Page images

zenship." (For. Rel. 1885, 396.) These rulings were applied in the case of Robert Albert Böker, in Germany.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tower, ambass. to Germany, No. 192, May

31, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 314, citing Van Dyne on Citizenship, 31. Compare For. Rel. 1873, II. 1191.


$ 427.

“ With regard to the proposed law naturalizing children born in

the Argentine Republic of foreign parents, with its Argentine Republic.

retrospective declaration, inasmuch as the AttorneyGeneral of the United States has decided that such individuals born in the United States become endowed with the rights and liabilities of our own citizens, the comity of nations enjoins that we should acquiesce in any analogous legislation.”

Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Kirk, No. 35, Nov. 1, 1863,

MS. Inst. Arg. Rep. XV. 183.
See 9 Op. 373, and 10 Op. 321 ; supra, § 373.
See, to the same eifect, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kirk, No. 4, June

18, 1869, enclosing a copy of Attorney-General Hoar's opinion of June
12, 1869. (MS. Inst. Arg. Rep. XV. 319.)

“ I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of July 17, 1867,

in relation to your claim to American citizenship. Chile.

You are correct in your belief that the circumstance of

your mother's being an English woman does not impair the right to citizenship derived from that of your father. The act of Congress to be found in vol. 10 of Statutes at Large, page 604, was passed for the express purpose of removing any doubt on that point. Upon taking up your residence in the United States, you will become a citize!, in the full sense, without any naturalization. At present, however, you are in the position of having a double allegiance, the one which you owe to Chile, from your birth within its jurisdiction, the other due to this Government as the son of a citizen of the United States. Until you make your election to reside in this country, it is not in the power of this Government to protect you against the enforcement of any obligations you may be under as a citizen of Chile or any of the incidental consequences which may result from that character.”

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vantassel, Sept. 10, 1867, 77 MS. Dom.

Let. 78.
See, to the same effect, Mr. Hunter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Dutton,

Aug. 7, 1868, 79 MS. Dom. Let. 182.

By chapter 4, article 6, paragraph 1, of the Chilean constitution, all persons born in Chile are declared to be Chilean citizens. On this ground it was held that the minister of the United States at Santiago properly declined to intervene for the purpose of exempting from service in the national guard the Chilean-born children of American citizens.

June 4, 1896, For.

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Strobel, min. to Chi

Rel. 1896, 34-35.

In 1885 the British minister at Bogotá inquired of the Colombian

Government as to its views concerning the nationalColombia.

ity, while they were in Colombia, of certain children under the following circumstances: Their father was a native British subject; their mother was born in Colombia of British parents; the children were born in Chile, but had removed to Colombia with their widowed mother. The Colombian Government, in reply, referred to paragraph 2 of article 31 of the Colombian constitution, which provides that "the children of a Colombian father or mother, whether born within the territory of the United States of Colombia or not, provided in the latter case they settle in the country, are Colombians.” On the strength of this provision, the Colombian Government stated that there seemed to be no doubt that the children of the Colombian mother were citizens of the country, provided they settled in it.

For. Rel. 1885, 208.
The Colombian Government published, Jan. 15, 1885, the following

"According to the tenor of article 31 of the national constitution, all such

persons are Colombians, viz: “(1) Who have been or may be born in the territory of the United

States of Colombia, although children of foreign parents transitory sojourners in the same, if they (the children) shall come and settle

in the country. “(2) The children of a Colombian father or mother, whether born in the

United States of Colombia or not, if, in the latter case, they shall

come and settle in the country. "(3) Foreigners who have obtained letters of naturalization. “(4) Persons born in any of the Spanish-American Republics, whenever

they have settled in the territory of the Union and declared their

desire to be Colombians before a competent authority. "As several cases have already occurred of Colombian citizens, merely on

account of being sons of foreigners, pretending not to be Colombians, the attention of the public is directed to the national prescripts above

set forth. · Notice is likewise given that the issue of passports, whether for the use

of Colombians or of foreigners, is a function exclusively pertaining to the constitutional authorities of the Republic." (For. Rel. 1885,

204.) In communicating this notice to the Department of State, Mr. Scruggs,

American minister at Bogotá, January 30, 1885, said: I apprehend, in view of the Colombian fundamental law referred to,

that persons born in this country whose fathers were at the time


citizens of the United States, have a dual nationality; and that,

while in Colombia, their ('olombian nationality must prevail. " In accordance with this principle therefore, and until instructed other

wise by the Department, I shall, if applied to, grant passports to such persons; but with the express caution that such passport will not necessarily confer the right to protection by the United States Government, as against that of Colombia, while the holder remains in Colombia." (For. Rel. 1885, 204.)


V. applied to the American legation in Paris, in 1883, for a cer

tificate or attestation that he had preserved his

American nationality. He was born at Bordeaux, France, in 1862. His father, however, who also was a native of France, had lived in the United States 35 years, and in 1853 was naturalized, but in 1859 returned to France, where in 1874 he died. V. had never been in the United States, and expressed no intention of going there to reside, but stated that he had property interests which might render it necessary for him to visit the United States at some future time. Held, that V. was not entitled to a passport—the usual form of attestation of American nationality to foreign governments.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morton, min. to France, Nov. 9,

1883, For. Rel. 1883, 285.

