« PreviousContinue »
for passports, to produce the parent's certificate of naturalization. Paragraph 154 of the Instructions to Diplomatic Officers of the United States authorizes diplomatic agents abroad to accept as evidence of citizenship a passport issued by the Department of State, if presented before its expiration. It is not in any case “ intended that secondary proof may not on rare occasions be accepted in lieu of the naturalization certificate. The question is fully discussed in the Department's publication, The American Passport, page 155 et seq. In Mr. Bayard's instruction to Mr. Vignaud, June 13, 1888, quoted on page 161, the general nature of the secondary proof acceptable is set forth. In a few words, it must establish that the father was actually naturalized before the son reached his majority.
" It may be added that the existing requirement of production of the naturalization certificate has prevailed since 1873; and experience has shown it to be necessary in order to prevent the Department or its agents from granting passports to those who are not legally citizens of the United States."
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Choate, amb. to England, Feb. 5, 1901,
For. Rel. 1901, 207.
5. EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS PASSPORT.
"It is not thought
that, under ordinary circumstances, if the bona fides of the original passport be in no ways impeached, it is necessary that the papers of naturalization, or a new affidavit of allegiance, should be produced in order to obtain a new passport. The case may be likened to a proceeding for the revival of a judgment, on which the original cause of action need not be proved."
Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lee, chargé, No. 11, Oct. 2, 1885, MS.
Inst. Aust.-Hlung. III. 363.
legation in Vienna for a passport, in place of an expired passport
In 1888 a person claiming to be a naturalized citizen of the United States applied to the American legation in Paris for a passport, presenting as evidence of citizenship a passport issued by the Department of State in 1879. The legation having declined to issue a passport, he addressed the Department of State, which replied:
“ By a regulation of this Department, in force for many years, passports are good only for two years, on or before the expiration of which period they are required to be renewed. This regulation has the double effect of enabling the Government to keep trace of those claiming its protection abroad and of requiring from them a small contribution to the expenses of the Government whose protection they enjoy.
It is for these reasons, and because of the regulation fixing two years as the period of vitality of a passport, that diplomatic officers have contemporaneously been forbidden to accept a passport more than two years old as sufficient evidence of citizenship to warrant the issuance of a new passport. This rule applies to native and natriralized citizens of the United States impartially, and where a citizen of the United States presents himself to a legation for the renewal of a passport more than two years old he is required, whether a native or naturalized citizen, to present the same sort of evidence of citizenship as that upon which his passport was originally obtained."
Mr. Adee, Second Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Twyeffort, July 13, 1888,
For. Rel. 1888, I. 551. ** Does a passport less than two years old entitle its holder to a new passport, even if he be unable to make definite and satisfactory declaration under any or all of the heads in the prescribed form of passport applications?
“A person presenting an application for a passport should fully comply with all of the rules and regulations in force at the time with respect thereto, independently of any previous passport which may have been issued to him. Such a previous passport, although less than two years old, is simply of value as prima facie evidence of the applicant's citizenship. If it appears to have been issued upon an identical state of facts, it inight also to a certain extent afford a precedent, though not necessarily controlling. Since a passport is good for two years, an applicant for a new one within that period should satisfactorily explain why the new passport is sought."
Mr. Blaine. Sec. of State, to Mr. Ryan, min. to Mexico, April 9, 1892,
MS. Inst. Mex. XXIII. 203. Where a person applied to the legation of the United States at St. Petersburg as a naturalized citizen and explained his failure to produce his certificate of naturalization by stating that it had been stolen, it seems to have been intimated by the Department of State that the issuance to him by the legation of a passport ten years previously might be treated as evidence that satisfactory proof of the fact of naturalization was then made, it being alleged that the loss of the certificate occurred prior to that time. It does not appear, however, that the second application was ultimately granted.
For. Rel. 1893, 537.
A passport was issued by the United States legation at St. Petersburg to one Hugo Sundel in 1882. It was granted on the sole evidence of a passport issued to him by the Department of State, Sept. 7, 1876, on his sworn statement that he was a native of the United States. In 1896, being under arrest at Moscow, he declared to the United States consul that he was born in Russian Poland, where he was known as Hugo Sundolovitch, and that between 1869 and 1872 he emigrated without permission to the United States, where he was naturalized. Under the circumstances, no evidence of his naturalization having ever been produced, it was held that he inust, in the absence of such evidence, “be deemed a Russian subject."
Mr. Rockbill, acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Breckinridge, min. 'to Russia,
Sept. 19, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 522.
“ It is usually expected that a person claiming citizenship through the naturalization of parents should, on each occasion of applying for a passport, produce the evidence by way of corroboration. The possession of a Department passport is, however, prima facie evidence cf the applicant's having previously produced to the Department the proof of the parents' naturalization; and inability to produce that evidence at each subsequent application for a passport need not occasion refusal to grant one unless the circumstances of the case should raise such reasonable doubt in the mind of the envoy as to cause him to make further inquiry of the Department.”
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Belgium, Feb. 4, 1899, For.
Rel. 1899, 84, 85.
