in the trial of questions arising upon contracts made under the laws of that country." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Burton, min. to Colombia, No. 48, Jan. 30, 1863, MS. Inst. Colombia, XVI. 60. Two persons, named Albee and Gordon, claimed the interposition of the American representatives in the Argentine Republic, in order to escape arrest for refusing to perform military service in 1866. It appeared that they left the United States "some years ago,' with "no fixed intention of returning," and had "ever since made the Argentine Republic the place of their business and residence." In 1866, during a rebellious rising, the public authorities in certain parts of the Republic ordered the enrolment of the national guard, and, martial law having been proclaimed, arrested various persons suspected of hostile intentions, as well as others who refused to respond and enrol their names in the guard. Mr. Seward stated that citizens of the United States "who have become and are remaining domiciled in foreign countries could not be exempt from certain common obligations of citizens of those countries to pay taxes and perform duties imposed for the preservation of public order and the maintenance of the government; " but that the treaty between the United States and the Argentine Republic exempted citizens of the one country from the performance of all compulsory military service and from the payment of all forced loans, requisitions, and military exactions in the other. If Messrs. Albee and Gordon should complain that their rights were directly invaded or menaced by the exaction of military service or of war contributions, the minister of the United States was instructed that it would be his duty "to ascertain not only the justice of the complaint; but also the fact of the citizenship of the complainant," and then to address himself to the Government" requiring the performance of the treaty stipulation.” Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Asboth, No. 27, March 27, 1867, MS. Citizens of the United States who were concerned in the insurrection of 1861 against the United States, and who, after its close, decline to return to their allegiance, and go into the service of a foreign country, are not entitled to the interposition of the Government of the United States for redress for injuries inflicted on them in such foreign country. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sullivan, Feb. 4, 1869, MS. Inst. "You declare that you have been thirty-five years absent from this country and residing in Hayti. You do not indicate that you ever had or now have an intention of returning to the United States. Although it may be that you have not by any formal act of naturalization renounced your allegiance to the United States, a residence of so long continuance in Hayti raises a strong presumption that you have incorporated yourself into the permanent population of the island and ceased to regard yourself as subject to the duties of a citizen. It will be regarded as quite material in respect to your national character to know whether you have complied with the provisions of the acts of Congress passed in 1862 and subsequent years imposing an income tax upon citizens residing abroad. This Department will therefore be glad to be informed in what Congressional District or Districts you have made the returns required by those acts. In the absence of any further information, I shall not feel at liberty to address any instructions to Mr. Bassett in relation to your case.' Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hepburn, Dec. 21, 1870, 87 MS. Dom. See, to the same effect, in the case of a native of the United States, born The same thing was said by Mr. Fish in the case of Juan A. Robinson, To the same effect as the letter to Mr. Hepburn, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of "Citizenship involves duties and obligations, as well as rights. The correlative right of protection by the Government may be waived or lost by long-continued avoidance and silent withdrawal from the performance of the duties of citizenship as well as by open renunciation." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Niles, Oct. 30, 1871, 91 MS. Dom. Let. 211. To same effect, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Colfax, March 12, 1872, 93 MS. Dom. Let. 113; to Mr. Howard, April 23, 1872, 93 MS. Dom. Let. 544; Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Beardsley, April 28, 1873, MS. Inst. Barbary Powers, XVI. 136. In 1873 the legation of the United States at Paris requested instructions as to the case of a man and his wife, Americans by birth, who had settled in Paris forty years before and had lived there ever since. "This has," said the legation, "become their permanent home, and they have never had any intention of returning to the United States. Several of their children have been born here, and have never been to the United States, and never expect to go, and never want to go." The Department of State replied: "If the citizen, on the one side, has rights which he may claim at the hands of the Government, on the other side there are imperative duties which he should perform toward that Government. If, on the one hand, the Government assumes the duty of protecting his rights and his privileges, on the other hand the citizen is supposed to be ever ready to place his fortune and even his life at its service, should the public necessities demand such a sacrifice. If, instead of doing this, he permanently withdraws his person from the national jurisdiction, if he places his property where it can not be made to contribute to the national necessities; if his children are born and reared upon a foreign soil, with no purpose of returning to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States, then, in accordance with the principles laid down by Chief Justice Marshall, and recognized in the fourteenth amendment, and in the act of 1868, he has so far expatriated himself as to relieve this Government from the obligation of interference for his protection." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, min. to France, June 28, 1873, For. Rel. 1873, I. 256, 259. The statement of Chief Justice Marshall referred to in the foregoing passage is that which is quoted at the beginning of the present section. "The right to be acknowledged as a citizen of the United States. must be held as a high privilege and a precious right. When the person who possesses it is untainted by crime, or by the suspicion of expatriation, or by the non-fulfillment of the duties which accompany it, it entitles him abroad to the recognition and protection of a power which is not the least among the powers of the earth, while at home, under general regulations of law, he may participate in the distribution of political rights and privileges, he may enjoy the national guarantees of liberty and of protection to personal property, and he may share the advantages of education and the healthful social and moral influences which result from democratic institutions." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, min. to France, June 28, 1873, ... "This Department would not assume to decide that . . . a continuous residence in a foreign country of two or even of many years should of itself work an expatriation. Expatriation is a fact to be established, like any other fact, by external evidence, and such continuous residence, even for a lifetime, is capable of being explained on other theories than that of a voluntary denationalization. But when the fact is once established, by whatever proof, it would, in the opinion of this Department, operate to place the expatriated person outside the number of those who can claim the protection of this Government as a right. "The duty of protection as toward the citizen, or the right of its exercise as toward the foreign power, is not always correlative with the fact of citizenship. Thus it was demonstrated by my predecessor, Mr. Marcy, that an extreme case may arise in which a government will be justified in taking upon itself the protection of persons who are not citizens. On the other hand, it is apparent that there may be instances of claims to citizenship which is nominal only, if it have any existence, as where the duties of citizenship have never been performed, where the person of the individual has never been within the national jurisdiction, or is voluntarily removed from it, and purposely kept beyond it; where his movable wealth is purposely placed where it may never contribute to the national necessities, and his income is expended for the benefit of a foreign government, and his accumulations go to swell its taxable wealth; and where from all the surrounding circumstances it must be assumed that he has abandoned the United States, and never intends to return to it. "It can not be contended that a person with so faint an exercise of the duties of citizenship is entitled to claim the protection of this Government as a right. "Each case as it arises must be decided on its own merits. In each the main fact to be determined will be this, has there been such a practical expatriation as removes the individual from the jurisdiction of the United States? "If there has not been the applicant will be entitled to protection." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Washburne, min. to France, June 28, 1873, "I invite the earnest attention of Congress to the existing laws of the United States respecting expatriation and the election of nationality by individuals. Many citizens of the United States reside permanently abroad with their families. Under the provisions of the act approved February 10, 1855, the children of such persons are to be deemed and taken to be citizens of the United States, but the rights of citizenship are not to descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States. "It thus happens that persons who have never resided within the United States have been enabled to put forward a pretension to the protection of the United States against the claim to military service of the government under whose protection they were born and have been reared. In some cases even naturalized citizens of the United States have returned to the land of their birth, with intent to remain. there, and their children, the issue of a marriage contracted there after their return, and who have never been in the United States, have laid claim to our protection, when the lapse of many years had imposed upon them the duty of military service to the only government which had ever known them personally." President Grant, annual message, Dec. 1, 1873, For. Rel. 1873, I. vi. "It is confessedly a rule of public law, consonant with the policy of this Government, that, if a citizen leaves his country without a purpose to return, he forfeits the right to claim the protection of the Government to which he previously owed allegiance. This Department has on several occasions held that the intent totally to abandon his native country might so far be justly inferred from the purchase or cultivation of land abroad as to make it at most discretionary with this Government to interfere for the redress of grievances which the emigrant might incur in the country of his adoption." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Williamson, min. to Costa Rica, No. 158, "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of August 13, in relation to the complaint of Mrs. James Morris against the Government of Hayti, for alleged wrongful imprisonment of her husband and deprivation of property during the revolutionary disturbances of 1883-84. It appears from your letters of June 7 and 10 last, that James Morris left the United States a great many years prior to his decease; that he became domiciled in Hayti, engaged in business there, married and identified himself with that country, where he remained until his death, by no act manifesting any intention ever to return to the United States. After his decease his wife, who was by birth a subject of Great Britain, returned to the home of her father in British territory, where she now resides. In view of the above, the Department is of opinion that it would not be warranted in intervening in her behalf." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, Sept. 1, 1893, 193 MS. Dom. B. was born in New York in 1855. In 1862 he left the United States, and he subsequently took up his permanent residence in Edinburgh, Scotland, where he resided without any intention of returning to the United States to reside and perform the duties of citizenship. The embassy of the United States in London having refused in 1895 to issue him a passport, he appealed to the Department of State, which said: "Your absence from the United States for a period of 33 years, coupled with your statement that you permanently reside. abroad and do not intend to come to the United States and make your residence here, clearly indicates that you have abandoned your |