Page images

Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 223; Revised Statutes, $$ 1999, 2000, 2001.
For correspondence concerning the cases of Warren and Costello, as well

as other cases of American citizens arrested in Ireland, see message
of February 10, 1868, H. Ex. Doc. 157, 40 Cong. 2 sess., and also the
papers published in Dip. Cor., 1866, vol. I. See, also, Moore's

American Diplomacy, 183–188.
As to the interest excited by the arrests above referred to see Mr.

Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Adams, min. to England, Jan. 13,
1868, II. Ex. Doc. 157, 40 Cong. 2 sess. 298, and Mr. Seward, Sec. of
State, to Mr. Thornton, Brit. min., private, June 9, 1868, MS. Notes

to Great Britain, XIV. 359. In an instruction to Mr. Johnson, July 20, 1868, with reference to nego

tiations for the adjustment of various questions between the two countries, Mr. Seward said: “ The so-called naturalization question is the one which first and most urgently requires attention. The political institutions of the United States may in one sense be said to have for their foundation the principle of the right of individual men in any country, who are neither accused nor convicted of crime, to change their homes and allegiance according to the dictates of their own judgments and consciences and the inspiration of their individual desires for liberty and happiness. . As naturalized citizens of the United States, Irishmen and their descendants have a right to visit Great Britain, and to be safe in their persons and property there so long as they practice due submission to the authority of Great Britain, the same as native citizens of the United States.

The British Government announces to us that it is disposed to remove this embarrassment by accepting the principle of the validity of our laws of naturalization in regard to British subjects.” Mr. Seward suggested the treaties with the German States as a basis on which to adjust the controversy. (Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Johnson, min. to England, July 20, 1868, Dip. Cor., 1868, I. 328, 329.) See, also, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. John

son, min. to England, No. 20, Sept. 23, 1868, Dip. Cor., 1868, I. 354. By the act of Parliament, May 14, 1870, any British subject who, when

in any foreign state and not under any disability, voluntarily becomes naturalized in such state, ceases to be a British subject and

is regarded as an alien.
As to the right of expatriation, see Jefferson's Works, VII. 73; John

Adam's Works, VII. 174, IX. 313, 314, 321, X. 282.
The declaration in the act of July 27, 1868, that the right of expatriation

is “a natural and inherent right of all people," applies to citizens
of the United States who seek to exercise it as well as to those of

other countries. (Williams, At.-Gen., 1873, 14 Op. 295.) As to the modern English doctrine concerning expatriation, see 4 Philli

more, Int. Law (2d ed.), 195; and, as to the terms of naturalization in various states, see ('alvo, Droit International (5th ed.), II. lib. 8.



$ 410.

“Austria allows no exemption from the obligation of military service to persons who have emigrated, especially those who emigrated without permission, and near the period at which they would have become subject to conscription. Although the release of an American citizen might be obtained as a matter of faror, not of admitted right, he would be exposed to arrest, detention, and expense before his discharge could be obtained.”

Mr. E. Peshine Smith, licitor of the Dept. of State, to Mr. Grauer,

Sept. 8, 1869, 82 MS. Dom. Let. 49.

“ Naturalized and native-born citizens are entitled to the same protection from the Government when in a foreign country; and both in such case are ordinarily subject to the laws of such country, and are bound to observe such laws to the same extent to which its own citizens or subjects are bound."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fox, consul at Trinidad de Cuba, May 3,

1869, S. Ex. Doc. 108, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 202.

“ This Government has insisted upon a distinction between persons who emigrate to the United States, under a prospective liability to military service which has not yet matured, and those who emigrate to avoid a military duty which has been definitely fixed upon them. In the first case it has maintained that the emigrant after naturalization in this country ought not to be subjected to punishment. Some of the Continental governments have admitted this distinction, Austria has not; and the question remains open, in the hope that it may be solved by treaty. The result is that, if you voluntarily put yourself within Austrian jurisdiction, this Government can only represent your case to the consideration of Austria as a matter of comity and favor. You may possibly be unmolested. If, however, the local authorities should arrest you, your release may be effected, if at all, after some detention, inconvenience, and expense, against which it is impossible to guarantee you."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mintz, Feb. 1, 1870, 83 MS. Dom. Let. 211.


" H. E. the President of the Republic has been informed that certain Ecuadorians, bound to this soil by the powerful tie of birth, have believed themselves to have the right to be registered as foreigners by the diplomatic or consular agents resident in the Republic, consummating this action with the condemnable view of exonerating themselves from the sacred duty that both nature and law impose upon them. In consequence, he has been pleased to declare on this date, as charged with guarding and having guarded the constitution, that, being Ecuadorians according to it (art. 5, sec. 1st), those born in the territory of Ecuador can not lose their character as such, nor by the same can they become free from the duties to which they find themselves subject by the home legislation, although with said intent they inscribe themselves in any book or list of foreigners.”

Circular of Mr. Salazar, Min. of Interior of Ecuador, Sept. 11, 1869, en

closed with Mr. Wing, min. to Ecuador, to Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, No. 81, Feb. 28, 1871, 9 MS. Desp. Ecuador.

