Page images
PDF
EPUB

the case,

States, the proofs of such election must be produced. If, on the other hand, he made no such election, but by remaining in Switzerland is to be inferred to have accepted Swiss nationality, he can not now obtain a passport as a citizen of the United States. If this be

his proper course, should he desire to become a citizen of the United States, is to come here in person and become naturalized."

Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland,

Sept. 14, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 811.
The Department of State, in referring to the age of majority where per-

sons are claiming American citizenship, means the usual age of ma-
jority in the United States—that is to say, twenty-one years. (Mr.
Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, min. to Switzerland, Feb.

13, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 795, 796.) It was held that Moritz Philipp Emden, father of Robert Emden, was not

entitled to a passport as a citizen of the United States, it appearing that he returned to Switzerland in 1854, the year of his naturalization, and had continued to reside there, and that he gave indefinite and ambiguous answers to the question as to his intention to resume his residence in the United States. (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min. to Switzerland, May 7, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1065.)

With regard to the case of Victor Labroue, who was born in France of an American father, and who was still living in that country, the Department of State said: “ This election [of allegiance] can not be made by Victor Labroue until he arrives at full age in September, 1886, and the election, to be operative, must not only be formally and solemnly declared, but must be followed by his coming to and taking up his abode as soon as is practicable in the United States. Should he remain voluntarily in France after the period when the French law, as well as the law of nations, requires him to make his election, this may properly be regarded as an abandonment of American and an acceptance of French allegiance."

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

1886, For. Rel. 1886, 303, 304.

“ Friedrich de Bourry, according to the allegations in his memorial, was born in the city of New York on December 4, 1862, of Austrian parents, then temporarily resident in that city, and there remained with them until he was five years of age, when he accompanied his mother to Europe. In 1869 he and his mother, residing in Vienna, were joined in that city by his father, who died in 1880. Under the Austrian Government Friedrich de Bourry, the memorialist, has remained until this day, employed in the Austrian railway service. It is not claimed that his father was ever naturalized, or made the requisite declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, or in any way signified his intention formally to abjure his

Austrian allegiance. Nor is it pretended that when, on December 5, 1883, the present memorialist arrived at full age, he took any steps to make or record his election of citizenship in the United States. For several years before that date he was old enough, with his mother's permission, which it is plain from her affidavit she was ready to give, to come to the country of his birth if it had been the country of his intended citizenship. He alleges no effort of this kind, nor any act or event indicating his election of United States citizenship when he arrived at full age.

“ Under these circumstances it is not necessary for me to consider the question whether Friedrich de Bourry was, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States under the naturalization statutes and the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is enough to say that he has exhibited no such proof of an election, on arriving at full age, of United States citizenship as now entitles him to a passport. In election in a case of dual or doubtful allegiance, which is the utmost which can be claimed in the present case, must be made on attaining majority, or shortly afterwards, and must be signified by acts plainly expressive of intention, such as immediate preparations to return to the elected country.

" In the present case there is no evidence that an election to become a citizen of the United States was ever made or intended, but on the contrary all the facts create the presumption that an Austrian domicil was chosen."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lee, chargé at Vienna, July 24, 1886,

For. Rel. 1886, 12.
See, also, the case of C. L. George, For. Rel. 1885, 120; For. Rel. 1887,

402–04; and supra, $ 392.

In 1887, Emil Stucker, who was then residing at Odessa, in Russia, applied to the American legation for a passport. He was born in England, May 12, 1863. His father, the place of whose nativity does not appear, had been naturalized in the United States, but soon after his naturalization he returned to Europe where he ever afterwards resided, dying in Paris in April, 1887. It appeared that Emil Stucker, who had never been in the United States, and expressed no purpose to go there to reside, had for some years been in business in Europe, and that on one occasion, when he was living in Bremen, being suddenly called to Russia on business, he obtained “ British protection." He had never taken any oath of allegiance to Great Britain. On the facts, the legation decided that he could not be considered an American citizen. This decision was approved, the Department of State saying: “ The fact that Stucker's father had resided over twenty years abroad after his naturalization, and died there last April without having returned to the United States, and the further circumstance that the son has always resided and even been in business in Europe, without any apparent intention of ever residing in the United States, are quite sufficient ground for questioning the son's bona fides as an American citizen and for refusing to acknowledge him as such by issuing him a passport, the more especially as he admits having obtained British protection temporarily in Bremen.”

Mr. Lothrop), min. to Russia, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, June 6, 1887;

Mr. Porter, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lothrop, June 30, 1887, For.
Rel. 1887, 965, 967.

“As to

persons born in the United States of French parents, the rule is that while such persons remain in the United States they are citizens of the United States; but that should they go to France, and there, when they arrive at the age of twenty-one, elect to be French citizens, they lose all claim to the protection of the United States.

• It has further been repeatedly held by us, as you are aware, that when a person thus born in the United States arrives at twenty-one in a foreign country, the mode of expressing his election to be a citizen of the United States is by promptly returning to the United States. The same distinction is applied to children born abroad to the citizens of the United States. There is, in both these cases, what is called double allegiance; and by the law of nations the nationality of such persons is to be determined by their own election of nationality at their majority, which election is evidenced by placing themselves in the country they elect. Should such persons after electing the United States, and here taking up their domicil, go to France for a transient visit, it will be your duty to protect them as citizens of the United States."

