Page images
PDF
EPUB

as native inhabitants of Porto Rico and not as citizens of the United States."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to the diplomatic and consular officers of the

United States, circular, May 2, 1899, For. Rel. 1900, 894.
See Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Miranda, June 10, 1899, 237 MS. Dom.

Let. 466; Mr. ('ridler, 3d Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Macallister, No.
43, April 14, 1899, 166 MS. Inst. Consuls, 630; Mr. Cridler to Mr.

Johnson, No. 50, Aug. 23, 1899, 169 MS. Inst. Consuls, 38.
Under this circular, native inhabitants of Porto Rico were entitled to the

official intervention of the United States in respect of losses sus-
tained during revolutions in Venezuela. (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to
Mr. Loomis, min. to Venezuela, No. 314, Dec. 23, 1899, 4 MS. Inst.

Venezuela, 686.)
The circular of May 2, 1899, was applicable to Spain. (Mr. Ilay, Sec. of

State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Spain, No. 182, June 4, 1900, MS. Inst.
Spain, 28.) See supra, p. 295.

While Porto Rico, after annexation, and pending legislation by Congress, was under military government, it seemed to be unobjectionable, so far as international relations were concerned, for the military commander to offer to foreign residents, identified by domicil or business with local interests, an opportunity to vote at municipal elections; but until Congress should have determined, pursuant to the treaty of peace, the political status of the native inhabitants of the island, and have provided in substance and form for their acquisition of citizenship, it did not appear to be within his province to establish any formality, directly or indirectly, contemplating the future naturalization of foreigners residing there.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, Jan. 27, 1900, 242 MS. Dom. Let.

430. See, also, Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cambon, French amb., April 10,

1900, No. 294, MS. Notes to French Leg. XI. 33.

“This Department concurs in the view expressed in the communication of the Secretary of State and Government of Cuba that, under international law and the treaty of peace with Spain [of Dec. 10, 1898], the native inhabitants of Puerto Rico ceased to be Spanish subjects upon the ratification of the treaty."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of War, Jan. 29, 1900, 242 MS. Dom. Let.

443.

The treaty of Dec. 10, 1898, did not make the inhabitants of the ceded territory citizens of the United States.

Goetze v. United States, 103 Fed. Rep. 72.

But they ceased to be “ aliens," in the sense of the immigration laws.

Gonzales 1'. Williams (1904), 192 U. S. 1, reversing In re Gonzales, 118

Fed. Rep. 941.

By the act of April 12, 1900, in relation to the government of Porto Rico, all inhabitants of the island continuing to reside therein, who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 (the day of the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of cession), and who then resided in Porto Rico, and their children subsequently born, were declared to be “ citizens of Porto Rico, and as such entitled to the protection of the United States," except such as should have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain on or before April 11, 1900, in conformity with Art. IX. of the treaty of cession.

“ The undisputed attitude of the executive and legislative departments of the Government has been and is that the native inhabitants of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands did not become citizens of the United States by virtue of the cession of the islands by Spain by means of the treaty of Paris. It was not the intention of the commissioners who negotiated the treaty to give those inhabitants the status of citizens of the United States. The act for the temporary government of Porto Rico did not confer upon the native inhabitants of that island Federal citizenship, but denominated them citizens of Porto Rico."

Griggs, At. Gen., Jan. 23, 1901, 23 Op. 370.

“ Passports are issued by the Department to persons entitled thereto, declaring that they are citizens of Porto Rico, and as such entitled to the protection of the United States."

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Vilas, Aug. 30, 1900, 247 MS. Dom.

Let. 118.

“A Porto Rican is entitled under the law to the fullest protection. The legation should see that the applicant enjoys every right and that no obstacle be placed in the way of his contemplated departure from Chile for Porto Rico."

Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lenderink, chargé in ('hile, April 29,

1901, For. Rel. 1901, 32.

It will be observed that natives of the Philippines were not mentioned in the circular of May 2, 1899, supra. They were not so included because the question was complicated in those islands by the existence of native insurrection. In the case, however, of two young Filipinos, aged 15 and 14, attending school in Switzerland, who bore

“ cedula personal ” as citizens of Manila temporarily residing in that country, the legation at Berne was authorized to state that they are natives of the Philippine Islands temporarily residing in Switzerland, and as such are entitled to the protection of the United States."

a

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Leishman, min, to Switzerland, Dec. 28,

1900, For. Rel. 1900, 905,

Pending legislation by Congress, it was held by the Department of State that Filipinos were not subject to the extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction of United States consuls in China.

Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Johnson, consul at Amoy,

No. 63, July 23, 1900, 173 MS. Inst. Consuls, 446; to Mr. Goodnow, consul gen, at Shanghai, No. 205, July 24, 1900, 173 MS. Inst. Consuls, 465; to Mr. Johnson, consul at Amoy, No. 65, Aug. 20, 1900, 174 MS. Inst. Consuls, 2.