“With regard to the provisions of the circular, it is deemed expedient to state that so far as the title to protection of soi-disant American citizens rests only on their being registered at the legation or a consulate, we need not object to the Ecuadorian Government regarding such record as inconclusive. On the other hand, we can not admit that the rights of bona fide citizens, under international law and treaties, can be prejudiced by an Executive decree or even a more authoritative form of legislation."

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wing, min. to Ecuador, April 19, 1871,

MS. Inst. Ecuador, I. 270.

With reference to the statement of Chief Justice Marshali, 2 Cranch, 119, that the situation of an alien “is completely changed where, by his own act, he has made himself the subject of a foreign power,” and that such an act “ certainly places him out of the protection of the United States while within the territory of the sovereign to whom he has sworn allegiance," Mr. Fish said: “ It seems to this Department that the individual right of expatriation which was thus referred to by Chief Justice Marshall is recognized by that clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution which makes subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States an element of citizenship. This conclusion is strengthened by the simultaneous action of Congress.” The “ simultaneous action ” of Congress, as explained by Mr. Fish, comprised (1) the passage of the amendment by Congress, June 16, 1866, (2) Mr. Seward's official announcement that the amendment had been ratified, July 20, 1868, and (3) the passage by Congress of the act declaring expatriation to be “a natural and inherent right of all people,” July 27, 1868.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, min. to France, June 28, 1873,

For..Rel. 1873, I. 256, 257.

“When an alien applies to be admitted to citizenship in this country, having undergone the probation, and in all other respects complied with the laws on the subject of naturalization, and in open court solemnly avows his allegiance to the United States, and with the same solemnity renounces his allegiance to every other Government, and especially to that of the country of his birth, and is found to be of good moral character, he is admitted to such citizenship; and is thenceforth clothed and invested with the same rights and privileges that pertain to native citizens of the country, and entitled to the same degree of protection, whether al road or at home."

Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, min. to Switzerland, July

28, 1883, MS, Inst. Switz. II. 187.

“ This Government recognizes neither by its laws nor its practice any distinction between a native and a naturalized citizen. Both are alike entitled to the protection of the Government, abroad as well as at home, and each has such protection extended to him in the same measure under proper conditions. Each case must of course rest on its own facts and circumstances,"

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

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

“Questions concerning our citizens in Turkey may be affected by the Porte's non-acquiescence in the right of expatriation and by the imposition of religious tests as a condition of residence, in which this Government can not concur. The United States must hold, in their intercourse with every power, that the status of their citizens is to be respected and equal civil privileges accorded to them without regard to creed, and affected by no considerations save those growing out of domiciliary return to the land of original allegiance, or of unfulfilled personal obligations which may survive, under municipal laws, after such voluntary return."

President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 8, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, xiv.

“ This Government, maintaining the doctrine of voluntary expatriation, has always held that its citizens are free to divest themselves of their allegiance by emigration and other acts manifesting an intention to do so. Mere residence abroad is not, however, construed as an abandonment of allegiance. It is only when such residence is accompanied by acts inconsistent with allegiance to the United States or indicative of an intention to abandon it, that this Government holds it to have been renounced.

" This doctrine applies as well to native-born as to naturalized citizens, and also to children born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were, at the time of the birth of such children, citizens of the United States. But the laws of the United States declare that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children born out of the country, whose fathers never resided in the United States."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Col. Frey, Swiss min., May 20, 1887, MS.

Notes to Switz. I. 158.

“Questions continue to arise in our relations with several countries in respect to the rights of naturalized citizens. Especially is this the case with France, Italy, Russia, and Turkey, and to a less extent with Switzerland. From time to time earnest efforts have been made to regulate this subject by conventions with those countries. An improper use of naturalization should not be permitted, but it is most important that those who have been duly naturalized should everywhere be accorded recognition of the rights pertaining to the citizenship of the country of their adoption. The appropriateness of special conventions for that purpose is recognized in treaties which this Government has concluded with a number of European states, and it is advisable that the difficulties which now arise in our relations with other countries on the same subject should be similarly adjusted."

President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 3, 1889, For. Rel. 1889, viii.

“ The resolution [of the Senate, Jan. 16, 1896), further inquires:

66 " Whether naturalized citizens of the United States of Armenian birth have the same rights and protection in that country as have naturalized citizens of Great Britain, France, Germany, or Russia.

“As to this, the privilege claimed by the Government of the United States for such citizens by naturalization in the country of origin is greater than that claimed by any one of the four Governments named. A very general rule among Governments of the European continent, and one which obtains in principle with respect to Great Britain also, is that no alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the state by naturalization except upon production of proof that his change of allegiance is permitted by the sovereign of whom he is already a dependent.

“ In the case of Great Britain this rule is somewhat differently applied. The British statute of naturalization prescribes that the naturalization of an alien shall be without force and effect should he return to the country of his original allegiance, unless by the laws thereof or by treaty between that country and Great Britain his change of status is recognized, and an indorsement in the language of the naturalization act is made upon all British passports issued to aliens as follows:

666 This passport is granted with the qualification that the bearer shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject previously to obtaining his certificate of naturalization, be deemed a British subject, unless he has ceased to be a subject of that state in pursuance of the laws thereof or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect.'

“ The United States minister at Constantinople has heretofore reported that naturalized Armenian or other Turkish subjects of Great Britain, France, Germany, or Russia returning to the jurisdiction of

« PreviousContinue »