore impossible for the United States government "to acquiesce in any manner in the application of such a test within its jurisdiction by the agents of a foreign power." The Russian minister for foreign affairs replied that, "for motives of internal order, Russian law raises obstacles to the entrance of certain categories of foreigners" upon their territory, and that "the Russian consuls, who can neither be ignorant of, nor overlook, the law, are in the necessity of refusing the visé to persons who they know belong to these categories." "The refusal of the visé is not at all an attack upon any established religion; it is the consequence of a foreign law of an administrative charac

ter, which only has its effect outside of the territory of the Union."

Mr. Breckinridge replied as follows: "Your Excellency has the goodness to say that the practice is not based upon the religious faith of the persons immediately concerned. I beg to reply that, while this may alter the appearance, yet it does not change the nature, of the case. The religious feature was merely the strong incident which seemed to give rise to the erection of tribunals within the territory of the United States, empowered to accept some, and to reject others, of the certifications of their government, and to make inquisition into the faith of their citizens. It is equally obnoxious to the institutions, and derogatory to the dignity of the United States, that their certifications should thus be discriminated against from any other cause, or that their citizens should be subjected upon their own soil to inquiries relating to their race, wealth, business pursuits, or to any other intrusion upon their rights and into their private and personal affairs.

It

is not believed that any government will seriously contest that every sovereign state is, and must be, the judge for itself of the extent to which foreign consuls may be permitted to act under their own laws within its territory. My government

never can, and never should, consent to these practices. They humiliate within its own territory, by invidious and disparaging distinctions, a class embracing many of its most honored and valued citizens, though in such a cause it would contend with equal zeal for a single, though the humblest, citizen in the land.” For. Rel. 1895, pp. 1056 et seq.

121. Taxation, in Turkey, of relatives of naturalized citizen of United States of Ottoman origin. The Turkish government having, in 1885, exacted from the relatives in Turkey of J. J.

CIT. 20

Arakelyan, a naturalized citizen of the United States, of Turkish origin, residing in Boston, onerous taxes, owing to his absence, the Department of State instructed the United States Minister at Constantinople as follows: "Taxation may, no doubt, be imposed, in conformity with the law of nations, by a sovereign on the property within his jurisdiction of a person who is domiciled in, and owes allegiance to, a foreign country. It is otherwise, however, as to a tax imposed, not on such property, but on the person of the party taxed when elsewhere domiciled and elsewhere a citizen. Such a decree is internationally void, and an attempt to execute it by penalties on the relatives of the party taxed gives the person so taxed a right to appeal for diplomatic intervention to the government to which he owes allegiance. To sustain such a claim it is not necessary that the penalties should have been imposed originally and expressly on the person so excepted from jurisdiction. It is enough if it appears that the tax was levied in such a way as to reach him through his relatives. It is desired, therefore, that you bring the complaint of Mr. Arakelyan to the notice of the Ottoman government, requesting that the sum received for any taxes imposed on his relatives on his account be refunded, that the value of the road services rendered by Mr. Arakelyan's brother be returned. and that no further taxes on account of Mr. Arakelyan be imposed on his family." Mr. Porter to Mr. Emmet, For. Rel. 1885, p. 848. See also Secretary Hay to Hon. George F. Hoar, December 27, 1902.

.

122. Vicarious punishment, in China, of relatives of Chinese naturalized citizens of United States.-It being shown to the Department of State, in 1892, that three citizens of the United States, of Chinese origin, resident in Hawaii, had been vicariously punished for alleged political offenses committed in Hawaii by the imposition of fines and imprisonment upon their

relatives in China, Secretary Hay instructed the diplomatic representative of this government at Peking to inform the Chinese government that such vicarious punishment "is not only inconsistent with the enlightened principles and humane sentiments which govern the conduct of civilized states, but is a form of coercion incompatible with the enjoyment of the recognized rights of asylum, and in which, as applied to citizens of the United States, this government could not acquiesce. It is not a question of the right of the Chinese government to punish all offenders against its laws who may be found within its borders, but it is a question of the punishment of citizens of the United States in a cruel manner through heavy penalties inflicted upon persons who are in the eye of international law, and upon principles of abstract justice, innocent of any offense whatever.”

The matter having been brought to the attention of the Chinese foreign office by Minister Conger, the latter was informed that the local Chinese officials had been informed that they would not thereafter be permitted to subject the families of Chinese who have gone abroad to harsh treatment. For. Rel. 1902, pp. 244

254.