“ With reference to the question asked in two memoranda from the British embassy, dated May 26 and August 13, 1900, whether Filipinos regularly shipped on British merchant vessels are regarded by the Government of the United States as citizens of the United States, so that when the British vessels upon which they have shipped touch at ports of the United States the Filipino seamen have the right to demand to be discharged although the voyage for which they have shipped may not be ended, the Attorney-General, to whom the question was referred, holds, in his opinion dated February 19, 1901, that seamen born in the Philippine Islands are not citizens of the United States within the meaning of any statutes concerning seamen or any other statute or law of the United States.'

Memorandum of the Department of State, Feb. 28, 1901, For. Rel. 1901,

200. In a previous memorandum of July 19, 1900, on the same subject, the

Department of State said: “A man may be a citizen in one sense of the word, or from certain points of view, or for certain purposes, yet not in every sense nor for all purposes." (For. Rel. 1901, 199.)

By the act of July 1, 1902, all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and their children subsequently born, are declared "to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of [Art. IX. of] the treaty of peace.”

32 Stat. I. 692.

(2) PROVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL ELECTION.

$ 380.

By the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico,

Feb. 2, 1848, Art. VIII., it was stipulated that MexiTreaty of Guada

cans who preferred to remain in the territories ceded lupe Hidalgo.

to the United States might “either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States," but that they should be obliged “ to make their election” within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of the treaty, and that those who should remain after the year without having " declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans," should be “ considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States."

By Art. IX. it was stipulated that Mexicans who should not preserve their Mexican nationality should be “ incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to the principles of the Constitution.”

See, as to the annexation of the Mexican territories, supra, &$105, 106.
As to the effect on the citizenship of the inhabitants, see McKinney v.

Saviego, 18 Ilow. 235; (ryer 1. Andrews, 11 Tex. 170; Barrett v.

Kelly, 31 Tex. 476; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135.
As to the declaration of intention to elect American citizenship under the

treaty of 1848, see Quintara v. Tomkins, 1 N. M. 29; Carter v.
Territory, 1 N. M. 317.

“ It is possible that there may be Mexicans in Upper California, who were there at the period of the conclusion of the treaty, who may have availed themselves of the privilege of retaining their nationality which that instrument secured to them. There are no doubt others who were there at that time who, voluntarily or involuntarily, have become citizens of the United States, pursuant to the terms of the article referred to. It is presumed that it is not in behalf of the latter that Mr. Larrainzar solicits the protection of this Government."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Larrainzar, April 28, 1853, MS. Notes to

Mex. Leg. VI. 348.

There is no provision in the acts of Congress relative to the admission of California as a State, whereby alien residents of the territory were admitted to citizenship on its admission to the Union.

Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Nones, May 12, 1852, 40 MS. Dom.

Let. 123.

Alaskan cession.

“ The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice,

reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Rus

sia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may from time to time adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.”

Art. Ill., treaty between the United States and Russia, March 30, 1867,

ceding Alaska to the United States. As to the cession of Alaska, see supra, § 107. Who are citizens of the United States in Alaska, under article 3 of the

treaty of 1867, may be a difficult question to determine. The treaty furnishes the law, but the difficulty, if any, will arise in the application of it.” (Deady, J., Kie 1. United States (1886), 27 Fed. Rep.

351.) Whether any proceeding in the nature of naturalization is requisite,

and, if so, where it is to be had, are legal questions which this Department must refer to your own investigation. . . If the original Russian subject desires a passport for the purpose of returning to Russia, and has not been naturalized by the order of some competent .court, the question whether he brings himself within the terms of the treaty as one of those who prefer to remain in the ceded territory' will deserve serious consideration." (Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Solomon, July 5, 1870, 85 MS. Dom. Let. 227.)

H., a resident of Alaska at the time of annexation, some months afterwards left the country and took up his residence in Russia, where, in order to qualify himself to contract marriage with a lady in the titled class, he bought an estate, the possession of which he supposed to carry with it the title of "Prince"; but, after he became engaged to the lady in question he was denounced to the police, by the person who had sold him the estate, as the claimant of a title to which he had no right. He received a warning on the subject, and, disregarding it, was thrown into prison, where he was afterwards detained on suspicion of being an escaped Siberian convict. It seems that a passport was issued to him in 1872, just prior to his arrest, by the American legation at St. Petersburg, “ on the faith of a passport granted him in Alaska.” It was “ doubtful if American citizenship was ever acquired " by H.; “ but, supposing it true that he had been naturalized, it is plain that his course in Russia

was of a nature to expatriate him, and to render him again a subject of the Russian Empire."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stoughton, min. to Russia, No. 33, Oct.

29, 1878, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI, 05.

“By Article II. of the treaty of Frankfort, of May 10, 1871, be

tween France and Germany, it was provided that Treaty of Frankfort.

French subjects born in Alsace-Lorraine, and actually domiciled therein, who desired to preserve their French nationality, should be allowed till October 1, 1872, to declare their intention to do so, before competent authority, and to remove their domicil to France."

Mr. Moore, Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Schmidt, May 11, 1898, 228 MS.

Dom. Let. 414.

« PreviousContinue »