Ottoman Empire, are more frequently found in instructions to diplomats resident here than in statutory enactments. . "Germany naturalizes and protects in third countries; but, in 1883, instructed its consuls not to extend protection to those who were natives of the Ottoman Empire when they return to Turkey. "Italy instructs her diplomatic agents not to afford protection to her naturalized subjects who were natives of Turkey. She conforms substantially to the Gernian rule. "England, under an act of Parliament, writes on the face of every passport that protection will be afforded its bearer in all countries except the country of his origin, if he left it without the consent of its Sovereign. "Russia, like England, never protects a returning native of the Ottoman Empire who left it without an imperial iradé. This rule does not apply to the natives of that portion of Asia Minor bordering the Black Sea and extending to the interior; that she acquired in her last war; and, whether Turks or Armenians, those natives became Russians by conquest and treaty, and are protected as native Russians when in a foreign land. "France never naturalizes a native of the Ottoman Empire born of Ottoman parents unless he produces an imperial iradé or authorization, and will not protect him should he return to Turkey. "Austria does not naturalize a Turk who owns real estate in Turkey; she naturalizes others, and extends her protection in all countries except Turkey. "Belgium and Holland naturalize on the consent of the country or sovereign of the country of origin. "I have not sought to ascertain the rule prevailing in the legations of Spain and Sweden, deeming it of small importance, but will do so if you desire. "It will thus be seen how little our doctrine of the right of voluntary expatriation is recognized by the rest of the civilized world in their dealing with Turkey. "In my last interview with the grand vizier he said, with earnestness, that Turkey would never consent that her subjects could change their nationality without the Sultan's consent. He added: If war is ever made on us for this we could not help it, and would defend as best we could.' "For about thirty years the questions of naturalization and of jurisdiction under article 4 of the treaty of 1830 have been subjects of contention. As often as there seemed to be the prospect of a new treaty, a change of administration, of a grand vizier, of a foreign minister of Turkey, or of a minister from the United States, compelled negotiations to begin de novo and no progress was made. "It is safe to assume that no new treaty can be made on either of the subjects of disagreement referred to which does not embrace both. "The anxiety at the Porte to have you adopt such a construction of article 4 of the treaty of 1830 as will conform to rule applied to subjects of European powers who are charged with crime, and will confer the jurisdiction on their own courts, will, when you can make some concessions, tend greatly to help forward a treaty of naturalization." Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, Sept. 17, 1894, Mr. Gresham, replying, Oct. 20, 1894, cited Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to "This Department can make no distinction between Syrians and Armenians in treating with the Turkish Government any questions arising concerning them. All that it can do is to endeavor to secure full rights under treaty and capitulation for every American gitizen, regardless of his origin. In this respect the United States stand quite alone, as England and the continental states do not claim for a naturalized alien the immunities of his acquired nationality when he returns to the country of which he was previously a subject unless by law or treaty the latter recognizes his change of allegiance.” (Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Diaf, Oct. 10, 1896, 213 MS. Dom. Let. 201.) "The law of Turkey, like that of Russia and some other countries, does not recognize unpermitted change of allegiance by a Turkish subject; but, although no treaty of naturalization exists between the United States and Turkey in regulation of this point, no instance has yet been pressed by the Turkish Government in assertion of a right to treat the individual as a Turkish subject or to punish him for the alleged offense of becoming a citizen of a foreign state without permission." Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 22, 1896, S. Doc. 83, 54 Cong. 1 sess.; For. Rel. 1895, II. 1471. In the preceding part of the report it is stated that the Turkish Government had pursued the course of expelling or excluding the class of persons in question. Responding to a petition that the American minister at Constantinople be instructed "to propose and urge by every proper diplomatic method a concession of the right of expatriation for Turkish subjects, with protection while in transit to the borders of the Turkish Empire," Mr. Olney said: "This Government recognizes the right of expatriation, and has always been energetic in its efforts to protect American citizens whether of Turkish or other origin. It has no international right, however, to intervene in behalf of those who are not its citizens, or to interfere with the enforcement of laws for the government of their own subjects by foreign countries." