Page images
PDF
EPUB

An alien, 21 years old or upwards, who has enlisted in the United

States Navy or Marine Corps, and has thereafter Service in Navy or

served five consecutive years in the Navy or one enlistMarine Corps.

ment in the Marine Corps, may be admitted to citizenship without a previous declaration of intention.

Act of July 26, 1894, 28 Stats. 123, 124.

waii.

“ Sec. 100. That for the purposes of naturalization under the laws

of the United States residence in the Hawaiian Special case in Ha- Islands prior to the taking effect of this act shall be

deemed equivalent to residence in the United States and in the Territory of Hawaii, and the requirement of a previous declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce former allegiance shall not apply to persons who have resided in said islands at least five years prior to the taking effect of this act; but all other provisions of the laws of the United States relating to naturalization shall, so far as applicable, apply to persons in the said islands."

Act of Congress of April 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 161.
This act took effect June 14, 1900.

(3) DOES NOT CONFER CITIZENSHIP.

$ 387.

The declaration of intention to become a citizen does not confer Judicial decisions. citizenship.

Minneapolis v. Reum, 56 Fed. Rep. 576, 6 C. C. A. 31 ; In re Moses, 83 Fed.

Rep. 995; White v. White, 2 Met. (Ky.) 185 ; Dorsey v. Brigham, 177
Ill. 250, 52 N. E. 303, 42 L. R. A. 809. See Settegast v. Schrimpf, 35

Tex. 323.
Nor make a person a citizen within the meaning of the Indian depreda-

tions act. (Valk 1. United States, 28 Ct. ('l. 241.)
The declaration may be made only in a court competent to naturalize; but

by the act of Feb. 1, 1876, it may be made before the clerk. (19

Stat. 2.)
It must be made in the clerk's office or in open court. (In re Langtry, 31

Fed. Rep. 879; Scola's ('ase, 8 Pa. Co. ('t. Rep. 344. See Andres v.

Judge of Circuit Ct. (Mich.) 43 N. W. 857.)
It cannot be made before a court having no clerk or prothonotary. (Ex

parte (regg, 2 ('urtis, 98.)
As to the declaration of intention and the location of mining claims, see

Cresus Mining Co. i'. Colorado Land Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 78.
The proper evidence of the declaration of intention is the certificate of

the fact. (State v. Barrett, 10 Minn. 65; Berry 1. Hull (N. M.) 30
Pac. Rep. 936.)

The declaration of intention by the parent does not make citizens of his children in case he dies before completing his naturalization. On the contrary, sec. 2168, R. S., provides for the regular admission to citizenship of the widow and children of such a person.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. at Berlin, Jan. 15,

1885, For. Rel. 1885, 394, 395.

“ Passports are only granted to citizens of the United States, and

as Mr. Hoesli has not yet complied with the requisiExecutive action.

tions of the naturalization laws of the United States his request can not be acceded to. No reason is perceived, however, why a consul of Switzerland should not give him a passport to his own country, as his certificate only shows his intention of becoming a citizen of the United States, and in that event to renounce his allegiance to Switzerland, which has not yet been done."

Mr. Upshur, Sec. of State, to Mr. Triechel, Nov. 16, 1813, 33 MS. Dom.

Let. 386.

A foreigner who has merely declared his intention to become an American citizen, without having carried that intention into effect, is not an American citizen.

Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Campbell, consul at Havana, July 26,

1848, 10 MS. Desp. to Consuls, 473.

[ocr errors]

Dominie Madini, an Austrian subject by birth, after having taken part in the Lombard revolution in 1848, came to the United States and made a declaration of intention to become a citizen.

“ In the year 1852, and before he had been long enough in this country to be entitled to naturalization, he returned to Europe and settled in Switzerland, where he has since resided, for the alleged purpose of collecting his fortune, which he has some prospect of being able to do, and then he designs to return and reside in the United States.

It is admitted that Madini has not been in the United States for some years. The intention he may entertain, and which it is understood he has declared, to return to the United States may be changed at pleasure, and besides, such an intention, however sincere, is too remote and uncertain to found upon it any obligation for protection.

By Madini's departure from the United States before he was naturalized, becoming domiciled in another country and entering into business there, he relinquished all the advantages, whatever they might be, which he had gained by his temporary residence in the United States and placed himself in relation to this Government on a footing with those foreigners who have never been within its territory."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fay, No. 37, March 22, 1856, MS. Inst.

Switz. I. 47.
See, also, Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, min. to Peru, Dec. 28,

1854, MS. Inst. Peru, XV. 150.
H. Doc. 551-vol 3 -22

“ The mere declaration of intention to become a citizen does not absolve the party from the allegiance which he owes to the Government of the country from which he comes, and leaves him free to apply to any consul of that Government in this country for a permit to return from whence he came."

Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, March 9, 1857, 46 MS. Dom.

Let. 379.
See, to the same effect, Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, June 29,

1859, 50 MS. Dom. Let. 441.

“ With regard to the other cases which the noble earl [Lord Derby] has brought forward, I have no knowledge of them, or I would have taken pains to inquire into each of them. I certainly do not recollect the case of any person being called on to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, except one in which there was some question with Lord Lyons, and that was the case of a gentleman who had given notice of his intention to become a citizen of the United States. Now, a person wishing to become a citizen of the United States gives notice that at a certain time-within three months-he intends to ask leave to become a citizen of the United States. When the time arrives he must not only take an oath of allegiance to the United States, but he must forswear all other allegiance, more especially to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. (Laughter.) This gentleman who was arrested made an appeal to the British Government, and the answer of Mr. Seward to the remonstrance addressed to him was, “ This gentleman has renounced all allegiance, especially to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The matter was further inquired into, and it was found that Mr. Seward was wrong in his fact(hear, hear)—that this gentleman had given notice that he intended to become a citizen of the United States, and to forswear all allegiance to Her Majesty, but he still remained a British subject. He had thus placed himself in a position in which he could not claim the protection of either one government or the other. (Laughter.)"

