Page images

tion lists. If he neglects to do so he may be fined from 2 to 40 kroner; but if his neglect arises from a design to evade service he may be imprisoned.

“ In case he fails to appear when the law requires that he be assigned to military duty he is liable to imprisonment.

“ When one whose name has been or should have been entered on the conscription lists emigrates without reporting his intended departure to the local authorities he is liable to a fine of from 25 to 100 kroner.

“A person above the age of 22 years entered for military service must obtain a permit from the minister of justice to emigrate. Noncompliance with this regulation is punishable by a fine of from 20 to 200 kroner.

“The treaty of naturalization between the United States and Denmark provides that a former subject of Denmark naturalized in the United States shall, upon his return to Denmark, be treated as a citizen of the United States; but he is not thereby exempted from penalties for offenses committed against Danish law before his emigration. If he renews his residence in Denmark with intent to remain, he is held to have renounced his American citizenship.

“ A naturalized American, formerly a Danish subject, is not liable to perform military service on his return to Denmark, unless at the time of emigration he was in the army and deserted, or, being 22 years old at least, had been enrolled for duty and notified to report and failed to do so. He is not liable for service which he was not actually called upon to perform.”

Circular Notice, Department of State, April 10, 1901, For. Rel. 1901,

139–140. See Mr. Day, Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Haskell, Nov. 13, 1897, 222 MS.

Dom. Let. 371 ; Mr. Swenson, min. to Denmark, to Mr. Jensen, Feb. 18, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, 135.

S. was born in Denmark in 1860. At the age of 17 he emigrated to the United States, after having notified the proper authorities as required. His name was not, however, stricken from the military rolls. He was naturalized in the United States in 1895, and in 1897 returned to Denmark, where he purchased a piece of property which he exchanged in the following year for another piece of property. In September, 1899, he went back to the United States for the purpose, as it was alleged, of selling some property which he owned there. In September, 1900, he again returned to Denmark, where he was summoned to perform military duty. The Danish Government maintained that, as he had been “ domiciled in Denmark more than two years," had become a "proprietor," and had made his living there, “ both as agriculturist and as keeper of a temperance hotel," his summons to do military duty was in conformity with article 3 of the treaty of July 20, 1872. It was held by the Government of the United States that the facts recited“ would seem to throw upon Mr. Sörensen the onus of showing that his acts, as recited in the note, do not evince an intention on his part to acquire a permanent domicil in Jutland.”

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Swenson, min. to Denmark, April 12, 1901,

For. Rel. 1901, 136-139.

N. was born in Denmark, January 21, 1867. In September, 1886, he appeared for examination for military duty and was assigned to duty in the infantry. He then went to America. He stated that before doing so he wrote to the minister of war for leave, but he had not received it when he departed. He thus appeared to have violated the military law and to be liable to punishment as a deserter; but it seems that " in other cases of a similar character, when the returning visitor produced a passport from the United States, showing him to be a citizen of that country, the Danish Government refrained from exacting military duty or inflicting punishment for desertion."

Mr. Risley, min. to Denmark, to Mr. Sherman, Sec. of State, Oct. 14, 1897,

For. Rel. 1897, 120.


$ 107.

“ The information given below is believed to be correct, yet is not to be considered as official, as it relates to the laws and regulations of a foreign country.

“ Subjects of Sweden are liable to performance of military duty in and after the calendar year in which they reach their twenty-first year.

“ Under the treaty between the United States and Sweden and Norway, a naturalized citizen of the United States, formerly a subject of Sweden, is recognized as an American citizen upon his return to the country of his origin. He is liable, however, to punishment for an offense against the laws of Sweden committed before his emigration, saving always the limitations and remissions established by those laws. Emigration itself is not an offense, but nonfulfillment of military duty and desertion from a military force or ship are offenses.

“A naturalized American who performed his military service or emigrated when he was not liable to it, and who infracted no laws before emigrating, may safely return to Sweden.

“If he renews his residence in the Kingdom without intent to return to America, he is held to have renounced his American citizenship, and he will be liable to perform military duty.”

Circular Notice, Department of State, Washington, Feb. 9, 1901, For. Rel.

