(Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fish, No. 203, April 1, 1881, MS. Inst. Switzerland, II. 84; Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cramer, chargé at Berne, No. 19, Jan. 12, 1883, id. 162; Mr. Winchester to Mr. Bayard, April 21, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 1063; Mr. Bayard to Mr. Winchester, May 7, 1887, id. 1065.)

A. C. A. Cranz applied to the American legation at Brussels, in 1886, for a passport. It appeared that he was born in Germany in April, 1860; that he emigrated to America in September, 1877; that he was naturalized in Boston in 1882; that he last left the United States in December, 1883, and that in 1884 he was temporarily residing at Brussels. His father lived in Austria, of which country he was a subject, and the son was associated with him in business. In his passport application Mr. Cranz declared that he had no intention to return to the United States to reside, though possibly he might at some time make a visit there, and that he desired the passport for the purpose of residing in Europe. The refusal to issue him a passport was approved.

(Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tree, min. to Brussels, April 9, 1886, For. Rel. 1886, 27.)

A native of Prussia, born about 1820, emigrated to the United States in 1857, and was naturalized in 1865. He returned to Europe in 1871 and was still residing there when, in 1887, he applied to the American legation at Brussels for a passport. In his applicaton he declared that he was temporarily residing at Brussels, but that he had "no fixed intention" of returning to the United States; that his return would "depend on circumstances." The legation declined to issue a passport and its action was approved, on the ground that the applicant had been absent from the United States for sixteen years and had no fixed intention of returning at any time in the future.

(Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tree, min, to Belgium, April 13, 1887, in reply to Mr. Tree's No. 224 of March 28, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 34, 38.

(As to the abuse of American naturalization by persons maintaining a permanent foreign residence, see Mr. Tree to Mr. Bayard, April 8, 1887, For. Rel. 1887, 37.)

A passport should be "refused to a naturalized citizen residing abroad who has no intention at present of returning to the United States, and who is unable to state whether he will do so or not, or when he may do so."

(Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Vignaud, chargé at Paris, June 13, 1888, For. Rel. 1888, I. 542.)

"Persons who have no intention of ever returning to the United States, or, what is the same thing, who do not know their own minds on the subject, are not, as you have been already instructed, entitled to the evidence of protection by the United States which is afforded by a passport. On the other hand, those who can not name a precise date for their return are not necessarily to be denied the possession of such evidence, for a distinction, which should be carefully borne in mind, exists between a fixed intention to return and an intention to return at a fixed date. The existence of the former state of mind must be established by competent evidence, to your satisfaction, before you may issue a passport; the existence of the latter intention is merely cumulative evidence on the point. * * * "It is not to be understood that the Department in so instructing you intends to introduce any novel doctrines or to extend its instructions in any respect beyond the precise point involved-the issuance of passports by our legations abroad. While resolute in claiming for domicil all the rights attached to it by the law of nations, this Department is equally resolute in insisting that the term 'domicil' should not be enlarged so as to make it convertible with 'residence.' Important reasons may be assigned for this, which will at once suggest themselves to you." (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to France, Oct. 29, 1888, For Rel. 1888, I. 561.)

Mr. Frank R. Blackinton, a native citizen of the United States, applied to the American legation in Paris for a passport. He was born in 1851, and left the United States in 1871, since which time he had generally resided abroad. It appeared, however, that he had in eighteen years been nine times in the United States, remaining for a few months at a time; and he deposed that his domicil was in the United States, and his legal residence in Massachusetts, where he had always paid real and personal taxes. So far as these facts were concerned, they were declared by the Department of State to indicate that he was entitled to a passport, but, when required to fill up that part of the application declaring an intention to return to the United States with the purpose of residing and performing the duties of citizenship therein, Mr. Blackinton replied "that at

present I have no plan, intention, or desire to do so." In view of this declaration, the Department of State said: "The Department finds itself unable to direct favorable action upon Mr. Blackinton's application. If the Department had been left to gather this intention from antecedent facts, it would have come to a different conclusion, although no positive statement as to his future residence in the United States had been made; but it is superfluous to say that it is not admissible to resort to such inference to attribute to a person an intention to perform the duties of citizenship in the future, when he declares that he has neither intention nor desire to do so."

(Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Reid, min. to France, No. 76, Dec. 2, 1889, For. Rel. 1889, 168. See the similar case of H. C. Quinby, For. Rel. 1890, 335, 342.)

