Page images

dence in Ecuador, Mr. Flores, Ecuadorian minister at Washington, in a note of Aug. 6, 1885, saying:

“My Government has thought that in the matter of a treaty to which Ecuador was a party, any doubt concerning its interpretation ought to be settled by common accord, and that if this were impossible, the honorable example set by the United States themselves ought to be followed, namely, of submitting the disputed points to arbitration."

This position the United States eventually accepted. By a convention concluded at Quito, February 28, 1893, it was agreed to submit the case to arbitration, and it was expressly stipulated that the decision of the arbitrator should cover the following points:

“(a) Whether, according to the evidence adduced, Julio R. Santos. by his return to and residence in Ecuador, did or did not, under the provisions of the treaty of naturalization between the two governments, concluded May 6, 1872, forfeit his United States citizenship as to Ecuador, and resume the obligations of the latter country.

(6) If he did not so forfeit his United States citizenship, whether or not it was shown by the evidence adduced, that Julio R. Santos has been guilty of such acts of unfriendliness and hostility to the Government of Ecuador, as, under the law of nations, deprived him of the consideration and protection due a neutral citizen of a friendly nation."

These questions were not in the end decided. Cases were prepared, and the arbitrator was appointed; but, General Alfaro having at length become President of Ecuador, he agreed to pay the claimant a certain sun, which was, with the concurrence of the United States embodied by the arbitrator in a purely formal award, the litigious part of the proceedings being thus dispensed with.

For a fuller account of this case, and a summary of the evidence con

cerning Mr. Santos' citizenship, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II.

1584 et seq. For the correspondence between Mr. Bayard and Mr. Flores, above cited,

see Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Beach, consul at Guayaquil, May 1, 1885; Mr. Flores, Ecuadorian min., to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State. Aug. 6, 1885: II. Ex. Doc. 361, 49 ('ong. 1 sess. 30, 67.

In 1890, the Ecuadorian Government proposed to amend Art. III. of the treaty of 1872, by providing that a four years' residence in Ecuador, or the making of investments there “ in long operations of farming or other business requiring a long time for development," by an Ecuadorian who had been naturalized in the United States, should be conclusive evidence of resumption of Ecuadorian nationality. The United States, while expressing its sympathy with the object of the proposal, which was understood to be the prevention of the abuse of the privilege of naturalization, declined to accept it, on the ground

that "in treating a subject which, like that of citizenship, may involve questions of intention that must often be determined upon the most ample consideration of facts, it is a hazardous undertaking to attempt to formulate inflexible rules for the determination of all cases, whatever may be their circumstances."

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Caamano, May 19, 1890, MS. Notes to

Ecuador, I. 140.


$ 473.

The Danish Government ordered the name of F. A. Sundberg, a naturalized citizen of the United States of Danish origin, who had been living in Copenhagen for four years as a cutter in a tailoring establishment, but who alleged that his stay in Denmark had been protracted beyond his original intentions by considerations of family and of health, to be stricken from the military rolls, “ in accordance with article 3 of the convention concluded

July 20, 1872," there being an “absence of sufficient reason for supposing" that he had “ abandoned his intention to return to America.”

Mr. Krag, min, of for, atf., to Mr. Swenson, U. S. min., May 21, 1900,

For. Rel. 1900, 424.
See Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fish, min. to Belg., No. 35,

April 23, 1883, MS. Inst. Belg. III, 323.




$ 474.

“ The American citizen who goes into a foreign country, although he owes local and temporary allegiance to that country, is yet, if he performs no other act changing his condition, entitled to the protection of his own government; and if, without the violation of any inunicipal law, he should be oppressed unjustly, he would have a right to claim that protection, and the interposition of the American government in his favor would be considered as a justifiable interposition. But his situation is completely changed, where by his own act he has made himself the subject of a foreign power. Although this act may not be sufficient to rescue him from punishment for any crime committed against the United States, a point not intended to be decided, yet it certainly places him out of the protection of the United States while within the territory of the sovereign to whom

he has sworn allegiance, and, consequently, takes him out of the description of the act.”

Marshall, C. J., in Murray t. Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, 120.

See the Santissima Trinidad, 1 Brock, 478.

A claim to American citizenship will not be decided by the Department of State on the ex parte application of the government against which the person, whose citizenship is in question, invokes the protection of the United States.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. de Bounder de Melsbroeck, Belgian min.,

April 11, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 12.
This note related to the case of Emile Dewaele, who was born in Belgium

in 1867 and who, in order to avoid conscription, invoked the naturali-
zation of his father, Charles Dewaele, in 1880 in the United States.
The Belgian Government desired to ascertain whether the father,
whose certificate of naturalization was thought not to be properly
certified, was "really a citizen of the United States," and whether
the effects of naturalization were extended to children (1) when
they lived with their father in the United States, and (2) when
they resided abroad. (For. Rel. 1887, 41.)

“ I have duly received your note of the 5th instant with the accompanying papers relative to the case of Elijah C. Woodman, who it appears emigrated to Canada, in 1832, was concerned in the revolutionary movement in 1838, and was subsequently for that offence transported to Van Diemans Land, where he is still a prisoner.

