« PreviousContinue »
law thereof in this regard, he becomes the subject of a conflict of laws. The legality of his naturalization in the United States is not to be questioned except by allegation of fraud in its procurement, which does not enter into the present case.
66 The claim of the Persian minister that the naturalization here is not valid, because lacking the prior consent of Persia, can not be admitted, but on the other hand and in the absence of a treaty of naturalization, its validity may not be practically enforceable in Persia against the counter claim of that Government, that under its law the man has not lost his original allegiance.
“ The emigration treaty of July 3, 1844, between Russia and Persia, which the minister invokes, has no relation whatever to the naturalization of Persians according to the laws of the United States; for the widest expansion of the favored-nation doctrine could not make a treaty between two foreign states the measure of the validity of a judicial act done in the United States in conformity to our municipal law.
“To sum up, I have no hesitancy in regarding as unworthy the claim of Hajie Seyyah to be protected as a person who has bona fide conserved the rights and discharged the reciprocal duties of American citizenship, however lawful be the act of his naturalization.”
Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sperry, min. to Persia, May 17, 1893,
For. Rel. 1893, 498.
said: My Government decides that Ilajie Seyyah is not a citizen of
have been lost because he never
the Persian Government be advised : " The Department did not decide
2. OFFICE IIOLDING.
“When an alien is at the very time of his naturalization, and for years before has been, a resident and office-holder in the country of his origin, when after his naturalization he puts his certificate in his pocket and returns to the country of his origin, and continues to reside there in business and holding office, the President feels it to be his duty to afford to such a citizen only the measure of protection demanded by the strictest construction of duty, namely, that he shall receive from the hands of the Government under which he is holding office the measure of protection which it affords to its own citizens or subjects."
Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, April
25, 1882, For. Rel. 1882, 230, 231. In this case the naturalization was performed under $ 2166, R. S., relating
to the naturalization of persons who have served in the armies of the United States. With reference to the foregoing extract, it is to be observed that Mr. Frelinghuysen, as appears by the text of the instruction, construed § 2166 as requiring the court to grant naturalization, without regard to the time when the service was rendered, and without regard to the fact that the applicant had meanwhile " abandoned the country and was in business in a foreign land, anal holding office there with every apparent purpose of remaining there permanently." Mr. Frelinghuysen declared, indeed, that an act of naturalization under such circumstances, which were those of the case before him, was “only just within the letter" and wholly outside the spirit and intent of the naturalization laws." But, as he considered it to be within the letter, he seems further to have held that there should in consequence be allowed in such a case, after naturalization, a latitude of action not enjoyed by persons admitted to citizenship under other provisions of law, and amounting to an exemption from the ordinary presumptions with regard to the renunciation of adoptive nationality by return to and residence in the land
of origin. That this was assumed to be so seems to be indicated by the decision in
another case in the same instruction, presenting similar features as to residence and office-holding in the country of origin, but where the naturalization was granted under the ordinary conditions. In this case it was held that the most the United States could do was to insist that the person
should have a right to return to the country of his adoption, leaving the question of damages for future discussion."
“When a naturalized citizen resumes his residence with his family in the land of his origin, and goes into business there, and becomes an office-holder, and takes active part in political discussions, if it turns out that his action gives offense to the local government, and he is thrown into prison, the laws and interests of the United States do not require us to do more than insist that he shall have a right to return to the country of his adoption, leaving the question of damages for future discussion.
“ Such is understood to have been the course pursued by the United States during the late civil war. In September, 1862, the British chargé d'affaires at Washington requested the discharge of one Francis Carroll, a British subject, who had been arrested by the military
authorities in Baltimore. Mr. Seward refused the request, and in a note to Mr. Stuart said:
"Is the government of the United States to be expected to put down treason in arms and yet leave persons on liberty who are capable of spreading sedition?
Certainly the government could not expect to maintain itself if it allowed such mischievous license to American citizens. Can the case be different when the dangerous person is a foreigner living under the protection of this government? I can conceive only one ground upon which his release can be ordered, and that is that he may be too unimportant and too passionate a person to be heeded in his railings against the government. But you will bear in mind that the times are critical, and that sedition is easily moved now by evil-designing men who in times of peace might be despised.' (Dip. Cor. 1862, p. 228.)
"A correspondence ensued, which resulted in a proposal that
“Mr. Carroll should be released from custody upon his agreeing to leave the United States immediately, and not return again during the continuance of this rebellion, and giving security to the approval of the United States marshal that he will keep said agreement.' (Dip. Cor. 1863, p. 460.)
“ This offer was accepted by the British chargé d'affaires, and Mr. Carroll was discharged."
Ir. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lowell, min. to England, April
25, 1882, For. Rel. 1882, 230, 231.
