Page images

abroad many years, hoping to come back, yet prevented from doing so by continuing illness. “In one recent case in New York it was held that a lady whose residence in the south of France had for these reasons continued for over twenty years had not lost her New York domicil, and that her personal property was to be distributed according to the law of that domicil. In the rightfulness of this and kindred rulings I entirely concur, and I hold that as American domicil is in such cases retained so is American nationality, entitling such parties to the protection due to citizens of the United States."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min, to Switzerland, Oct.

12, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1073.
The New York case above referred to doubtless is that of Dupuy v.

Wurtz (1873), 5:3 N. Y. 556.
See to the same effect, Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, min. to

Germany. No. 12, June 6, 1879, MS. Inst. Germany, XVI. 469; Mr. J.
Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Barnett, consul at Paramaribo, Aug.
20, 1881, 111 MS. Inst. Consuls, 413.


$ 478.

The rule that the right to diplomatic protection is lost by an apparently permanent residence abroad “ does not apply to American communities settled as such in Oriental lands and recognized in their distinctively national character by the system of government prevailing in such lands."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Winchester, min, to Switzerland, Oct.

12, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1073, 1074. It applies, however, to the return of a native to such a country. (Mr.

Rockhill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Burke, No. 51, Dec. 29, 1896,

154 MS. Inst. Consuls, 682.)
As to national character in the East, see Abdy's Kent (1866), 224.

“ The doctrine of implied renunciation of citizenship by continuous residence in a foreign country does not completely apply to countries where citizens of the United States enjoy extraterritoriality. In such countries they live under the protection, more or less, of their own Government, and are answerable to its laws. Consequently they are generally held to retain their American domicil."

Mr. Rives, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Sewall, consul-general at Apia,

March 6, 1888, S. Ex. Doc, 31, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 34.

" In your No. 20, of August 20, 1887, you report your action in declining to grant a passport in the case of Alexander Hatchdoorian.

“ The facts appear to be these: The applicant, Alexander, is the son of Serkis IIatchdoorian, an Ottoman subject by birth, who emigrated to the United States, and was naturalized by the United States circuit court at Boston on June 14, 1854. In 1856 he returned to Turkey bearing a passport dated September 12 of that year, and has since resided there, claiming American citizenship, and being registered at the American consulate. It is not stated that he has at any time returned to the United States or expressed any intention or made any effort to return, or that he is engaged in any business in Turkey which keeps him there as the representative of American interests, or that he is a member of any particular American community in Turkey recognized in Turkey as having distinctive and continuous American privileges.

"Alexander, the son, the present applicant, was born in Turkey on January 1, 1865, and therefore attained his majority on January 1, 1886. He has never resided in the United States, and now seeks a passport, not for the purpose of adopting a permanent domicil in this country or assuming any duties of such citizenship, but simply for the purpose of visiting it sometime. Under these circumstances he falls within the rule repeatedly laid down in this Department that when a foreigner, after naturalization in the United States, returns to his native land and there, after merging himself in the society and nationality of that land, has a son, that son, should he remain there till his majority, is required, in order to have the protection of American nationality, not merely to elect American citizenship, but to carry that election out by taking immediate measures to come to the United States as a permanent abode. The latter condition does not exist in the present case, and therefore I am of opinion that the passport applied for by Alexander was properly refused by you.

“ From what has been said you will see that, while reiterating this rule, I am careful to exclude from its operation cases of persons who, with their families, remain in Turkey as the representatives of distinctively American business interests, and of persons belonging to particular American communities settled in Turkey, whose right to preserve a distinctive corporate and continuous American nationality is recognized by Turkey, and was affirmed by me in instructions to you, No. 7, of April 20, 1887, and repeated by me in instructions to W. C. Emmet, United States consul at Smyrna, inclosed in instructions to you, No. 37, of August 11 last. But the present applicant does not claim to fall within either of these classes, and is not, therefore, so far as the case presented by him shows, entitled to the immunities assigned to them."

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Straus, min. to Turkey, Sept. 30, 1887,

For. Rel. 1887, 1131.
As to a somewhat analogous case, see For. Rel. 1886, 303.

“I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 232, of the 20th ultimo, whereby you ask to be furinshed with specific instructions as to the measure of protection to be accorded by the legation in the cases of Armenians who have become naturalized in the United States and return to travel in Turkey under the guise of Ottoman subjects.

- The power of the agencies of the United States to protect American citizens in their just international rights can only be exercised in good faith and upon proof of the good faith of the party claiming protection. It is not to be abused by such duplicity as you report. As long ago as 1874 Mr. Fish said:

** For a naturalized citizen may, by returning to his native country and residing there with an evident intention to remain, or by accepting offices there inconsistent with his adopted citizenship, or by concealing for a length of time the fact of his naturalization and passing himself off as a citizen or subject of his native country until occasion may make it his interest to ask the intervention of the country of his adoption, or in other ways which may show an intent to abandon his acquired rights, so far resume his original allegiance as to absolve the government of his adopted country from the obligation to protect him as a citizen while he remains in his native land.' (Consular Regulations, 1874, paragraph 110.)

** This Government does not hold to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, nor does it contest the right of any citizen of the United States to voluntarily perform any act by which he may become a citizen or subject of a foreign state according to its laws. The return of a naturalized Turk to Turkey, as an Ottoman subject, under Turkish passport, and with submission to Turkish authority over him as a subject, clearly dissolves the obligation of his adopted country to protect him longer as a citizen, and the obligation can certainly not be revived by the assertion or admission of the individual that his reassumption of his original allegiance has been colorable merely and in bad faith, with deliberate intent to deceive. The agencies of the United States in Turkey can not be privy to such a deception."

Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Riddle, chargé at Constantinople,

May 10, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 761, in relation to the case of Garabed
M. Mourad, who apparently boped “to return to and remain in
Turkish jurisdiction as a Turkish subject until it may be conven-
ient for him either to claim an American citizen's right to quit

Turkey or to invite expulsion as an objectionable alien."
See, also, Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, May 3, 1869, S. Ex. Doc.

108, +1 (ollg. 2 Sess. 201, 202; case of J. B. Lacoste v. Mexico,
Moore. Int. Arbitrations, III. 2561.

The concealment of American citizenship, on the return of a naturalized citizen of the United States to his native country, is a

circumstance which may affect his right to claim the protection of the United States.

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terrell, min. to Turkey, July 11,

1894, For. Rel. 1894, 733, 735.

" Where you are satisfied that aliens, Russians or others, have acquired American citizenship with an obvious purpose of withdrawing themselves from their new allegiance and colonizing in Syria, you should meet any application on their part by informing them · that their course is tantamount to a voluntary renunciation of right to protection as citizens while so establishing their domicile abroad.”

Mr. Rockhill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Khouri, No. 45, Sept. 29, 1896,

154 MS. Inst. Consuls, 35.

A native of Turkey who had been naturalized in the United States “ could not receive any protection from this Government in the event of his returning to his native country as a Turkish subject.”

Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, June 8, 1898 229 MS.

Dom. Let. 229. See, also, Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Griscom, chargé, No. 354, Feb. 16, 1901, supra, $ 475, p. 771.

“ Your dispatches Nos. 18, 20, 23, and 34, diplomatic series, of the respective dates of February 23 and 27, and March 1 and April 29, have been received. They report the case of Hajie Seyyah, stated to be “in asylum'at your legation, and ask instructions in the matter.

“ Briefly, Mirza Mohamed Aly, otherwise styled Hajie Seyyah, a native Persian, appears to have been admitted to American citizenship by the fourth district court of San Francisco, June 11, 1875. Soon afterwards he quitted the United States, went to India, where he amassed some fortune, and thence returned to Persia, where he has invested his means in the purchase of two villages, aggregating some thirty families. He is a “Mollah,' or Mohammedan priest of high rank. He has two wives, one of whom is a relative of the Shah. He appears to be domiciled in Persia, and to have fully adopted Oriental customs and life. He has never had an American passport, and until a very recent date would seem to have made no assertion of the status he acquired by naturalization in the United States.

• Having shared, to some extent, in the recent political agitation of a seditious nature, initiated by Malcolm Khan, and having had seditious publications addressed to him, he was some two years since arrested and imprisoned in various places for nearly twenty months. On his release he found his affairs involved, one of his villages having been robbed, fields taken from him, and debts due him withheld.

“ Seeking redress, restitution of the realty was effected, but he

[ocr errors]

seems to have been unable to collect the moneys owing to him. At this juncture he sought your assistance in the recovery of these debts, alleging his American citizenship, and you addressed the prime minister asking that justice be done him. The minister denied your right to intervene, asserting that under Persian law, fortified by certain treaty provisions with Russia, which are held to constitute the measure of privilege under the most favored nation clause of our treaty with Persia, Ilajie Seyyah's naturalization is invalid, because he emigrated without his sovereign's consent. Fearing arrest (for what cause is not shown), Hajie Seyyah appealed to you for shelter, and became an inmate of your legation, nominally as a salaried servant. As the result of several interviews had by you with the Persian authorities, orders have been issued permitting this person to return unmolested to his villages, but his status as a naturalized citizen and his

asylum ' in your legation had been formally denied; and the relief reported in your No. 34 is unaccompanied by any admission in these regards.

Hajie Seyyah has expressed a wish to return to the United States. “Two distinct and somewhat conflicting questions appear to be involved-Hajie Seyyah's claim to protection as an American citizen, and his claim to enjoy asylum against process of Persian law. As to the first, the uniform rules and precedents of this Government make Hajie Seyyah's claim to protection as a bona fide citizen of the United States extremely doubtful. He quitted this country soon after having been naturalized, and has lived abroad, latterly in his native land, some seventeen years, without manifesting his American citizenship or performing its duties. His domicil, interests, membership in a purely oriental hierarchy, mode of life, and polygamous marriage suggest no affiliation with the social organization of this country. Were he within the jurisdiction of the United States, he would be amenable to criminal process for bigamry.

“All the circumstances of his case suggest a merely colorable acquisition of American citizenship for the purpose of evading the obligations of his original Persian allegiance, and were he an applicant for a passport as a citizen of the United States you would be unhesitatingly instructed to decline its issuance.

“You make the point that the question whether Hajie Seyyah is in fact a Persian subject, is the vital issue in the case. The effect of naturalization under the laws of the United States, is no wise dependent upon or affected by the laws of the alien's country. So far as we are concerned, it is perfectly immaterial whether Hajie Seyyah had or had not the Shah's permission to emigrate, if he be lawfully admitted to American citizenship; and his rights would be effectively respected in the United States and protected in a third country. But when he voluntarily returns to his native country, presumably knowing the

« PreviousContinue »