yan, on the ground that their passports did not show that they left the Ottoman Empire prior to the promulgation of the law of 1869 forbidding Turkish subjects to leave the country without permission to become naturalized in another country. The refusal referred to, for the reason alleged, seems so extraordinary, at least, that you will protest against it, and endeavor to have it corrected so far as it may have been or may be applied to the persons above referred to. 66 Passports are issued by this Department to naturalized citizens upon the production of the certificate of naturalization. There is no law of the United States requiring a passport to state when a naturalized citizen left the country of his birth, or to embody that statement in the passport. It has not been the practice of this Department to insert such a statement in the passports issued to former Turkish subjects or to any other naturalized citizens. A different course might imply that the right of the foreign government to participate in or to make the naturalization of its subjects conditional was acknowledged here. This it has never been and probably never will be." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Emmet, chargé at Constantinople, May 29, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, 847. See, as to the similar case of Mr. Chryssofondis, For. Rel. 1885, 849, 852, 855. "The Imperial ministry has received the dispatch that the legation of the United States of America was pleased to address to it, dated the 15th of July last, No. 251, relative to the naturalization of Kevork Guligyan and Bedros Iskiyan. "The competent bureau of my department, after having taken cognizance of this document, remarks that the claims of the persons in question could not be admitted, inasmuch as they have exhibited no document in support of them except a simple passport. Now, such a document is not of itself sufficient to give a native Ottoman subject a foreign nationality. "The examination of the certificate of naturalization delivered by the foreign government is indispensable. In fact, it is important to establish under what condition the naturalization has been acquired, for no naturalization obtained without the authorization of the Imperial Government is valid unless it took place in legal form before the promulgation of the law on Ottoman nationality, and any naturalization subsequent to this law is considered as being null, if the formalities prescribed in article 5 are not fulfilled. "This is, in a general way, the line of proceeding followed for the verification of nationalities, and the competent bureau cannot depart from it in the special case of the two aforementioned persons.' Said Pasha, Turkish min. of for. aff., to Mr. Cox, Am. min., Oct. 15, 1885, I have received your No. 35, of the 24th ultimo, having especial reference to the cases of the naturalized American citizens, Kevork Guligyan and Bedros Iskiyan, whose registration in the Turkish bureau of nationality is refused on the sole evidence of their passports, and embracing general considerations on the subject of the right of expatriation. "It would appear from your remarks that these two persons seek registration as foreigners, in order to be qualified to hold real estate as such. If Turkish law imposes a disability as to the tenure of real property upon a Turk who has become naturalized elsewhere without the previous consent of his Government, then the question would be one of the subjection to municipal regulations of those who have voluntarily placed themselves thereunder, in a matter over which those regulations have sovereign and exclusive control. And the Turkish Government having the right to investigate the cases of persons applying, as foreigners, for the privilege of holding lands, or for any other personal privilege over which municipal laws have control, it would seem to have the right to demand of them such evidence as would enable it to ascertain whether the applicants labor under any disqualification, and, in the event of their refusal to produce such evidence, to withhold the privilege sought. "If, therefore, registration in the bureau of nationality were sought by the two men in question merely as a formality whereby to qualify themselves for municipal rights, this Government could not object to the application in their case of any reasonable test or mode of trial to ascertain whether any legal disability existed to prevent the concession of the privilege sought. "I am not sure, however, that the matter is capable of consideration within these narrow limits. It seems to trench upon the broad question of the right of expatriation, and to involve application to any and all Turks who, being naturalized in the United States, may return to Turkey. "This Government has never admitted, and can not now admit, the doctrine for which the Porte contends. Within our domestic jurisdiction we are bound to uphold and enforce the right of expatriation, and our assertion of that right follows to every foreign country the alien who has become a citizen of the United States by due process of law, and regards him as the equal of a native-born American citizen. We may not abandon the assertion of that right in favor of the counter assertion of the Government of such a person's original allegiance. "The laws of the United States thus inhibiting absolutely any discrimination between their native-born and naturalized citizens, the same form of passport is prescribed for all alike, and, under international law, is to be accepted everywhere as prima facie evidence of nationality. Our duty is limited to the positive one of lawfully certi fying the fact of American citizenship, and this Government cannot be expected to go beyond the bounds of its powers and duty by assenting to such a contention on the part of a foreign government as would, if logically carried out, involve the negative obligation to show that the citizen had not at some previous time been subject to another power. "I am aware of no government whose contention in this regard appears to go as far as that of Turkey. Other sovereign states, it is true, deny the right of expatriation without prior consent, but none, to my knowledge, imposes upon every alien resorting to its territory the burden of disproof. "The contention of Turkey may in fact be found to go even further, and assert a power on the part of the Porte to forbid the government of the state whose citizenship a Turk may have lawfully acquired from diplomatic intervention in his behalf, if the Turkish law declares him to be still a subject of the Porte. I do not know that this is so; I trust it is not. There may be an analogy, however, between the Turkish rule of registration and the Mexican law of matriculation. In Mexico, all