Page images

“In consequence of recent events in Constantinople, certain members of the Armenian community, fathers of families or bachelors, artisans, merchants, or others, continue to emigrate. Then individuals of no certain occupation find their way somehow into the various vilayets of the Empire.

“Now, the Armenian agitators attribute this emigration to an alleged want of confidence and nonexisting security in the capital. They invent and publish in this connection all sorts of lies and incorrect statements.

"Since the foundation of the Ottoman Empire, need it be said, the Imperial Government has never ceased pursuing a just line of conduct, the object being to safeguard the lives, property, and honor of its loyal subjects. The Imperial Government is in a position, under the protecting scepter of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, to prevent all cause of anxiety or fear which might induce further emigration. Thus, all who desire to leave the country must sign a document and also have a solvable guaranty, confirmed by the patriarchate, that they will not return to Turkey. This declaration must be accompanied by the likeness of the emigrant, and it will only be after fulfilling such formalities that emigration will be authorized. The passports delivered to these emigrants will state that such persons will not be allowed to set foot again on Ottoman territory. The explanation in question, as well as a declaration that the emigrants have lost Ottoman nationality, will be duly inscribed in the registers of the commission ad hoc, in the archives of the competent department, as well as at the chancellery of the Armenian patriarchate. A delay of a month and a half, and in cases of plausible hindrance, two months' delay, commencing from to-day, will be granted to those who have gone abroad without authorization from the Imperial Government to return to their homes. In the event of their design to stay where they are, they must make a declaration to this effect in the Turkish embassies or legations abroad. Emigrants of this category will, nevertheless, lose their nationality as Ottoman subjects, unless they return to Turkey within the above-named period.

“ Ottoman Armenian subjects who have emigrated under false names and yet by diverse means have returned to Turkey with foreign passports will not be recognized as foreign subjects, nor will they be allowed to live in any part of the Empire.

“Armenians who have emigrated during the past twenty years, and especially members of the committee of agitators, will not benefit from the present arrangement. Consequently they will not be permitted to return here. Every agitator who returns to Turkey will be arrested and brought before the ordinary tribunals.

“As regards Armenians of foreign nationality, who in great numhers are among the agitators as organizers of disturbance, the Goy

ernment and the police find it difficult to distinguish between the one and the other. In consequence such foreign Armenians will not be allowed to assume Ottoman nationality, in accordance with the law which authorizes the admission of other foreigners to become Ottoman subjects."

Imperial iradé of the Turkish Government, Oct. 9, 1896, communicated

to the Department of State by Mr. Terrell, American minister at

Constantinople, Oct. 10, 1896, For. Rel, 1896, 937. “A decree of the Turkish Government of October 9, 1896, prohibits from

hereafter residing in Turkey any Armenian who has emigrated in the last twenty years." (Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Momiroff, Feb. 1, 1899, 234 MS. Dom. Let. 347.)


$ 464.

A naturalization treaty between the United States and Turkey was signed at Constantinople, Aug. 11, 1874.

In regard to the renunciation of acquired citizenship, it followed (Art. II.) the provisions usually found in the treaties of the United States, except that it provided that the intention not to return to the country of adoption “shall” (instead of “may”) be considered as established by a two years' residence in the country of origin. The Senate of the United States, however, amended the treaty by substituting the usual form. The ratifications of the treaty as thus amended were exchanged at Constantinople, April 22, 1875, but with an explanation by the Ottoman Government, which in effect restored the original meaning. The Government of the United States in consequence declined to consider the exchange as effective, and refused to proclaim the treaty.

The situation remained practically unchanged till January 16, 1889, when Mr. Straus, then minister of the United States at Constantinople, reported that he had obtained the Sultan's iradé accepting the treaty as amended, without any qualification, and annulling all former Turkish interpretations, the treaty to take effect on its proclamation by the President. In view, however, of the lapse of fourteen years since the Senate's approval of the treaty, the President decided again to take the advice of that body. He accordingly resubmitted the treaty, Feb. 27, 1889; and by a resolution of February 28, 1889, the Senate advised and consented to the exchange of ratifications

only upon the distinct understanding to be had between the two Governments that Article II. of the convention, as amended by the Senate, shall not be construed to apply to persons already naturalized in either country."

