Page images

“ Your course in respect to these applications is judicious. The future intention of the applicants should distinctly appear, and not be evidently negatived by the circumstances of their continued sojourn abroad, before you would be justified in granting passports to them.”

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Reid, min. to France, No. 369, Nov. 27,

1891, MS. Inst. France, XXII. 253.
For the case of John Maurice Hubbard, see supra, $ 501.

“ Mrs. Emily Jane Smith

was born at Vladivostok, Russia, in November, 1864, and was married in 1884, before the U. S. consul at Nagasaki, Japan, to Mr. Oscar Fitzallen Smith, a citizen of the United States, who died at Vladivostok in 1889. Her father, born in New York in 1835, is now dead, as is also her mother. Mrs. Smith states that since her marriage in 1884 she has resided at Vladivostok and at Yokohama, Japan, and that she desires a passport for use in traveling in Europe. She is about to marry a Russian at Marseilles.

“ It thus appears that this lady, born abroad of a native American father, who appears to have permanently abandoned the United States, and married to another native citizen who seems likewise to have relinquished his original domicil, and who has herself never been in the country of which she claims protection as a citizen, has no intention of ever coming to the United States, and her object in asking the passport is to enable her to go to France, there to marry a Russian subject.

“ Under these circumstances Mrs. Smith's claim to protection as one who bona fide conserves American citizenship is too intangible to warrant the issuance of a passport.“

Mr. Adee, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, July 26, 93,

For. Rel. 1893, 105.
To the same effect, in relation to the same case, is Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of

State, to Miss Crosby, July 27, 1893, 193 MS. Dom. Let. 16.

" The applicants, Antoine Phelps and Emanuel Phelps, are stated by you to be, respectively, 34 and 30 years of age, both having been born in Hayti of American parents who went thither in 1824. Neither of them was registered at the time of birth, or has at any time been in the United States, or has shown since attaining majority any purpose to come hither. The only evidence they present of their American character is a certificate, given by your predecessor, Mr. Hollister, in 1869, to one Pierre Phelps, whose relationship to the applicants is not stated, while their present application appears to be for some form of permit which will enable them to continue to reside in Hayti exempt from all burdens of such residence. Under

the reported circumstances you are not authorized to grant to the persons named a passport, which, as you correctly suggest, is the only certificate of citizenship which you are authorized to grant in any


Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Powell, min; to Hayti, Sept. 2, 1899, For.

Rel. 1899, 100.



$ 517.

“ You complain of the action of Mr. Czopkay, U. S. consul at Bucharest, in taking away the passport of yourself and son. The true intent of our naturalization laws is that the rights and duties of naturalized citizens should be reciprocal. This Government can not continue its protection to those who have sought naturalization in the United States for the purpose, by an immediate return after naturalization to their native country, of evading their obligations both to this Government and that of their former allegiance. While conferring its protection, the Government should not be deprived of the services and industry of its citizens, and it would be unjust to the Government under which such citizens have taken up a permanent residence fo deprive it of the same. A long continued and permanent residence abroad, especially of naturalized citizens in the land of their nativity, is prima facie evidence of an intention on their part to relinquish the rights as well as the obligations of American citizens.

"Our representatives abroad are instructed to inquire into the circumstances of each case of this character, and to use their best discretion in the action taken by them.”

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Dr. Chernbuck (Hospital Coltea, Bucharest,

Turkey), Aug. 25, 1868, 79 MS. Dom. Let. 261.

A naturalized citizen of the United States who returns to his country of origin, and there marries, settles, and remains twenty years, is not entitled to a passport as a citizen of the United States.

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kasson, Mar. 31, 1881, MS. Inst. Aus

tria, III. 145.

When an Austrian subject, after being naturalized in the United States, returns to his country of origin on a passport dated June 17, 1881, and there resides four years, and then applies for a new passport, such passport " ought not to be granted without proof that this residence was meant by him to be temporary and exceptional," and in such case it would be proper that the applicant should be personally examined.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lee, chargé, No. 11, Oet, 2, 1855. MS.

Inst. Austria-llung. III. 363.

L., a Hungarian by birthi, emigrated to the United States during the political disturbances in Hungary in 1819–1850, and was duly naturalized. He lived in the United States sixteen years, and then returned to Ilungary, where, after twenty years of uninterrupted residence, with apparently permanent employment, he applied for a passport as a citizen of the United States. His domestic relations were established in Hungary and his children were born there. On these facts, it was held that he presumptively was domiciled in Hungary, and that, so long as this presumption was not rebutteil, he could not obtain a passport averring him to be entitled to the immunities of a citizen of the United States.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lee, chargé at Vienna, July 12, 1887,

For Rel. 1887, 23.

