Turkey are not claimed by their adopted Governments as citizens, nor protected as such, except upon proof that their change of allegiance has been permitted, or is recognized, by the Government of Turkey." Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 22, 1896, S. Doe. 83, 54 Cong., 1 sess.; For. Rel. 1895, II. 1471, 1473. "Our statutes do not allow this Government to admit any distinction between the treatment of native and naturalized Americans abroad, so that ceaseless controversy arises in cases where persons owing in the eye of international law a dual allegiance are prevented from entering Turkey or are expelled after entrance. Our law in this regard contrasts with that of the European States. The British act, for instance, does not claim effect for the naturalization of an alien in the event of his return to his native country, unless the change be recognized by the law of that country or stipulated by treaty between it and the naturalizing State." President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1899, For. Rel. 1899, xxxi. The Department of State does not issue certificates of renunciation of citizenship to Americans who wish to abjure their allegiance and adopt that of another power. "It recognizes their right to do so in time of peace, and does not issue to them a certificate of its consent, none such being provided for by our laws." Mr. Loomis, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Hengelmuller, Austro-Hungarian ambass., No. 49, Dec. 23, 1903, For. Rel. 1903, 20. 4. LAW OF PARTICULAR COUNTRIES. (1) CHINA. § 441. "Your communication of the 17th ultimo, containing an inclosure of a translation of section celv. of the penal code of China, as translated by Sir George Thomas Staunton, and inquiring whether the same correctly represents the law, and whether it is now understood to be in force in all or any part of the dominions of His Imperial Majesty,' was duly received, and I have the honor to say in reply that section celv. of the Chinese penal code referred to has no reference whatever to Chinese emigration as contemplated in and sanctioned by the Burlingame treaty. Under the general head of Renunciation of allegiance,' the specific acts so carefully defined, with their corresponding punishments, point to the presumptive existence of a lesser or greater degree of treasonable intent against the Government, and it contemplates conspiracies and overt acts of rebellion against the Government as being the logical sequence of renunciation of allegiance, which antecedes them both in time and existence; hence their classification under that head or section. Emigration, as sanctioned by foreign treaties, is taken out of the category of treasonable acts, and is therefore beyond the scope of the section. "In Article V. of the Burlingame treaty we find this language, which is conclusive on this point: The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance."" Mr. Yung Wing, Chinese min., to Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, March 2, 1880, The translation referred to reads as follows: "All persons renouncing their country and allegiance, or devising the "The property of all such criminals shall be confiscated, and their wives "Those who inform against and bring to justice criminals of this descrip- "Those who are privy to the perpetration of this crime and yet omit to give any notice or information thereof to the magistrates shall be punished with 100 blows, and banished perpetually to the distance of 3,000 li. "If the crime is contrived, but not executed, the principal shall be strangled and all the accessories shall each of them be punished with 100 blows and perpetual banishment to the distance of 3,000 li. "If those who are privy to such ineffective contrivance do not give due notice and information thereof to the magistrates, they shall be punished with 100 blows and banished for three years. "All persons who refuse to surrender themselves to the magistrates when required, and seek concealment in mountains and desert places in order to evade either the performance of their duty or the punishment due to their crimes, shall be held guilty of an intent to rebel, and shall therefore suffer punishment in the manner by this law provided. If such persons have recourse to violence and defend themselves when pursued, by force of arms, they shall be held guilty of an overt act of rebellion, and punished accordingly." (Id. 301.) (2) FRANCE. § 442. "It is understood that the French Government claims military service from all natives of France who may be found within its jurisdiction. Your naturalization in this country will not exempt you from that claim if you should voluntarily repair thither." Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Le Clerc, May 17, 1859, 50 MS. Dom. Let. 318. "With France, our ancient and powerful ally, our relations continue to be of the most friendly character. A decision has recently been made by a French judicial tribunal, with the approbation of the Imperial Government, which can not fail to foster the sentiments of mutual regard which have so long existed between the two countries. Under the French law no one can serve in the armies of France unless he be a French citizen. The law of France recognizing the natural right of expatriation, it follows as a necessary consequence that a Frenchman, by the fact of having become a citizen of the United States has changed his allegiance and has lost his native character. He can not, therefore, be compelled to serve in the French armies in case he should return to his native country. These principles were announced in 1852 by the French minister of war, and in two late cases have been confirmed by the French judiciary. In these, two natives of France have been discharged from the French army because they had become American citizens. To employ the language of our present minister to France, who has rendered good service on this occasion, I do not think our French naturalized fellow-citizens will hereafter experience much annoyance on this subject.'" 