« PreviousContinue »
It was stated that a request might be made “ that permission be granted
as an act of grace" for the emigration of the wife and minor children of a person who had only made a declaration of intention. (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sulloway, Feb. 4, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 536.)
Oct. 16, 1896, the American minister at Constantinople advised his Government that he had obtained a telegraphic order from the Turkish Government to permit the departure for the United States, with sa fe-conduct to the sea port, of all the native Armenian women and children in whose behalf he had made application, whose husbands and fathers were in the United States. The Department of State replied that the humane and considerate action of the Turkish Government in the matter was “most cordially appreciated.”
During November and December, 1896, Mr. Terrell reported the departure to the United States of numerous wives and children of naturalized citizens of the United States.
For. Rel. 1896, 924, 927.
Turkish Government, peremptory orders have at last been procured
1896, For. Rel. 1896, lxxxix.) The minister of the United States having on several occasions been
embarrassed by the arrival at Constantinople of the wives and minor children without the means of pursuing their journey to the United States, the Department of State adopted a rule requiring the deposit with it of sufficient funds in the form of a draft on London, payable to the order of the United States consul-general at Constantinople, to defray the expenses of their journey to America, as condition precedent to the use of good offices, or, in lieu of such deposit, a satisfactory assurance that the persons in question had sufficient funds for the purpose. (Mr. Ilay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Feb. 24, 1899, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII, 323; Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Terakian, Aug. 15, 1900, 247 MS. Dom. Let. 175; same to Mr. Griscom, Sept. 14, 1900, MS. Inst. Turkey, VII. 468; Mr. Ilill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Nakash, Oct. 31, 1.900, 248 MS. Dom. Let. 588; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Nakash, Feb. 9, 1904, 272 MS. Dom. Let. 243; Mr. Hill to Mr. Mahoney, Nov. 23, 1900, 249 MS. Dom. Let. 223; Mr. Hill, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Baboyan, Jan. 7, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 100; Mr. Ilill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Kaproulian, Feb. 1, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 499; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sulloway, Feb. 4, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 536.)
A request was made for the interposition of the Government of the United States to obtain permission for the return to the United States of the wife and two minor children of a naturalized American citizen of Turkish origin, residing at Paterson, X. J. It appeared that the wife, after her husband's naturalization, went on a visit to Turkey, taking with her her two minor children, who were born in the United States. The Department of State replied that, as the wife had been in the United States " at the time of and subsequent to her husband's naturalization, and her children having been born in this country," the American minister at Constantinople would be instructed “to demand as of right permission for them to leave Turkey."
Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Van Ilovenberg. Feb. 25, 1896, 208 MS.
Dom. Let. 173.
1895, 205 MS. Dom. Let. 389.
In 1895, Mr. Cinnamon, of Taylor, Texas, requested the good offices of the Government of the United States to obtain for his family, and also for his brother-in-law and the latter's family, permission to leave Russia. The minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, under instructions of the Department of State, requested the necessary permission for the Cinnamon family, but merely transmitted Mr. Cinnamon's request in regard to the others, since they were all Russian subjects. The Russian Government replied “that, according to the laws in force, all requests of this nature should be addressed directly, under the form of petitions, signed by those interested themselves, to the ministry of the interior if it is a question of nationality, or to the governor of the respective province if it is a question of obtaining a passport to go abroad."
For. Rel. 1895, II. 1122-1123.
X. PROOFS OF VATIONALITY.
1. EVIDENCES OF CITIZENSHIP.
Passports, certificates of naturalization, registration in the consulates of the United States, and service on ships sailing under the flag of the United States, were “ alike accepted by our consular officers and the Spanish authorities as prima facie evidence of citizenship establishing the rights of the claimants to the treatment secured to our citizens under our treaties and protocols with Spain.”
Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 22, 1897. For.
Rel. 1896, 746, in relation to arrests made by the Spanish authorities
The same report is printed in S. Doc. 84, 54 Cong. 2 sess.
Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III. 2531-2537.
As to residence at time of annexation, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, III.
2542. As to official recognitions as evidence of citizenship, see Moore, Int.
Arbitrations, III. 2543–2517; and, as to the performance of political acts, see id. 2517-2548.
A person 23 years of age, who was born in Hayti, who had never been in the United States and who expressed no intention of coming thither, applied to the United States legation at Port au Prince to be registered as an American citizen. He claimed citizenship through his father, who left the United States forty-one years before and had never returned, and whose only evidence of American citizenship was a paper under the seal of the State of Louisiana, signed by the governor thereof, in which he was styled a resident of that State. Held, that the application for registration was properly declined.
For. Rel. 1901, 280.
2. PROOF OF NATURALIZATION.
(1) THE JUDICIAL RECORD.
The proper evidence of naturalization is the judicial record, or an exemplified copy of it, and parol evidence is admissible only in case of the loss or destruction of such record.