Mr. Bayard, Sec, of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, Feb. 15, 1888,

For. Rel. 1888, I. 510, 511.

“A child born abroad of American parents, or in the United States of foreign parents, although subject to the parental domicil during minority, has, ou becoming sui juris, the right of election of citizenship; and, in the event of choosing American nationality, the best proof of such election is to be furnished by continued residence in the United States, or by return hither, if abroad, and the discharge of the duties and obligations of the elected citizenship.”

Mr Bayard, Sec. of State, to Count Sponneck, Danish min., April 10,

1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 489. To the same effect—that the child, while a minor, partakes of the father's

“ nationality and domicil," with a right “when he becomes of full age to elect his nationality'_see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McClernan, Oct. 29, 1885, 157 MS. Dom. Let. 482.

See, also, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Stallo, No. 48, Feb. 17, 1887,

MS. Inst. Italy, II. 3H.

A's father came to the United States in 1849, and in 1854 was naturalized. He then left the United States, and afterwards remained abroad, dwelling after 1878 in Germany, where, about 1888, he died. A was born in London in 1864; and in 1889, when nearly twenty-five years old, his father being dead, applied to the American legation in Berlin for a passport. He had never been in America, and the only statement he made with regard to his intentions was that he expected to go to the United States “ within the next five years." It was conceded that A., having been born abroad to an American father (assuming that the latter had not at the time renounced his American naturalization), was, under the laws of the United States, an American citizen, with a right on attaining his majority to elect American nationality; that such election might have been manifested “ by his coming to the United States and assuming the duties and responsibilities of American citizenship;" that, as there was no allegation that he was prevented from so doing, it was to be inferred that his subsequent claim of such citizenship was “ founded solely upon considerations of personal convenience;" and that the Department of State “ would fail in its duty to the people of the United States if it permitted the high privileges of American citizenship to be so used."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State. to Messrs. Shellabarger & Wilson, May 21, 1889,

173 MS. Dom. Let. 152.

A. F. was born in Louisiana in 1863 of a native German father, who was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1859. The father died in 1867, and in the following year A. F. went with his mother to Hamburg, where he had since continuously resided. In 1891 A. F. got a passport from the legation of the United States, alleging that he intended to return to the United States within two years. He applied in 1893 for its renewal. Held, that he had elected German citizenship and was not entitled to a passport.

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lainfield, June 2, 1894, 197 MS. Dom.

Let. 231.
It is to be observed that in this case the father's naturalization, as well

as the son's birth, took place before the conclusion of the naturaliza-
tion treaties with the North German States.

Edward Kovacsy was born in the city of New York in 1874. His father was a native of Hungary, who emigrated to the United States in 1871 and was naturalized in 1876, two years after Edward's birth. In 1878 the father returned with his family to his native home, where they afterwards continuously resided. The father claimed to have preserved his American citizenship, but he was engaged in business in Hungary, had reared and educated his son there, and declared that he never had had any intention to return to the United States, unless for a visit, since he left it in 1878. In 1895 Edward, being then 21 years of age, was summoned to appear for examination as a soldier in the Hungarian army. The father appealed to the United States legation for its intervention, on the ground that his son was an American citizen. The son declared that he did not intend to go to America to reside, but expected to remain in Hungary during his natural life. The minister of the United States at Vienna refused to issue him a passport or otherwise to intervene in his behalf, unless he would elect to go to America and in good faith take upon himself the duties of citizenship there. This condition having been declined, the minister refused to interfere, saying that he would accept nothing less “ than an actual renouncement of the domicil so long maintained in Hungary and a return to the United States in good faith to make it his permanent home.” His action was approved.

Mr. Tripp, min. at Vienna, to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, June 30, 1895; Mr.

Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Tripp, July 23, 1895; For. Rel. 1895, 1. 20–22.

“As you allege that your father, a naturalized citizen of the United States,' settled ' in Cuba in 1820, where he married, reared his family and apparently resided until his death, there may be some question whether at the time of the birth of his children he had not abandoned his American citizenship. Admitting, however, that your father was a citizen of the United States at the date of your birth, you and your brothers, in order to conserve your American citizenship, should, on reaching your majority, have come to the United States to reside. You are no longer children.' Your citizenship is no longer derivative, but a matter of personal election. You did not come to the United States on attaining your majority, nor do you now express any intention of ever coming to this country to reside. You are therefore, in the Department's opinion, clearly not entitled to claim the protection of this Government."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ory, Dec. 27, 1895, 206 MS. Dom. Let.

009. See, to the same effect, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Desvignes, April 2, 1896, 209 MS. Dom. Let. 139.

As a rule, the question of election assumes a practical form, in consequence of a claim made to the individual's allegiance by the country in which he actually resides. In 1896, however, the question of renunciation was mooted, in a case where, the two original allegiances being American and German, the German Government held that the individual, who was then residing in Alsace, had, by reason of previous residence as a minor with his father for twelve years in France,

« PreviousContinue »