ernment under whose jurisdiction this foreigner is, and of it alone, to decide whether the aforesaid foreigner has complied with the law of his country of origin, for, if consent is, as you very justly remark, an indispensable element to the validity of the contract conferring nationality, other conditions can be required as well." M. Goblet added, however, that, while entirely reserving the question of principle involved, his colleague, the minister of war, had consented, as an "act of courtesy," to grant leaves of absence to Arbios and Fruchier till the time of the expiration of the terms of active service which they, respectively, owed; and he added that both the minister of war and himself were quite ready to examine any proposals which might be presented for the general settlement of such questions between the two governments.

Mr. McLane, min. to France, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, Jan. 24, 1888; Mr. Bayard to Mr. McLane, Feb. 15, 1888; Mr. McLane to Mr. Bayard, April 27, 1888: For. Rel. 1888, I. 502, 510, 530–532.

. In the earlier stages of the Arbios case Mr. Bayard wrote to Mr. McLane that he must leave to his "good judgment the propriety and probabilities of success of any further appeal to the French Government." (April 30, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 293.)

Aug. 25, 1887, the legation, in reply to an inquiry from the Department
of State as to the condition of the case, reported that, as the in-
structions of the 30th of April were understood to be discretionary,
it was not deemed advisable further to press the case at that time,
since nothing could be gained by so doing. (Mr. Vignaud to Mr.
Bayard, Aug. 25, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 350.)
"In the absence of conventional agreement as to naturalization, which
is greatly to be desired, this Government sees no occasion to recede
from the sound position it has maintained not only with regard to
France but as to all countries with which the United States have
not concluded special treaties." (President Cleveland, annual mes-
sage, Dec. 3, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. xiii.)

"Your letter of the 15th instant, inquiring whether a naturalized Ameri-
can citizen, born in France, would be subject to military duty in
case he should revisit his native country, has been received.
"In reply. I must inform you that your inquiry belongs to a class re-
specting which the Department of State refrains from expressing an
authoritative opinion in advance of a case actually arising and
calling for diplomatic intervention. It may, however, be stated that
the Department's understanding of the general French rule in such
cases is, that when a male child is born in France, the fact is regis-
tered at the place of birth and transmitted to the proper prefecture
as of one eventually liable to military duty. On the completion of
the twentieth year the individual is summoned to present himself
at a designated place. If residing abroad, the notice is served on
him through his consul, or through the parents and relations resid-
ing in France." (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wollner, Oct. 24,
1885, 157 MS. Dom. Let. 442.)

"On the 22d of last March you were kind enough to write me with a view of obtaining the erasure from the conscription list of our

army of the name of Mr. Victor Poidebard, born in Lyons on June 5, 1871, and who became an American citizen through the naturalization of his father in the United States.

"The minister of war, to whom I immediately transmitted your communication, observes, firstly, that according to the terms of article 17 of the civil code, modified by the law passed on the 26th of June, 1889, a Frenchman still subject to the obligations of active military service can not lose his French nationality by means of naturalization in a foreign country unless this naturalization has been authorized by the French Government. Under these circumstances the only request that Mr. Poidebard could consistently make was to ask of the Government of the Republic their authorization to his becoming a naturalized American.

"Gen. Loizillon thought it his duty to examine carefully this point in order to see if such a favor could be granted in this special case, and he was obliged to realize that such a decision would have the serious disadvantage of encouraging young Frenchmen to become naturalized in a foreign country in order to avoid military service, which would not fail to provoke violent protestation on the part of those families having relatives in the service.

"Mr. Poidebard, it is true, could have availed himself of the dispensation contained in article 50 of the law of July 15, 1889, on recruiting, by claiming he moved to the United States before the age of 19, and had not since then made a longer stay in France than three months; but he failed to claim this dispensation before the court of revision of the class of 1891, which alone, according to the terms of article 18 of the aforesaid law, is privileged to act in this respect. Consequently he is definitely debarred from having recourse to this channel.

"Under these circumstances my colleague, the minister of war, charges me to express to you his regrets that he finds himself unable to reply favorably to your request.”

Mr. Develle, French min. of foreign affairs, to Mr. Coolidge, ambassador to France, May 2, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 301.

Mr. Coolidge stated in the note to which the foregoing was a reply, that Poidebard had become a naturalized citizen of the United States not only through the naturalization of his father, but also by independent admission to citizenship after he became of age. (Mr. Coolidge to Mr. Develle, March 22, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 300-301.)

Arthur D. Hubinoit, otherwise known as Arthur D. Bennett, a native of France, was brought, when two years old, to the United States, where, at the age of 24, he was naturalized. Returning then to France, he was arrested and tried on a charge of insoumission. He was acquitted, but was held still to be French; and, having passed

the age of active military service, he was placed on the list of reserves, and permission was given him to proceed to Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where any military notice would reach him. When released he had, as he stated, spent all his money, and he desired to hold the French Government responsible pecuniarily for his loss of time and the cost of his return to the United States. The embassy of the United States at Paris replied that it had, under instructions, requested his discharge by the French Government, but that it could not, without further instructions, present his pecuniary claim.