"It is not the purpose of the Department to require in all cases a certain statement as to the time at which an applicant for a passport intends to return to the United States. Various cases are conceivable in which it would be impossible to make such a statement in good faith, but in which the residence abroad would be entirely compatible with the retention of allegiance to the United States. The important object is, so far as possible, to ascertain the actual intention of the applicant, and for this purpose the statement made by him on the subject of return is not the only-and often not the most satisfactory-source of information. It is not difficult to conceive of cases the circumstances of which would clearly forbid the extension of protection to an applicant, although his declarations of allegiance and of intention to perform the duties of citizenship were strong and unqualified. His whole previous course of conduct might conclusively negative such a pretension. On the other hand, the good faith of the applicant and his right to protection might be clear, notwithstanding that he was unable to say that he would return to the United States at a certain day. But, where no such statement is made, the reasons for the omission should appear. The omission is one that requires explanation, and under some circumstances the excuse would have to be established by stronger evidence than under others. For example, a youth approaching the age when he will be liable to perform military service, leaves his native country and comes to the United States and is naturalized. Immediately after his naturalization he returns to the country of his origin, and, when asked to declare his intention in respect to return to the country of his adoption, is unable to make any definite statement. Such a case would, upon its face, require evidence of good faith of a very cogent character."

(Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Phelps, min. to Germany, No. 50, Jan. 10, 1890, For. Rel. 1890, 300.)

(For instructions to investigate, in the case of Bela Washington Fornet, the question of intent to return, see Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Grant, min. to Austria-Hungary, March 25, 1890, For. Rel. 1890, 11.)

H. L. B. applied to the American legation at The Hague in 1891 for a passport for himself and his son, a youth less than nineteen years of age. It appeared that H. L. B. was born in the Netherlands in 1848, and that his father was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1868. It also appeared that H. L. B. lived in the United States till he reached his majority, and that a year later he went to Belgium, where, after residing there eighteen months, he married. He then returned alone to the United States, remaining about a year, when he went to Rotterdam, "where he established himself in business and has continued to reside ever since." He had no property interests in the United States, and with the exception of two brief visits had not been there since he took up his residence in Rotterdam. No member of his family had ever been outside of Europe. While stating that it was and ever had been his intention to return to theUnited States, he admitted that he could not fix any definite time for so doing, but indicated that his action would be governed by his business interests. It appeared that he had had two passports, one in 1870 from the American minister at Brussels, and the other in 1888 from the American minister at The Hague. It was held that he was not entitled on these facts to a passport.

(Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thayer, min. to the Netherlands, No. 134. Feb. 6, 1892, MS. Inst. Netherlands. XVI. 109; Mr. Wharton, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Thayer, No. 143, March 21, 1892, id. 118.)

Julius C. Eversmann applied to the American legation in Berlin in 1891 for a passport. He was born in Kentucky in 1842, of a German father who lived in the United States from 1839 to 1846, and who was said to have been naturalized, but of whose naturalization no evidence was presented. In 1846 Julius, being then

four years old, was taken to Germany, where he lived for eighteen years. In 1864 he went to Mexico, where he resided fifteen years. In 1879 he returned to Germany, where he had since lived. From 1886 to 1889 he held the office of vice-consul of the United States at Dusseldörf. It was stated, with regard to his passport application, that, while he was willing to take the oath of allegiance, be frankly declared that he could not comply with the requirement as to stating an intention to return to the United States, since as he had no purpose whatever of doing so. It was held that, under the uniform ruling of the Department of State, this affirmation itself precluded the issuance to him of a passport.

(Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Coleman, chargé at Berlin, No. 366, Feb. 17, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 179. See, also, Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Eversmann, Dec. 1, 1893, 194 MS. Dom. Let. 429.)

Sigmund Ehrenbacher, the native American son of a naturalized citizen of the United States, went abroad in 1879, at the age of twenty, and settled in London, where he permanently engaged in business as a hop merchant. In 1892 he applied to the American legation in London for a passport. When, in filling up his application, he came to the point of declaring his intention as to returning to the United States, he remarked that he intended to go back when he had made money enough, which he hoped would be within ten years; but, when it was suggested that that time was remote, he said that he might perhaps do it in five years, and asked that that time be inserted. In a previous passport application, made in 1889, he stated that he intended to return to the United States within "a few months." It appeared that the hop business was established in London by the father, who left the United States ten years before the son and afterwards took the latter into the business. On all the circumstances, Mr. Lincoln, then American minister at London, expressed the opinion that Sigmund Ehrenbacher had no definite intention of returning to the United States, and that he was as "firmly settled in business" in London "as any one;" and the Department of State held that he was not entitled to a passport. Subsequently, however, he made an affidavit that he intended to open an office in New York during the next year, and stated that this would make it necessary for him to reside there frequently and for considerable periods, although, as he did not contemplate closing his London office, he would probably be obliged often to return to London. In view of this affidavit and of the fact that he was born in the United States and that his business was the sale of American hops, the legation decided to issue him a passport, declaring, however, at the same time, that its renewal two years later would depend upon his having then "established his permanent home in the United States."