Earl Russell, Foreign Secretary, in the House of Lords, Feb. 10, 1862, Dip.

Cor. 1862, 31.
This view evidently is different from that expressed by Mr. Cass, and is

not based on any legal effect of the declaration of intention.

* The mere declaration of an intention does not make person born abroad a citizen. He might change his mind before the arrival of the period for him to take the oath of allegiance, and the law of the United States provides for the interval between the declaration of intention and the final act of naturalization, in order that the person who proposes to become naturalized should have leisure to deliberate on the importance of the proceeding."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Luna, April 22, 1869, 81 Dom. Let. 7.

See, to the same effect, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dunbar, April 19,

1869, 80 MS. Dom. Let. 594; to Mr. Bissell, Jan 19, 1870, 83 MS. Dom. Let. 107; to Mr. Bennett, Dec. 24, 1872, 97 MS. Dom. Let. 73;

to Mr. Jay, Feb. 2, 1875, MS, Inst. Austria, II. 319. Also, Mr. Bancroft Davis, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Fox, consul at

Trinidad de ('uba. May 12, 1869, S. Ex. Doc. 108, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 202.

The fact that a person dying abroad has made a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States affords no basis for action by a consul of the United States in respect of the administration of his estate.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mrs. Blacklock, Sept. 10, 1878, 124 Dom.

Let. 293. ('ontinuing, Mr. Evarts said: It is only when a citizen dies abroad that the law requires a consul to administer on the estate which he may have left in his district, so far as the local law

may allow."

“None but citizens can properly claim protection from the Government,

and your declaration to become a citizen does not confer upon you that character." (Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Glendenning, June 1878, 123 MS. Dom. Let. 201.)

"A mere declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States does not change the nationality of the party making such declaration; he remains until final naturalization a subject or citizen ef his origin (sic). Consequently yuch declaration of intention would avail you nothing," for purpose of protection in the country of origin.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dunne, July 31, 1883, 147 MS.

Dom. Let. 395.
See, also, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Spain,

April 2, 1883, 146 MS. Dom. Let. 311; to Mr. de Bounder, Belg. Min.,
April 23, 1883, MS. Notes to Belg. Leg. VII. 311; to Mr. Randall,
M. C., March 14, 1884, 150 MS. Dom. Let. 276. In the letter to Mr.
Randall, which related to the arrest, on an American merchant ves-
sel at Sagua la Grande, Cuba, of a Spanish subject who had made a
declaration of intention, Mr. Frelinghuysen observed : “ The case of
Koszta differs from this in that the Austrian officers attempted to
seize him upon the territory of a third power, not that of his origi-
nal allegiance." It will be seen, however, that Mr. Marry's jus-
tification of the protection extended by Captain Ingraham to Koszta,
even in the territory of a third power, was not based upon the fact
that he had made a declaration of intention. Infra, $ 490.

Certain persons of Russian origin, who had made a declaration of intention in the United States, and who afterwards settled in Palestine, claimed protection as American citizens. It was stated that the Russian consular representative having declared that they had lost their Russian citizenship, the Porte asserted that they must be considered as “ Turkish subjects.” Mr. Frelinghuysen declined to admit this claim, observing that the persons in question had acquired by their declaration of intention “ a quasi right to protection as against the claim of a third power to their allegiance," and that we would hold in case of dispute on this point that they retain a future right to perfect their naturalization in conformity with our laws." In a subsequent instruction he said that if the question should arise, the United States would “ claim that the person affected shall not be deemed to have become a subject of the Porte until after he shall have had full option” to “complete his naturalization.” At the same time Mr. Frelinghuysen admitted that the “ declaration of intention is not of itself a renunciation of original allegiance, but simply a record of declared intention to renounce such allegiance on becoming a citizen of the United States."

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wallace, min. to Turkey, March

25, 1884, and April 8, 1881, For. Rel. 1884, 551, 560. The foregoing instruction, in connection with which the instructions of

Mr. Blaine to Mr. Hicks, in 1890, infra, pp. 341-343, should be read, bears date eleven days after the letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Randall, supra. Mr. Marcy's position in the Koszta case, as will hereafter be shown, did not in the remotest degree rest upon the strange theory that a person who has merely declared his intention, and therefore has not become a citizen, may acquire an international right to become a citizen by leaving the United States and going to a country other than that of his origin. See, infra, $$ 490, 491.

Until a person has perfected his naturalization in due course of law and obtained his final papers, he can not claim the protection of the United States in case of his voluntary return to the country of his origin.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Crain, M. C., Jan. 28, 1886, 158 MS.

Dom. Let. 573.
See, also, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bendenli, May 13, 1885, 155

MS. Dom. Let. 364.

A declaration of intention does not entitle a person to be registered as a citizen of the United States by the American consuls in China.

Mr. Bayard, Set of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, April 18, 1887,

For. Rel. 1887, 210.
While the l'nited States minister in China might perhaps be justified

under somie circumstances in using his "good offices” in behalf of a
person who had made a declaration of intention, it would seem that
such a person, if he was a citizen or subject of a country with which
the United States had a formal treaty of naturalization, would be
excluded from such action. (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr.
Denby, min. to China, Jan. 13, 1897, For. Rel. 1896, 92, 93.)

An application was made to the Department of State by a citizen of Philadelphia for a passport for a British subject, who had de

« PreviousContinue »