66 President Buchanan, annual message, Dec. 3, 1860, Richardson's Messages and Papers, V. 640. This passage related to the cases of Mr. Puyoon and Mr. Zeiter, who were, respectively, discharged by judicial tribunals, at Toulouse and Wessenbourg, from military service, on the ground of their naturalization in the United States. (Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Faulkner, min. to France, Oct. 3, 1860, MS. Inst. France, XV. 487.) Although French tribunals have, within the last few years, fully recognized in several cases the legal efficacy which this Government claims for an act of naturalization accorded by the laws of the United States, still the expensive and protracted ordeal through which the laws of France require a naturalized American citizen of French birth to pass, in order to establish the fact of his nationality, is a grievance to which such natives of France are liable to be subjected upon returning to that country, and, if so subjected, would have to be borne by them, notwithstanding the interposition of this Government in their behalf." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Monton, Feb. 24, 1862, 56 MS. Dom. Let. 403. "In those papers [dispatches, No. 302, April 13, and No. 303, April 14, 1866] you have given us an account of your intervention in the cases of George Schneider, J. Baptiste Cochener, François Pierre, and Frederick Lodry, severally. Each of those persons, though a native of France, was naturalized in the United States, and two of them served in our military forces during the recent war. Each of them having returned to France bearing a passport of this Government was arrested, cast into prison, and detained a painful period, awaiting trial for 'refractoriness' against conscription as a crime against the [civil] laws of the empire. . . . "In regard to the general subject of the dishonor in France of our passports of naturalized citizens, the President thinks it desirable that you should solicit a conference with Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys. "In such a conference you may say to him that we appreciate the difficulties and the delicacy of a conflict between immunities demanded by the passport and the laws of military conscription. We have encountered the embarrassment of that conflict in our late civil war. The result of our late experience is that a foreign passport may be safely taken as furnishing presumptive evidence of a title to exemption from military service, so long at least as the government which grants the passport shall be found to be acting in good faith and in conformity with the law of nations. "2d. That when a person representing himself to be an alien, and whether producing a passport or not, is conscripted, he shall be at liberty to present his claim, with evidence in its support to a competent military tribunal, by which the case shall be heard summarily. A discharge by such military tribunal to be final. If, on the contrary, the claim of an alien is overruled by the military tribunal, then the discharge, with the facts relative to the case shall be remitted to the minister of state charged with the conduct of foreign affairs. "At every stage of the case the representatives of the nation whose protection is invoked are allowed to intervene. If the department of foreign affairs decides the claim of alienage to be well taken, the conscript is immediately released. If, on the contrary, the claim of alienage is denied by that department, then it becomes a subject of diplomatic discussion. "A considerable proportion of the inhabitants of the United States are foreigners, either naturalized or unnaturalized. They came to us from all the nations of Europe, as well as from American states. We raised in four years not altogether without conscription armies unparalleled in numerical force, yet cases of injustice and hardship, resulting from the denial of justice on the plea of alienage, are believed to have been very rare. "You will submit to Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys in a friendly manner and spirit, the question whether it may not be found practicable to make some modification of the imperial military laws in conformity with these suggestions. "All the vigor of invention, all the resources of commerce, and all the influences of civilization combine to stimulate intercourse between citizens and subjects of friendly states. Care ought to be taken by every government not to obstruct this intercourse unnecessarily, or to suffer occasions for the wounding of national sensibilities to arise, where they can be prevented. "I feel sure that the enlightened Government of France will concur in these sentiments." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bigelow, min. to France, May 7, 1866, MS. Inst. France, XVII. 568; Dip. Cor. 1866, I. 304. For Mr. Bigelow's Nos. 302 and 303, see Dip. Cor. 1866, I. 291, 297. “I have received your letter of the 11th instant, and have to state in reply that the subject of the right of naturalized citizens of the United States to exemption from military proscription in the countries of their birth, is the subject of correspondence; and until some. arrangement upon principles on the subject shall have been arrived at, the only thing the United States Government can do in the way of interposition is to direct its diplomatic agents to exert their good offices in such cases when they occur. France is an exception to this condition of things, and it is only necessary for a Frenchman who has been fully naturalized in the United States, on his return to France to report at once to the mairie of the district in which his name is enrolled, producing his evidences of nationality and ask to have his name erased from the conscription list, when, according to the laws of France, he is exempt from military service." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Theirneck, July 20, 1866, 73 MS. Dom. "Your letter of the 11th instant, inquiring whether after a residence of |