"Your response to Mr. Hubinoit's inquiry was discreet and proper. It is not recalled that the solicited discharge of an American citizen from military duty in a foreign country has been followed by a successful claim for reparation for actual loss and injury sustained. Certainly no claim of exemplary damages has been preferred. As a general thing the interested party is satisfied with his release from the embarrassing situation in which he had been placed by his inadvertent return to his original jurisdiction, and this is especially so when there is probable cause for proceedings against him, as in the present instance, when the naturalization of Mr. Hubinoit under another name required somewhat elaborate proof to establish his asserted identity.

"There have, however, been instances where a foreign government has graciously compensated a person erroneously detained and released, for actual loss of time or money, and if the circumstances of the present case appear, in the judgment of the embassy, to warrant an informal suggestion to the French Government in this regard, it is possible that it might be taken into kindly consideration without formal admission of liability in the premises."

Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, chargé d'affaires ad int., Aug. 12, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 146.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th ultimo. It appears from your statement that you were born in France and when twenty years of age came to the United States; that your parents, under the obligation imposed by French law upon parents whose children are absent from France at the period of drafting for military duty, registered you as a French citizen and you were drafted; that you remained in the United States, however, taking steps to become naturalized here, and that you were finally admitted to citizenship in December, 1889. The Department understands that the failure of a French citizen to perform military service, after being drafted, constitutes an offence against French military law. Should you voluntarily place yourself within French jurisdiction you would be subject to the laws of France. In the

absence of a treaty of naturalization between the United States and France, this Government cannot guarantee immunity from arrest or punishment under these laws. Should occasion arise, however, this Department, through the embassy in Paris, would extend to you any proper assistance."

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Darche, March 6, 1900, 243 MS. Dom.
Let. 360.

Emile Robin was born in France January 9, 1869. After he had served in the active army the full term of three years, he proceeded to the United States, where he was naturalized March 31, 1901. Though released from the active service, he was still liable to service in the reserve in the active army, and therefore, under the law of June 26, 1889, new art. 17 of the Code, he could not renounce his French nationality without the consent of the Government. At his urgent request the American embassy in Paris applied to the French Government for his complete discharge from all military obligations in France. The French Government replied: "By the terms of Article 17 of the Civil Code, if a Frenchman is still subject to the obligations of military service in the active army, naturalization abroad will not cause him to lose the quality of Frenchman unless it was authorized by the French Government. As Mr. Robin would have been transferred to the territorial army only on March 12, 1903, he was subject to the formality of an authorization when he acquired in 1900 his American naturalization. That authorization not having been applied for, the naturalization acquired in America by Mr. Robin is without value in the eyes of the French Government."

Mr. Delcassé, min. of foreign affairs, to Mr. Vignaud, U. S. chargé, Oct. 31, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 157.

"It frequently happens that American citizens of French origin apply for reliable information concerning their position in regard to the French military and nationality laws. In view of such inquiries I send the following report, which may interest the Department as well as enlighten those having any concern in the matter, if it is deemed advisable to make it public.

"Various communications from this embassy have acquainted the Department with the different provisions of the French law on nationality of June 26, 1889, which is the only one applicable to the cases now under consideration. I refer particularly to Mr. Reid's No. 29, of July 16, 1889 (Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 276), and to my Nos. 513, of April 7, 1892 (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 295), and 47, of August 22, 1893 (Foreign Relations, 1893, p. 303).

"It is proposed now to inform more fully the Department with regard to the official construction of the clause of that law which

relates to naturalization in connection with military service and to the manner it is applied to American citizens of French origin.

"According to that clause, article 17 of the Civil Code is now made. to declare that a Frenchman naturalized abroad does not cease to be French if he is still subject to military service in the active army, unless his naturalization was obtained with the consent of the French Government. Nothing in the law indicates whether this clause is to be applied to those who had failed to discharge their military obligations before the law was passed, or simply to those who had committed that offense after the law was enacted. The language, also, of the law is not very explicit with regard to what is meant by the active army.' The period of service in that army is only for three years, but from the active army every Frenchman passes first into the reserve, in which the period of service is seven years, after which period he is transferred to the territorial army. Was it to be understood that the period during which a Frenchman can not renounce French citizenship without the consent of his Government embraced the whole time during which his military services were due in both the active army and the reserve of that army?

"The ruling of the French Government in the cases submitted to its consideration by this embassy have settled these points, and it is now possible to state the exact meaning of the law according to the French Government, and what the position is of a Frenchman naturalized abroad without the consent of his Government, before having been discharged from the French active army.

"With regard to the meaning of the law it is understood now:

"(1) That it has a retroactive effect; it applies to those who have avoided military service and acquired another nationality before as well as after the law was enacted.

"(2) That the words 'active army' mean both the active and the reserve of the active army; and

"(3) That the expression 'If he is still subject to military service,' is to be understood as applying to the date at which the naturalization was obtained.

"Under this construction the law, is made to have the following effect:

"The Frenchman naturalized abroad without the consent of his Government, who at the date of his naturalization was still subject to military service in the active army or in the reserve of the active army, remains French, and as such is amenable to the military laws of France.

"Not having responded to the notice calling him to accomplish the three years' military service which every Frenchman has to perform, he is placed on the list of those charged with insoumission-noncompliance with the national military laws-and if found under the