Paragraphs Nos. 153 and 154 of the Instructions to the Diplomatic Officers of the United States and the same numbered paragraphs of the Regulations Prescribed for the Use of the Consular Service of the United States provide that when a person applies to a diplomatic or consular officer for a new passport his old passport may be accepted in lieu of his naturalization certificate, if it was issued at the mission or consulate to which the new application is made, and that such an old passport, if issued by the Department of State, may be so accepted for the same purpose if the application is made before the old passport has expired—that is, within two years of the date of its issuance.
* There appearing to be no good reason why an old passport, without regard to the time or place of its issuance, should not be accepted as evidence prima facie that the person it describes properly established his citizenship when the old passport was granted him, and as our citizens who fail to carry with them in their travels the proof of citizenship which they once produced to this Department or its agents abroad sometimes experience great inconvenience because they are refused passports under the regulations cited above, it has been deemed desirable to remedy the difficulty by rescinding these regulations and adding to the paragraph which precedes them
H. Doc. 551-vol 3-58
(No. 152) a clause permitting, in an application for a new passport, the acceptance of the old passport as evidence prima facie that the applicant established his citizenship when he made the application upon which the old passport was granted.
“ To this end an Executive order was issued on the 31st ultimo, a copy of which is appended."
Mr. Hill, Act. Sec. of State, to U. S. Dip. and Consular officers, circular,
Feb. 8, 1901, MS. Circulars, V.
cers of the United States, prescribed January 4, 1897, and paragraphs Nos. 153 and 154 of the Regulations Prescribed for the l'se of the Consular Service of the United States, December 31, 1896, are hereby repealed, and it is ordered that paragraph No. 152 of the aforesaid instructions and No. 152 of the aforesaid regulations be so amended
as to read: 152. Expiration of passport.-A passport expires two years after the
date of its issuance, and cannot be removed. A new passport may be issued upon a new application in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 151, but an old passport will be accepted as prima facie evidence that the citizenship of the applicant was properly proved when the old passport was granted, and a naturalized citizen need not, therefore, be required to produce the naturalization certificate through which he acquired his citizenship again. The old passport should be retained and sent to the Department of State with the application in making the report required in paragraph 163. If there is any doubt, however, surrounding the case, the applicant should be required to produce the same evidence that would be required of him if he were making his first application for a passport."
(MS. Circulars, V.) See correspondence in For. Rel. 1901, 207. A passport issued by the Department of State should always be accepted by a legation abroad as prima facie proof of the citizenship of the person to whom it was issued, should he apply to such legation for a new passport.
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hardy, min. to Switzerland, Apr. 23, 1901,
For. Rel. 1901, 508. In an exceptional case, where the certificate of naturalization was not
produced, and the passport, issued by the Department of State, was alleged to have been taken and lost by the Turkish police, a passport was issued by the legation at Constantinople. The Department of State was “disposed to conclude that this was an exceptional case. where the issuance of the passport without the primary proof of citizenship was permissible; but in every case of this kind the legation should affix to the application an explanatory statement justifying the apparent departure from those rules which experience has shown must be carefully observed to protect this Government from imposition.” (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Griscom, chargé at Constantinople, No. 356, March 6, 1901, M$. Inst. Turkey, VII. 521.)
6. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
“A passport cannot be issued to any citizen, claiming the protection of this Government, who is unwilling, at a time of peril like the present, to make known his loyalty by taking the oath of allegiance."
Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hillin, Aug. 23, 1861, 54 MS. Dom. Let.
527. No oath of allegiance had previously been required of persons applying
for passports. “ It has been deemed proper to require of all persons, who may, hereafter apply for passports, that they shall take the oath of allegiance, as prescribed by law, a copy of which is herewith enclosed, and the regulation will be strictly enforced in all cases.
Your course in declining to receive applications of persons who sympathised with those in insurrection against the Government, meets the approval of this Department.”
Mr. F. W. Seward, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Corey, notary public,
New York, Aug. 26, 1861, 54 MS. Dom. Let. 545.
of all Americans applying for passports or visés to be tested under
oath.” (Infra, § 532.) The form of oath of allegiance was changed by the act of May 13, 1881,
23 Stat. 21.
66 Mr. E 's refusal to take the prescribed oath of allegiance is
of itself a sufficient ground for declining to issue a passport to him. He may, in fact, be a citizen of the United States and that fact appear by competent proof, but his right to protection as a citizen abroad will depend on his purpose to fulfil the obligations of good citizenship, whereof allegiance is the highest. This requisite cannot be waived in any case, native born or otherwise. In the case of an applicant born abroad, as Mr. E
— was, it is especially imperative, particularly if he were born prior to his father's naturalization, for in such a case the son is not constrained by his father's act to be a citizen. The father's naturalization is no proof of the son's loyalty; he must evidence that by his own acts. In this relation it may be remarked that Mr. E could not have served [as he said he had done in the Army of the United States without taking the oath of allegiance. If he has done so once, it is not easy to fathom his present scruples.”
Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Newberry, No. 357, July 21, 1892, MS.
Inst. Turkey, V. 369.