“ This Department has from time to time forwarded, through our minister at London, particular applications, addressed to Her Britannic Majesty, in behalf of American citizens, undergoing sentence of transportation in the British penal colonies, but as Woodman had resided for several years within British jurisdiction, creating a presumption that he was no longer a citizen of the United States, his case is not deemed one in which this Department could properly interfere. If an assurance can be given me that he did not renounce his citizenship after taking up his residence in Canada, and his friends will address a petition to Her Britannic Majesty praying for his pardon, I will cause it to be presented to the British Government by our minister in England. The papers enclosed with your note are herewith returned."

Mr. Calhoun, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fairfield, U. S. S. Dec, 9, 1844, 35 MS.

Dom. Let. 40.

“ You inform us that many American citizens have gone to settle in the [Sandwich) islands; if so they have ceased to be American citi

The Government of the United States must, of course, feel an interest in them not extended to foreigners, but by the law of nations they have no right further to demand the protection of this Government. Whatever aid or protection might under any circumstances be given them must be given, not as a matter of right on their part, but in consistency with the general policy and duty of the Government and its relations with friendly powers.


“You will therefore not encourage in them, nor indeed in any others, any idea or expectation that the islands will become annexed to the United States. All this, I repeat, will be judged of hereafter, as circumstances and events may require, by the Government at Washington."

Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Severance, July 14, 1851, H. Ex. Doc.

48, 53 Cong. 2 sess. 342, 343.

The presumption of abandonment of nationality by long residence abroad is rebutted by proof that such residence was that of a missionary who neither intended to relinquish his nationality nor abandoned the intention of coming home.

Mr. Everett, Sec. of State, to Mr. Marsh, Feb. 5, 1853, S. Ex. Doc. 9, 33

Cong. 2 sess. 5, 9. See, also, Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr.
Marsh, April 29, 1852, id. 2, 3-4.

Persons voluntarily emigrating from the United States to take up a permanent abode in a foreign land, “ cease to be citizens of the United States, and can have after such a change of allegiance no claims to protection as such citizens from this Government."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of. State, to Mr. Kinney, Feb. 4, 1855, 43 MS. Dom. Let.

362; cited in Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hanna, No. 22, June

25, 1886, MS. Inst. Arg. Rep. XVI. 385. See, however, the decisions of international commissions, Moore, Int.

Arbitrations, III. 2657–2678; and particularly the able and learned argument of Mr. Ashton, id. 2696–2706.

Though there is no law forbidding a citizen of this country who goes abroad with an intention to settle, to resume his rights as a citizen on his return, how long soever he may have been absent, while he is under the jurisdiction of the foreign Government, for the purpose of carrying on business, and especially as in this case, for engaging in mining operations, he must be presumed to have been satisfied with the ability and disposition of such Government to protect his property and his person.

It is essential to the independence of nations, and to the public peace, that there should be some limit to the right and duty of a Government to interfere in behalf of persons born or naturalized within its jurisdiction, who, on proceeding to a foreign country, and being domiciliated there, may receive injuries from the authorities thereof. By the general law, as well as by the decisions of the most enlightened judges both in England and in this country, a neutral engaged in

business in an enemy's country during war, is regarded as a citizen or subject of that country, and his property, captured on the high seas, is liable to condemnation as lawful prize. No sufficient reason is perceived why the same rule should not hold good in time of peace, also, as to the protection due to the property and persons of citizens or subjects of a country domiciled abroad."

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Clay, min. to Peru, May 24, 1855, MS.

Inst. Peru, XV. 159.


" Citizens of the United States, who, retaining their domiciles in the United States, are temporarily traveling or sojourning in New Granada, are to be regarded as entitled to the protection of their own Government against any impositions of the Government there for its support and maintenance. But citizens of the United States, no matter how they acquired that title, who have gone to New Granada, become domiciliated there, and are pursuing business or otherwise living there, without definite and manifest intentions of returning to this country, are subject to all the laws of New Granada affecting property or material rights exactly the same as the citizens of New Granada.

“ The principle upon which this decision rests is that protection and allegiance are reciprocal; that the citizen of the United States who becomes domiciliated in another country, contributing his labor, talents, or wealth, to the support of society there, becomes practically a member of the political state existing there, and for the time withdraws himself from the duties of citizenship here, and consents to waive the reciprocal right of protection from his own Government."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Burton, min. to Colombia, Jan. 16, 1862,

MS. Inst, Colombia, XVI. 20.
It should be observed that this instruction was given in response to an

inquiry whether citizens of the United States, domiciled in Colombia,
could " claim exemptions from the laws and degrees of that country
for levying taxes and contributions obligatory upon its own citizens."
In the course of the instruction, Mr. Seward said: “ For obrious
reasons, I limit this statement (made in the first paragraph, supra.)
to the exact case you have presented, without inquiring how the citi-
zen of the United States thus circumstanced may recover and resume
his plenary rights, and without inquiring how far such citizens so
domiciliated in New Granada retain the right to the protection of this
Government in regard to their personal liberty, if it should be in-

vaded." See the decision of Commander Bertinatti, umpire, Dec. 31, 1862, Moore,

Int. Arbitrations, III. 2695.

“ This Government owes to no citizen who has voluntarily withdrawn his person and property from the country, any obligation to lend him its political powers to influence in his favor the adjudication of the courts of justice of the country in which he proposes to reside,

« PreviousContinue »