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Draper, March 12, 1896, 208 MS. Dom. See, as to the case of Mrs. Papazian, Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Messrs. The Turkish minister stated, in a note of October 20, 1898, that, according to a determination reached by his Government six years before, Ottoman subjects were not authorized to change their nationality of origin except on engaging not to return to the Empire, and that, as persons of the class in question, notwithstanding this engagement, returned with foreign passports and asserted their alien quality, which, in view of the decision of the-council of state that Ottoman subjects naturalized as foreigners must, on their return, be considered and treated as Ottoman subjects, gave rise to all sorts of difficulties, the Turkish consuls had been instructed not to visé their passports. The minister, therefore, requested that the necessary steps be taken by the United States to avoid the difficulties mentioned. The Department of State replied that, as the naturalization laws of the United States made no special provision in regard to the subjects of a country which forbade their expatriation without the consent of their sovereign, the courts, to which the exclusive power of naturalization was committed, could not require of an applicant for citizenship proof that his government had given him permission to change his allegiance; that the Executive, on the other hand, could not apply to the granting of a passport a condition not legally requisite for the acquisition of citizenship; and consequently that it did not appear what steps could be taken to avoid possible controversy with regard to the application of the imperial rule. Ferrouh Bey, Turkish min., to Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, Oct. 20, 1898; Mr. "In the Turkish Empire the situation of our citizens remains unsatisfactory. Our efforts during nearly forty years to bring about a convention of naturalization seem to be on the brink of final failure through the announced policy of the Ottoman Porte to refuse recognition of the alien status of native Turkish subjects naturalized abroad since 1869. 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.) "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, calling attention to a newspaper publication of the 8th instant purporting to give a reportorial interview with Minister Straus, upon his return from Turkey, to the effect that United States citizens may now travel in Turkey, as the interdiction against this, caused by the Armenian troubles, was removed eight months ago. In view of this you ask whether you would be protected by this Government if you, being a naturalized Armenian, should revisit your old home in Armenia. "Mr. Straus's statement was here understood to relate only to the removal of the inhibition of the travel of American citizens, missionaries, and others of non-Turkish origin in Armenia during the late disturbances in that quarter, and this understanding is confirmed by Mr. Straus himself, who is now in Washington. As to our naturalized citizens of Armenian or other Ottoman origin, the situation remains the same, in the absence of a treaty of naturalization between the two countries, the Turkish Government refusing to recognize the naturalization of a Turkish subject naturalized abroad without imperial consent since the promulgation of the Ottoman law of citizenship in 1869. The United States controverts this position, but unavailingly. In international law the status of such persons comes under the doctrines of dual allegiance, each Government claiming and exacting the allegiance of its naturals within its own jurisdiction and each being incapable of enforcing its own municipal law of citizenship within the jurisdiction of the other. Such conflicts have been adjusted in many instances by conventions between the United States and foreign powers, with the result of a mutual recognition of the validity of the naturalization of a citizen or subject of the one country within the jurisdiction and according to the domestic law of the other; but the conclusion of such a convention with the Ottoman Empire appears to be remote. As the consent of the Ottoman Government to the expatriation of a subject by naturalization in another country is only given upon the alternative condition that the applicant for release from Turkish allegiance shall either stipulate never to return or agree that in the event of return he will regard himself as an Ottoman subject, it follows that the case of perH. Doc. 551-vol 344 mitted naturalization seldom occurs, and that when it does occur it is attended with features which prevent this Government from using a free hand in dealing with a question growing out of the return of such a naturalized citizen to Turkish jurisdiction. "While the Department and its diplomatic and consular agents in the Turkish dominions will use every effort now as always to protect any naturalized citizen of Turkish origin who returns to Turkey, it can not foresee that he will be permitted to enter the Empire, or that having entered he will escape molestation or expulsion.' Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Garabedyan, Feb. 19, 1900, For. Rel. 1900, 938. With reference to Mr. Hay's statement, which is similar to that made in President McKinley's message of Dec. 5, 1899, supra, that Turkish subject, naturalized in the United States, owe, under "international law," a "dual allegiance," it is to be observed that, according to the doctrines of expatriation, as embodied in the act of 1868, naturalization invests the individual with a new and single allegiance, absolving him from the obligations of the old. It is true that many publicists say that a dual allegiance results, but they obviously do not accept the theory of the act of 1868. That naturalization merely adds a new allegiance to the old is the position of those who deny the claim of voluntary expatriation. See Moore, American Diplomacy, 169-171, 191-192. A copy of the letter to Mr. Garabedyan was inclosed by Mr. Hay, Feb. 19, "In view of the fact that we have no treaty of naturalization with Tur- To the same effect as Mr. Hay's letter of Feb. 19, 1900, see Mr. Hay, |