“ In 1873 the son of John Peppin, a Frenchman by birth, invoked the protection of this Government against the operation of French military law. The circumstances of his case were these: Peppin, when a young man, emigrated to the United States, was educated in Kentucky, became a citizen of the United States, resided in New Orleans several years, returned to France, married a French woman, and remained in France until his death. Some eight years after his return to France two children were born to him, one of them the son in question, who at the time of his application was eighteen years old. Protection in this case was refused by my predecessor, Mr. Fish."

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, Feb.

27, 1884, For. Rel. 1881, 216, 218.

By the French law of December 16, 1874, amending article 1 of the law of February 7, 1851, “any individual born in France of a foreigner who himself was born there is French, unless, in the year following the time of his majority, as fixed by French rule, he claims his foreign nationality by a declaration made either before the municipal authorities of the place of his birth or before the diplomatic or consular agents of France abroad, and establishes that he has maintained his original nationality by an attestation in due form of his government, which will remain affixed to the declaration."

By this law a man born in France of a father who was himself born there, but who had become by naturalization a foreigner, is considered a French citizen unless, before he reaches the age of twenty-two, he establishes in the prescribed manner his retention of his original nationality, that is to say, the acquired nationality of his father. The law of 1874, as above quoted, requires the individual to prove that he has maintained his original nationality by "an attestation in due form of his government;" but the circular issued by the French mayors to the sons and grandsons of foreigners born in France states that each one of them must produce a certificate of the diplomatic agent of the country of which he claims to be a citizen to the effect that he has not lost his original nationality.

Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, June 15,

1886, For. Rel. 1886, 301. But by the law of 1889, as amended by the law of 1893, any person

born in France of foreign parents, one of whom was also born there, is French, except that in the year following his majority he may disclaim his French status, by complying with the requirements of paragraph 4, if it is the mother who was born in France." (Mr. Vignaud, chargé, to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, No. 47, Aug. 22, 1893, and enclosure, For. Rel. 1893, 303.).

Children born abroad whose father was, at the time of their birtli, a citizen of the United States, are, by virtue of the act of February 10, 1855, citizens of the United States, and within the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States are entitled to all the privileges of citizens. As to whether they are entitled, while continuing to reside abroad, to passports as American citizens, the answer must be more qualified. If, by the laws of the country of their birth, such children are subjects of its government, it is not competent by any legislation to interfere with that relation or with the allegiance which they owe to the country of their birth while they continue within its territory. If, therefore, they receive passports as citizens of the United States, such passports should be qualified with the statement that, although they are citizens of the United States, their rights as such are subject to the rights, obligations, and duties which may attach to them under the laws of the country in which they were born and in which they continued to live.

“ The conclusions above stated, which I adopt, were affirmed explicitly by Mr. Frelinghuysen, in instructions to Mr. Kasson, January 15, 1885, (Foreign Relations, Germany, 1885), and impliedly by Mr. Frelinghuysen in instructions to Mr. Morton, November 9, '1883 (Foreign Relations, France).”

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, July 2, 1886,

For. Rel. 1886, 303, 304, referring to the opinion of Hoar, At.-Gen.,

June 12, 1869, 13 Op. 89.
H. Doc. 551-vol 3-34

“ If Karl Klingenmeyer's father (a.native of Germany who had

been naturalized in the United States) was at the Germany.

time of his son's birth a citizen of this country (the United States), the son was such a citizen, while possibly by the German law (which I have not at hand) he might also be a citizen of the place of his birth (Germany). On general principles such conflicting citizenship is decided according to the laws of the one of the two countries claiming allegiance within whose jurisdiction the individual happens to be. (Vol. 13, Opinions Attorneys-General, p. 89.)”

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, min. to Germany, Jan.

15, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 396, 398.

“ The two sons of Mr. Smith [a citizen of the United States who

had been naturalized in Mexico), aged respectively Mexico.

seven and ten years at the time of their father's death, were undoubtedly American citizens by birth, inasmuch as the father's change of allegiance occurred after the birth of the youngest child. If within the jurisdiction of the United States, their right to American citizenship would be unimpaired, and even if within Mexican jurisdiction during minority, they would, in the absence of any Mexican law specifically attaching the altered status of the father to his minor children within Mexican jurisdiction, be still properly regarded as American citizens. But if there be such a law, or if on attaining majority they remain in Mexico and come within any provision of Mexican law making them citizens of that Republic, they could not be regarded as citizens of the United States.

“ The registration of the younger son, by the widowed mother, after the death of the father, although irregularly and unnecessarily delayed, is in contravention of no rule, the child's citizenship at birth being clear."

Mr. F. W. Seward, Acting Sec. of Stafe, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico,

Aug. 13, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 824.
As the Mexican law " does not make such a minor [i. e., a child born in

Mexico of an alien father) a Mexican during minority," it was held
that a minor child, born to an American father in Mexico, might
receive there a passport as a citizen of the United States. (Mr.
F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, min. to Mexico, July

2, 1879, For. Rel. 1879, 815.) See, also, Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Noyes, No. 115,

Dec. 31, 1878, MS. Inst. France, XX. 7.

“ The Russian naturalization law of March 6, 1864, A. 12, provides:

* Children born of foreigners not Russian subjects, Russia.

born and educated in Russia, or, if born abroad, yet who have completed their education in a Russian upper or middle

« PreviousContinue »