Green 1. Salas, 31 Fed. Rep. 106; Slade t. Minor, 2 Cranch (. C. 139;
Dryden 1. Swinburne, 20 W. Va. 89; People 1. McNally, 59 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 500; Bode v. Trimmer, 82 Cal. 513; Prentice 1. Miller,
id. 570. This rule applies to a woman who alleges citizenship through the natu
ralization of her husband. (Belcher 1. Farren, 26 Pac. 791.) A mere certificate of the clerk of the court, stating that the applicant had
been naturalized, is not competent proof, and cannot be aided by parol
evidence. (Green 1. Salas, supra.) A passport issued by the Department of State is not competent judicial
proof of citizenship. (In re Gee llop, 71 Fed. Rep. 274; see, also,
Urtetiqui 1. D'Arcy, 9 Pet. 692.)
Garfield ('o., 130 U. S. 291. The fact that an alien assumed to make leases and perform other acts
which only a citizen might do is of no probative force in establishing his naturalization. (Richardson v. Amsdon (1903), 85 N. Y. Supp.
312.) Proof that defendant on a certain day was admitted to citizenship of the
United States and took the usual oath is prima facie evidence that he was previously an alien. (Peacock 1. United States (1903), 125 Fed. Rep. 583, 60 C. C. A. 389.)
It is not necessary that the judgment of naturalization should expressly state that the requisite prior declaration of intention was made; and it is not to be implied from the absence of such a statement that the declaration was not made.
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Count Vinci, Italian chargé, Sept. 1, 1899, For.
Rel. 1899, 158, 159; citing Stark 1. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 420; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238; Campbell 1. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 179.
McC., a native of Ireland, was admitted to citizenship of the United States at San Francisco in 1861. In the record of his naturalization it was recited that he came to the United States in 1852. He subsequently became convinced that he arrived in 1853 instead of 1852, and, a question having been raised as to the validity of his naturalization, applied to the court to renaturalize him, if in its opinion his former naturalization was defective or open to question. The court held that the judginent of naturalization was not impaired by the inaccurate statement of fact in the recital, it appearing that the conditions of the law, which required only a five years' residence, had in any event been fulfilled.
In re McCoppin, 5 Sawyer C. C. 630.
the true name may be proved by parol; nor does the inclusion of
meyer 1. Kreitz, 135 Ill. 591, 26 N. E. 701.) A person who obtains a legal change of name is not entitled to have his
certificate or record of naturalization changed accordingly. (In re Nigri, 32 Misc. 392, 66 N. Y. S. 182.)
Where a court, by way of amending its records, entered a judgment of naturalization nunc pro tume, thirty-three years after judgment was alleged to have been rendered, but no entry or memorandum of any kind of the alleged original judgment existed, it was held that the order was invalid, the power to amend not involving the power to create.
Gagnon 1. United States (1904), 193 U. S. 451. “ The recitals of the certificate of naturalization, a copy of which accompanies your dispatch, on this point are: “That he resided in the United States three years next preceding his arriving at the age of twenty-one years, and has continued to reside therein to this time; and that he has resided within this State for one year preceding this date, and that he is twenty-one years of age, and that he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority
“I am of opinion that these conditions amount to a fulfillment of the requirements of the law in the class of cases to which that of R
belongs. Statutes enlarging or conferring personal rights are to be construed liberally, in contradistinction to those which abridge or take away such rights. This liberal rule of judicial interpretation, in harmony as it is with our system of Government, has been, so far as I am aware, uniformly respected and followed by the executive branch of the Government."
Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Davis, Dec. 20, 1875, MS. Inst. Germ.
In the absence of proof that an alien has become a citizen of the United States, his original status is presumed to continue; the burden of proving naturalization rests upon the party that alleges it.
Hauenstein 1. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483.
Evidence that a person born in the United States, of parents who were citizens thereof, came to Texas while it was part of Mexico, with his mother, a widow, in 1831, left there in 1835, was married in Louisiana, and was again living in Texas from 1859 to 1863, does not prove that he became a citizen of Mexico or require any evidence from defendant to the contrary; plaintiff's right being based on the claim that such person did become a Mexican citizen.
Ferguson v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.), 33 S. W. 138.
Where an inquiry was made of the Department of State in regard to the citizenship of a person at one time minister resident of the United States to Costa Rica, the Department replied: “ The papers on the Department's files in support of Mr. Riotte's application for appointment mention him as a naturalized citizen of the United States. His certificate of naturalization is not, however, among them, and in its absence the Department could not say that he was a citizen of the United States, although, as aliens are not appointed to our diplomatic service, the presumption is that the appointing power at the time was satisfied that he was such. I enclose, as requested, a certificate of Mr. Riotte's services as minister resident."
Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Birkins, April 20, 1898, 2:27 MS. Dom.
(2) LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF RECORD.
B., at a general election held in Nebraska in November, 1890,
received the highest number of votes for governor. Question of fact.
His title to the office was contested on the strength of the clause of the State constitution which declares that no person