Sigismund Löwinsohn was born in Pressburg, Hungary, in 1871. In 1866 he came to the United States, and, in 1872, on the day on which he attained his majority, was naturalized. In the same month he left the United States, and a few weeks later settled in Vienna, where he continued to reside, where he married and reared a family, and where he was engaged in a lucrative business. In 1887, being desirous of “ registering the birth of a child," he applied to the American legation for a passport, but refused to make any definite statement as to the time of his return to the United States. Held, that a passport was properly refused.

Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lawton, min. to Aust.-llung.. No. 14.

Dec. 5, 1887, For. Rel. 1888, I. 20.

“In the case of Mr. Felix Poyard, reported in your No. 633 of the 6th instant, a settled and continuous residence of thirty years in France, the country of his origin, to which he had voluntarily returned, and where he had made his domicil, would seem in all reason to have indicated his abandonment of his acquired American citizenship, unless satisfactorily rebutted by proof of special countervailing circumstances. In that long period it does not appear that he had performed any duty of an American citizen, although during a portion of the time the resources of the country were strained to the utmost; and yet, by a vague oral declaration of his intention at some future time to return here, he is to be held entitled to all the privileges and protection for which he has not rendered the slightest equivalent.

" In all such cases I hold that very strict inquiry shall be instituted, and if the French domicil has been established, and the usual evidence of a continuing intent to live and die in that country is found, then there can be no pretext for certifying, by means of an American passport, a correlative allegiance and protection which do not exist.

“ It must not be forgotten that in such cases it is always in the power of the applicant, by a return to the United States, or by the performance of some act affirmative of citizenship in this country, to relieve his case of doubt.

“ Neglect of rights and duties often involves loss, but the maxim applies in respect of rights of citizenship as much as to other rights-vigilantibus non dormientibus subvenient jura.' Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, July 20, 1888,

For. Rel. 1888, I. 551.


Solomon II. Ulmer, a native of Bavaria, came to the United States in 1816, when 27 years of age. IIe was naturalized in 1853. In 1858 he returned to Bavaria, where he thereafter continued to reside. In 1888 he applied for a passport to include his son, a native of Germany, then 19 years of age, and subject to call for military service, who, it was alleged, proposed to come to the United States “ in the course of one or two years.' It was held that upon the facts stated Mr. Ulmer had long since renounced his naturalization, under the terms of the treaty with Bavaria, and that he was not entitled to a passport.

Mr. Bayarı, Sec. of State, to Mr. ('oleman, chargé at Berlin, December 4,

1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 661.


a native of Russia, came to the United States in 1875, was naturalized in 1881, and three months later returned to Russia, where he settled down as a farmer. Referring to the possibility of his applying for a renewal of his passport, the Department of State said: “He resided in the United States only a little more than the period required for completing his naturalization. Out of a life of 55 years he has spent only a little over 5 in this country. Already the period of his residence in Russia since he returned thither amounts to almost twice the whole aggregate of his residence in the United States. In an opinion given by the Attorney-General of the United States on August 20, 1873, there is the following passage: Naturalization effected in the United States without an intent to reside permanently therein, but with a view of residing in another country, and using such naturalization to evade duties and responsibilities that would otherwise attach to the naturalized person, ought to be treated by the Government of the United States as fraudulent, and as imposing upon it no obligation to protect such person, and as to this, the executive must judge from all the circumstances of the case. This opinion seems to be directly applicable to the case of J- W- -"

Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Smith, min. to Russia, No. 79, Feb. 28,

1891, MS. Inst. Russia, XVI. 696.

The fact that a person lived but a short time in the United States after his naturalization, and that he had since resided for a period of twenty years in the country of his origin,“ seems to require proof of bona fide conservation of his American status beyond his general statement of an intent to return to this country within two years for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations assumed by his naturalization."

Mr. Wharton, Acting Sec. of State, to Mr. White, min. to Russia, March

2, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 537.

“ This Government does not discriminate between native-born and naturalized citizens in according them protection while they are abroad, equality of treatment being required by the laws of the United States (Secs. 1999 and 2000 R. S.). But in determining the question of conservation of American citizenship and the right to receive a passport, it is only reasonable to take into account the purpose for which the citizenship is obtained. A naturalized citizen who returns to the country of his origin and there resides without any tangible manifestation of an intention to return to the United States may therefore generally be assumed to have lost the right to receive the protection of the United States. His naturalization in the United States can not be used as a cloak to protect him from obligations to the country of his origin while he performs none of the duties of citizenship to the country which naturalized him. The statements of loyalty to this Government which he may make are contradicted by the circumstance of his residence, and are open to the suspicion of being influenced by the advantages he derives by avoiding the performance of the duties of citizenship to any country. It is not to be understood by this that naturalized American citizens returning to the country of their origin are to be refused the protection of a passport. On the contrary, full protection should be accorded to them, until they manifest an effectual abandonment of their residence and domicil in the United States,"

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to U. S. dip. & cons. officers, Circular, March 27,

1899, For. Rel. 1902, 1.

« PreviousContinue »