(Mr. Lincoln, min. to England, to Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, April 29, 1892; Mr. Blaine to Mr. Lincoln, May 12, 1892; Mr. White, chargé, to Mr. Foster, Oct. 19, 1892: For Rel. 1892, 226, 227, 235.)

"These requirements [as to the declaration of an intention to return to the United States], while generally applicable to the cases of native-born citizens indefinitely sojourning abroad under circumstances creating a presumption of abandonment of their American domicil and status, are particularly necessary in respect to naturalized citizens quitting this country after acquiring citizenship, and especially to such as take up residence in the land of their original allegiance."

(Mr. Foster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 737, July 18, 1892, For. Rel. 1892, 124.)

Fielder J. Hiss was born in the United States in 1851, of American parentage. In 1893 he applied to the American legation in London for a passport. He stated that his domicil was in London, where he had resided with his family since April 1892; that he was engaged in business there as treasurer and general manager of an English company; and that he had no intention to return to the United States to reside or perform the duties of citizenship. It was held that he was not entitled to a passport.

(Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bayard, ambass. to England, No. 154, Oct. 9, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 329.)

In the case of a minor, fourteen years old, a citizen of the United States, who had gone abroad as a servant to a Russian, with an intention of remaining five years, it was said: "In the case of a minor, satisfactory proof of intent to return to the United States before or on obtaining majority may be accepted, even though the intended sojourn abroad may exceed two years."

(Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. White, amb. to Russia, No. 160, Feb. 7, 1894, For. Rel. 1894, 561, 562.)

H., a native of the United States, who was born in Texas in February 1861, left the United States with his father in 1866 and thereafter continued to reside in Mexico. He stated that his residence there was temporary, but made no declaration of intention to return to the United States. Held, that as he had permitted eleven years to elapse since he came of age without taking steps to resume his original domicil, and as he gave no satisfactory proof of his intention and ability to do so at any future time, a passport should not be issued. (Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gray, min. to Mexico, Feb. 10, 1894, For Rel. 1894, 411.)

On the ground that F. had resided continuously in Germany since he was five years of age, a period of twenty-six years; that he did not elect American nationality when he became of age; and that the intention expressed in a passport application in 1891, that he intended to return to the United States within two years, was not fulfilled, it was held that he was not entitled to a passport. (Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Harris, June 2, 1894, 197 MS. Dom. Let. 223.)

See Mr. Adee, Acting Secretary of State, to Mr. Thompson, minister to Brazil, August 8, 1895, briefly discussing various cases, in some of which passports had been issued and in others of which passports had been declined, the question involved being that of an intention to return to the United States.

(For. Rel. 1895, I. 71–72.)

Solomon Faden, born in Hungary in 1870, went to the United States at the age of sixteen, remained there five and a half years, and was naturalized September 17, 1891. He obtained a passport from the Department of State, September 30, 1891, upon an application declaring an intention to return to the United States in two years, there to reside and to perform the duties of citizenship, and went back to his native country. Two years later, in October 1893, he obtained a new passport from the United States legation at Vienna upon an application containing a similar declaration. Two years later, his passport having again expired, he applied for a renewal of it. It appeared that he had never voted in the United States, nor paid taxes there, nor had any connection with it in business. Since he obtained the second passport in 1893, he had married a native girl with some money, had purchased a business in his native town, and had apparently settled there to rear a family. With regard to returning to the United States, he said that "if his business does not go, he may try his luck in America." The legation declined to issue another passport. Its action was approved, the Department of State saying that as the application on which a new passport was obtained in 1893 "contained a positive declaration to return to the United States within two years to perform the duties of citizenship, it would require now very conclusive proof of his determination to so return in order to issue him a third passport. The facts you state, however, conspicuously negative any such purpose of return." In conclusion, the Department of State said: "For some years the Department has in special cases, upon the repeated application for renewal of passports, directed that the applicant be warned that the declaration of intention to return to the United States is not an empty phrase, and that in the case of a further renewal being sought withholdment of a passport would probably follow. You do not state whether any such warning was given to Mr. Faden, but his case does not seem sufficiently meritorious to invite the Department to stretch its custom in this regard. Both on the presumption and the facts he may be deemed to have voluntarily repatriated himself, and if he has not actually resumed Austrian allegiance in conformity with the laws of that country, he has at least voluntarily abandoned practical allegiance to the Government of his acquired nationality to such an extent as to absolve it in return from the duty of protecting him while he maintains indefinite and apparently permanent domicil in the land of his birth."

(Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Townsend, chargé at Vienna, Oct. 31, 1895, replying to a despatch of Mr. Townsend of Oct. 14, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, I. 22-24.)

Two persons, natives of the United States, applied to the legation at Buenos Ayres for passports. It appeared that they still owned property in California, which they occasionally visited, but that their property interests in the Argentine Republic were so much greater that they admitted that they could not reside permanently in the United States nor could make any statement of a definite character regarding their intention to return to that country. They were not engaged in trade with the United States. It was held that they were not entitled to passports.

(Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Buchanan, min. to the Argentine Repub, No. 101, Nov. 8, 1895, MS. Inst. Argentine Repub. XVII, 143.)

The declaration of intention to return "does not require a statement of a fixed date of return, but the manifestation of a fixed intention to return within some reasonable time, which intention shall not be conspicuously negatived by the circumstances of the foreign domicil of the declarant."

(Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Brazil, Nov. 12, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, I. 74.)

"The action of the Department in regard to the issuance of passports, and the limitation which its rules impose on such issuance in a foreign country or by the Department, do not rest on any precise inhibition by legislation, but are in the exercise of the discretion which the statute confers upon the Secretary of State, who 'may' issue such passports to citizens of the United States.

"In naturalization treaties between governments, a provision is commonly found to the effect that the return of a naturalized person to his native country and residence therein for two years may be taken as creating a presumption of intention not to return to the country of adoption. It is also a very general principle of international law, applied in practice by many states, that withdrawal from the country of allegiance, for a number of years or indefinitely, operates as a renunciation of citizenship or of the right to protection as a citizen while so failing to perform the duties of citizenship.

"For these reasons it has been found necessary to require of all applicants for passports a formal declaration of intention to return to the United States here to reside and perform the duties of citizenship, and the validiy of a passport issued is limited to two years. If, upon applying for its renewal, the party, being still abroad, is unable to satisfy the issuing authority of his or her purpose to return to the United States, the question of issuing a passport for indefinite residence abroad necessarily arises, to be determined according to the facts of each case ***. In issuing passports to parties in the United States for purposes of foreign travel, the Department does not exact a declaration of intention to return within a definite term, but a declaration of definite intention to return within some reasonable time."

(Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Anderson, Nov. 21, 1896, 214 MS. Dom. Let. 95. "The authority for requiring from an applicant for a passport a declaration of intent to return to the United States is found in section 4075, Revised Statutes, which gives the President authority, acting through the Secretary of State, to designate and prescribe the rules governing the issuance of passports." (Mr. Rockhill, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Ward, Jan. 27, 1897, 215 MS. Dom. Let. 430.))

A. A. W. applied to the American legation in St. Petersburg in 1897 for a new passport for himself, his wife, and four minor children. He was a native of the United States, but has been continuously absent from the country since 1867. He had previously obtained a passport from the legation in 1895, and on that occasion declared his intention to return to the United States. When asked in 1897 why this intention had not been carried into effect, he stated that he had been prevented from doing so by illness, and that he was "now saving money for the trip." Under the circumstances, the good faith of this declaration was questioned, and it was held that he was not entitled to a passport.

(Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Breckenridge, min. to Russia, No. 403, April 20, 1897, MS. Inst. Russia, XVII. 567.)

Where a naturalized citizen of the United States had withdrawn himself for 26 years from the country of his adoption and resided for most of that time in the country of the origin of his wife, and had obtained previous passports on declarations of intention to return to the United States, which had not been fulfilled, it was held that "very positive proof" of an actual intention to return to the United States would be required to overcome the presumption that he had "long abandoned the right to protection while residing abroad.”

(Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, to Mr. Storer, min. to Belgium, Nov. 10, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, 31, 32.)

Henry Louis Becker, a native of Holland, emigrated with his father in 1853 to the United States, where, during his minority, his father was naturalized. In May, 1893, being then thirty-five years of age, the son obtained a passport and went to Belgium. In March, 1896, he obtained a new passport from the United States legation at Brussels. In January, 1899, he applied for yet another passport, his previous one having expired in March, 1898. In obtaining the passport in 1896 he signed the usual application containing a declaration of intention to return to the United States within two years. A question having