“ Your letter of the 21st ultimo, addressed to the President, has been transmitted to this Department for reply. You state in substance that you have been selected by citizens of Bluefields, Nicaragua, as a member of the local municipal council of that city; that, among other powers, to this council will be intrusted the imposition of taxes for the local government; that by the exercise of economy and good judgment the same may be lightened, trade revived, and confidence restored, and thereby the condition of American interests in Bluefields will be much benefited and the property of Americans rendered of greater value than at present. You further state that, if good citizens will not accept these positions, then irresponsible parties, having no property to be affected, will be selected with attending results inimical to business and property. You inquire whether by accepting such a place in the municipal government, you will lose the benefit of protection by this Government as an American citizen.
“ In reply I have to say that, in view of the fact that you are domiciled in Nicaragua, not for the purpose of a permanent residence, but with the intention of returning to the United States, and in view also of the importance of American investments in Bluefields, which so largely predominate there, and that American citizens thus interested naturally have a deep concern in the matter of local taxation and good municipal administration, I am of the opinion that to accept the position for which you have been selected, and to act as one of the municipal council aforesaid, recognized by the Government of Nicaragua, will not operate to forfeit the protection to which American citizens in a foreign jurisdiction are entitled, but that such protection would be extended, subject, however, to the limitations and conditions applicable to those so situated; that whatever is done must be in the light of the Nicaraguan constitution and Nicaraguan laws, and with a view also of the possible results consequent upon any internal dissensions that may occur, or changes of Nicaraguan authority against which this Government can not provide."
Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Weil, Oct. 4, 1894, 199 MS. Dom. Let.
“ While it was the opinion of this Government at the time that if Mr. Wiltbank, without having taken any part in the insurrection, accepted office under an insurrectionary authority for the sole purpose of protecting the community and preserving order during the supremacy of a de facto government which he was unable to resist, he was not guilty of any hostile act to the Government of Nicaragua which would justify his expulsion, the fact yet remains that, from the point of view of Nicaragua, at the time Mr. Wiltbank was arrested and forcibly sent away, he was one of the officers of a revolutionary government which had seized upon the reins of sovereigu authority within the territory and political jurisdiction of Nicaragua. His motives and the limits within which he had acted may not have been known to the Nicaraguan authorities until they were shown by this Government, when Mr. Wiltbank was permitted to return to his home and resume his business.
" The Department has decided that Mr. Wiltbank is not entitled to exemplary damages or indemnity for personal suffering or inconveniences attending his expulsion. He makes no claim for actual pecuniary loss resulting therefrom. If he will show that the action of the Government of Nicaragua in this matter caused him a direct property loss, whether by destruction of his property or otherwise. the Department will consider the claim anew. Remote or consequential damages, however, can not be taken into consideration.”
Mr. Rockhill, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Phillips & McKenney, Sept. 1,
1896, 212 MS. Dom. Let. 300.
Von Werthen and Juen have both held official position under the Hawaiian Government-the former as a detective under the provisional government and the latter as a custom-house officer and police captain under the monarchy, and again as a police captain under the
provisional government. The acceptance of civil office in a foreign country indicates such an identification of the person accepting it with the country he serves as to raise serious doubts whether he can rightfully claim, as against that country, the protection of his original nationality.”
Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Willis, min. to Hawaii, May 14, 1895,
For. Rel. 1895, II. 854, 855.
Responding to an inquiry whether an American citizen would lose his citizenship by being elected to a position under a city government in Cuba, the Department of State said: “If, in accepting the office, you do not take an oath of allegiance to a foreign state, nor renounce allegiance to the United States, the mere acceptance of the municipal office under the present régime in Cuba would not forfeit your American citizenship. But should you remain permanently in Cuba, and, at some future time, claim the protection of the United States, your acceptance of the office would be a circumstance which might have some bearing on the question whether you had abandoned the right to claim American protection."
Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Lombard, May 12, 1900, 245 MS.
Dom. Let. 189.
3. TAKING PART IN POLITICS.
“ While the bare fact of his American citizenship may not be in doubt, the attendant circumstances of his case are not such as to very strongly impress the Department that his acts in Costa Rica were altogether those of a bona fide, peaceful, law-abiding citizen of this country; and unless other facts, not known to the Department now, shall be adduced to show that the conduct of Mr. since his naturalization has not only been that of a good American citizen, but also entirely disconnected from the internal politics of Costa Rica, it is not seen that his claim could, with propriety, be very earnestly urged. You may therefore let it rest for the present.”
Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, No. 28, Oct. 23, 1879, MS. Inst.
Cent. Am. XVIII. 17.
Certain persons having in the character of citizens of the United States preferred claims against the Hawaiian Government for their alleged arbitrary arrest and detention for connection with the attempted rising of January, 1895, the Department of State observed that all of them, with one exception, were living in Hawaii at the
H. Doc. 551-vol 3—50