In a note to the Turkish minister at Washington, of January 31, 1891, Mr. Blaine, as Secretary of State, stated that the resolution

[ocr errors]

of the Senate was understood to mean that the provisions of the arti-
cle in question “ shall not apply to citizens or subjects of either coun-
try naturalized prior to the date of the exchange of ratifications, but
that the effect of the return of such persons to their native country
shall be determined according to the rules that existed prior to the
exchange of the ratifications."
The ratifications remained unexchanged.
Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, Oct. 15, 1996,

For. Rel. 1896, 933.
See also Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish min., to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State,

Oct. 2, 1896; Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish

min., Oct. 15, 1896: For. Rel. 1896, 929, 932. See, further, as to this treaty, Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cox,

min. to Turkey, Nov. 28, 1885), For. Rel. 1887, 885. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Cox, March 4, 1886, contains a long historical review

of the naturalization question with Turkey, and discusses various forms of stipulation touching the effect of return to the country of

origin. (MS. Inst. Turkey, IV. 392.) President Cleveland, in his annual message of Dec. 6, 1886, said that he

trusted that he might soon be able to announce a favorable settlement

of the differences as to the interpretation of the treaty signed in 1874. Sept. 4, 1886, Mr. Cox transmitted to Said Pasha a declaration which was

designed to remove the difficulty. Said Pasha, Sept. 18, 1886, ex-
pressed his satisfaction and the readiness of his Government to ratify
and proclaim the treaty on the basis of Mr. Cox's declaration. (Mr.
Cox, min. to Turkey, to Mr. Bayard, Sec, of State, No. 236, Sept. 10,
1886; Mr. King, chargé, to Mr. Bayard, No. 243, Sept. 21, 1886: 16

MS. Desp. Turkey.)
The Government of the United States declined to approve the declara-

tion, on the ground that it contained ambiguities and raised impli-
cations which rendered it inexpedient and inadmissible as the basis
of ratification. (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min, to

Turkey, No. 27, June 24, 1887, MS. Inst. Turkey, IV. 586.)
See, also, Mr. Straus to Mr. Bayard, No. 17, Aug. 2, 1887, 17 MS. Desp.

Turkey; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Straus, No. 10, Sept. 1, 1887, MS. Inst.

Turkey, IV. 607.
As to the resolution of the Senate of Feb. 28, 1889, and the subsequent

failure to ratify the treaty, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr.
Hirsch, Dec. 1, 1890, MS. Inst. Turkey, V. 166; same to same, No. 138,
Dec. 9, 1890, id. 169; Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hirsch,
No. 179, March 27, 1891, id. 234; Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to
Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish min., March 27, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 780;
Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lamont, Dec. 22, 1894, 200 MS.
Dom. Let. 703; Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Field, March 9,
1895, 201 MS. Dom. Let. 120.


$ 465.

“ Your dispatch No. 45, of the 16th ultimo, upon the subject of Miguel Felipe and Bartholome Antich, natives of Venezuela, but naturalized in this country, has been received. The course taken by you in regard to the matter is approved. The Venezuelan minister for foreign affairs, however, seems to have mistaken the meaning of the clause of the constitution of that republic to which he refers as jusifying their claim to jurisdiction over those persons. That clause merely affirms a truism contained in many other constitutions, and founded upon public law, that all persons born in a country are to be regarded as citizens thereof. It does not deny the right of expatriation, as the minister appears to suppose. Few governments now make such a denial, and the Department is not aware of any law of Venezuela which prohibits emigration from that country and naturalization elsewhere. If, however, as appears to be the case, the persons referred to propose to return to the United States, that step, if carried into effect, would relieve us from further contro. versy in regard to their particular case.”'

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pile, min. to Venezuela, June 22, 1872, For.