foreigners are required to deposit their passports in the ministry of state at the capital and take out a certificate of matriculation, which is alone admitted as evidence of their rights as foreigners in that country. Failing such registry, they can assert no civil or judicial rights of alienage; and the law even proclaims that no diplomatic intervention of their government will be admitted in their behalf under whatever circumstances. The United States have for years contested this position, asserting that no municipal statute of another country can overthrow the reciprocal relations of a foreigner with his own government, or impair the obligation of the latter to intervene for his protection in case of wrong or denial of justice. “ "But, extreme as is the Mexican position, it merely rests on the execution of a formality. It accepts the passport as the evidence of alienage, and simply substitutes, for municipal effects, one form of indiscriminating certifications for another. "The Turkish rule, on the contrary, rests on a vital discrimination between classes of foreigners; it imposes a burden of proof unknown elsewhere, and it assumes not merely to treat certain persons as Turks until the contrary is shown, but to make them Turks. “The question is, in its broadest aspect, one of conflict between the laws of sovereign equals. The authority of each is paramount within its own jurisdiction. We recognize expatriation as an individual right. Turkey, almost solely among nations, holds to the generally abandoned doctrine of perpetual allegiance. Turkey can no more expect us to renounce our fundamental doctrine in respect of our citizens within her territory than she could expect to enforce her doc trines within the United States by preventing the naturalization here of a Turk who emigrates without the authorization of an imperial iradé. "In such cases, where the disagreement is fundamental, a conventional arrangement is practically the only solution to the difficulty. Founding on the volition of the individual as an ultimate test, the United States, without impairing their doctrine of the inherent right of expatriation, but rather confirming it, may agree upon certain conditions, according to which a person who has been naturalized in the United States and returns voluntarily to the country of his original allegiance, there to remain for a stated period, may be held to have created a presumptive intent to resume his former status, and thereby abandon his acquired nationality. We recognize the individual right to do so; repatriation is as equally a right as expatriation." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cox, min. to Turkey, Nov. 28, 1885, Much space was given, in the foregoing instruction, as will appear by As to the refusal of the Turkish Government to recognize the American "I have the honor to refer you to Secretary Bayard's instruction No. 30, of July 26, 1887, in reply to Mr. King's dispatch No. 323, of May 14, 1887. setting forth a number of cases of disputed nationality." (Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, No. 195, May 18, 1889, For. Rel. 1889, 718, 719.) "It appears from a report of the prefecture of police that a certain number of Ottoman subjects, inhabitants of Asiatic Turkey, betake them furtively to America, and after remaining there for some time, return to their country provided with American passports, and claiming to pass as citizens of the Republic. "As, according to the Ottoman law on nationalities, Ottomans have not the right to acquire foreign naturalization without having first obtained the authorization of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, the Sullime Porte is unable to admit illegal changes of this nature, and begs the United States legation to kindly send instructions to its consuls and agents in the Empire that they may not eventually give their protection to this category of individuals-natives of the country-in order to prevent difficulties with the Imperial authorities." (Said Pasha, Turkish min. of for. aff., to Mr. Hirsch, Am. min., Jan. 9, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 533.) "In reply this legation begs to point out that five years' continuous residence in the United States, and the fulfillment of certain conditions prescribed by law, entitle a foreigner to admission to citizenship, if he may so desire, and to all the rights and privileges of an American citizen, among which is the right of travel, either for business or pleasure. Anyone in the Empire duly in possession of an American passport is entitled to the protection of the United States Government. This legation, in consequence, finds itself unable to comply with the request contained in the aforesaid rerbal note that orders be issued to the United States consuls in the Empire to refuse protection to those naturalized American citizens, and permits itself to hope that instructions may be given to the minister of police that shall insure the respect due to every American passport presented." (Mr. Hirsch to Said Pasha, Jan. 22, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 534.) "It is understood that by the laws of Turkey an Ottoman subject can not divest himself of that character without the express sanction of the Imperial Government. If without such authority he accepts a foreign naturalization, it is regarded as of no effect both in reference to himself and his children. "It is further provided that every person who obtains naturalization abroad or enters a foreign military service without the permission of the Sultan may be declared to have forfeited his Ottoman character, and in that case is altogether interdicted from returning to the Ottoman Empire. "The legation of the United States at Constantinople is frequently called upon to intervene in behalf of returning naturalized citizens of Turkish origin as to whose allegiance conflicting claims exist under the laws of the two countries. Where circumstances place a person under dual obligations in the state of origin and in the state of adoption, it is not always practicable to cause the laws of one country in respect to citizenship to be recognized and applied in another country when they conflict with the laws thereof, and when the individual has voluntarily placed himself within the jurisdiction of the latter." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLean, Aug. 8, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 666. See, to the same effect, Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gabriel, July 18, 1893; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Gabriel, July 25, 1893: 192 MS. Dom. Let. 624, 681. "The rules governing naturalized subjects of the leading European powers who have been natives of Turkey, after their return to the |