Rel. 1872, 716.

“ Article 5 [of the constitution of Venezuela, adopted by the National Constituent Assembly June 12, 1893, and promulgated July 5, 1893, superseding the constitution of April 16, 1891, which was the same as that of April 27, 1881, except as to the power of amendment] declares the law of citizenship. Division (a), section 1, is the same as in the former constitution, and adopts the rule of jus soli in its entirety, declaring every person born in the territory of Venezuela a Venezuelan, whatever may be the nationality of his parents. Division (a), section 2, and division (6), section 1, following the former constitution, make children born abroad of a Venezuelan father or mother Venezuelan citizens, provided they become domiciled in Venezuela and declare their desire to be such; but the two sections distinguish between children so born of a native Venezuelan parent and of a naturalized Venezuelan parent, declaring the former native and the latter naturalized citizens. Division (a), section 3, simply declares the principle of international law that a child born abroad of a Venezuelan citizen in the diplomatic service is a native citizen.

“ Division (), sections 2 and 3, provide for the naturalization of foreigners, and like the last constitution distinguish between the forms required for natives of any of the Spanish-American republics or of the Spanish Antilles and other foreigners. The last constitution (article 6) provided that those who fix their domicil and acquire nationality in a foreign country do not lose the character of Venezuelans.' This declaration against the right of expatriation has been omitted from the new constitution."

Mr. Partridge, min. to Venezuela, to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, July 12,

1893, For. Rel. 1893, 731. The translation of art. 5 of the constitution, as enclosed by Mr. Partridge,


"ART. 5. Venezuelans are such by birth or by naturalization.
(a) Venezuelans by birth are
“(1) All persons that have been or may be born on Venezuelan soil, what.

ever may be the nationality of their parents.
“(2) The children of a Venezuelan father and mother by birth who may

be born on foreign soil, provided that they come to the country to take up their domicile in it and declare before competent authority

their desire to be such. 1 “(3) Legitimate children that may be born on foreign soil or at sea of a

Venezuelan father temporarily residing or traveling in the exercise

of a diplomatic mission or attached to a legation of the Republie. (1) Venezuelans by naturalization are“(1) The children of a Venezuelan father or mother by naturalization,

born outside of the territory of the Republic, if they should come to take up their domicile in the country and declare their desire to be

Venezuelans. “(2) Those born or that may be born in the Spanish-American republics

or in the Spanish Antilles, provided that they may have fixed their residence in the territory of the Republic and manifested their desire

to be Venezuelans. “(3) Foreigners who have obtained a letter of naturalization or citizen.

ship conformably to the law.” “ The provision that all persons born on Venezuelan soil are citizens, whatever the nationality of their parents, is found in many Spanish-American countries, being derived from the Spanish constitution of 1812. (See Foreign Relations, 1880, p. 113.) It is in most cases either expressly or tacitly qualified by the necessary condition of being or remaining within the jurisdiction of the country of birth. The Venezuelan provision may be assumed to mean that children so born of alien parents possess a dual nationality, and that while in Venezuela their Venezuelan nationality prevails. In this light it is merely an enunciation of an obvious conflict of laws."

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Partridge, min. to Venezuela, July

26, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 734. The ('onstitution of Venezuela of April 27, 1904, Title III., Section 1, pru

vides : "Art. 8. Venezuelans are such by birth or naturalization. (a) Venezuelans by birth are: 1. All persons born on Venezuelan soil, and 2. The children of Venezuelan fathers, whatever the place of their birth

may be.

(6) Venezuelans by naturalization are:
"1. All persons born in the Spanish-American Republies, provided this?

they have acquired domicil in the Republic and shown their desire to

become Venezuelans. "2. Foreigners who have obtained naturalization papers according to the

laws. "3. Foreigners who become Venezuelans by virtue of special laws. “ 4. Foreign women married to Venezuelans, as long as the matrimouia!

bond is in existence; but after the dissolution of the marriage the Venezuelan nationality shall be retained by the foreign wife, unless

« PreviousContinue »