1901, 486. A similar notice was issued with regard to Norway, with the following

exceptions : Subjects of Norway are liable to performance of military duty in and

after the calendar year in which they reach their twenty-second

year. * He sa naturalized American citizen returning to Norway) must, how

ever, report to the conscription officers, and, on receiving a summons, present himself at the meetings of the conscripts in order to prove

his American citizenship. “If he has remained as long as two years in Norway, he is obliged, with

out being summoned, to present himself for enrollment at the first session, since he is then deemed by Norway to have renounced his

American citizenship. “If he renews his residence in the Kingdom without intent to return to

America, he is held to have renounced his American citizenship."

A naturalized citizen of the United States of Norwegian origin, having been arrested and held for military service on his return to his native country, sought to make a claim for compensation. It appearing that his arrest and detention were due to " resistance to, and delay in complying with, the reasonable requirement to prove his American citizenship before the competent authority,” it was held that the case did not present a proper ground for intervention.

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thomas, min. to Sweden and Norway,

Jan. 16, 1902, For. Rel. 1901, 494.





A woman who was born in South Carolina and resided with her father, a citizen of that State, in Charleston, at the time of the Declaration of Independence and afterwards, till 1781, when she was married to a British officer, with whom she went to England in 1872, where she remained till her death in 1801, was held to be an alien. The opinion of the court was not that she ceased to be a citizen simply by her marriage to an alien, but that her withdrawal with her husband, and her permanent adherence to the side of the enemies of the State down to and at the time of the treaty of peace (1783), operated as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance by an election which her coverture did not prevent her from making.

Shanks 1. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242.
It has been held that an American woman who marries an alien in the

United States, and lives there with him till his death, is not an alien.
(Comitis 1. Parkerson, 50 Fed. Rep. 556. Contra, Pequignot v.
Detroit, 16 Fed. Rep. 211.)

A native American woman was married in the United States

in 1828 to a Spanish subject. Three years later Case of Mrs. Preto. she removed with her husband to Spain, taking with her an infant daughter, who also was American born. The family was still residing in Spain when, in 1858, the husband died. The American legation at Madrid subsequently raised the question whether the widow and her daughter might be regarded as citizens of the United States. Attorney-Cieneral Bates, to whom the question was referred, advised (1) that the lady did not, by marrying a Spanish subject in the United States, lose her American citizenship; (2) that the daughter born in the United States was an American citizen by birth; (3) that their removal to Spain and residence in that country constituted, under the circumstances, no evidence of an attempt on their part to cast off their native allegiance and adopt a new sovereign; and (4) that they both were American citizens.

Bates, At.-Gen., Aug. 6, 1862, 10 Op. 321 ; case of Mrs. Preto, née Griffith,

and her daughter. See, however, Kircher 1. Murray, 54 Fed. Rep. 617.

By section 116, of the internal-revenue act of 1864, 13 Stat. 281,

citizens of the United States residing abroad " were Madame Berthe

subject to an income tax. A question arose as to my's Case.

whether this phrase applied to Madame Berthemy. Her father was a citizen of the United States, but she was born in France and married there a French subject, and after his death she continued to live in France, where, as it was stated, she had always been domiciled. Attorney-General Stanbery, to whom the case was referred, observed that the act of February 10, 1855, had the effect of naturalizing all persons born abroad before its passage whose fathers were, at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States. Had Madame Berthemy acquired the rights of a French subject? In this relation, the Attorney-General observed that by the French Civil Code,

, Book I., chap. 1, art. 9, a person born in France of foreign parents acquired the quality of a Frenchman, not by the mere fact of birth on French soil, but only on complying with certain conditions during the year following the attainment of majority; but that, as it did not appear whether Madame Berthemy acquired French citizenship

H. Doc. 551-vol 3- -29

under this provision, the question of her national character depended upon the effect of her French marriage. In this relation, the French Civil Code, said the Attorney-General, provided (Book I., chap. 1, art. 12) that a foreign woman who married a Frenchman should follow the condition of her husband. Madame Berthemy therefore had a good title by marriage to citizenship of France, and was to be treated as a French citizen, and not as a citizen of the United States.

Stanbery, At.-Gen., Aug. 13, 1866, 12 Op. 7.
The Attorney-General remarked that a provision similar to that in the

French code, respecting the marriage of alien women with French-
men, was contained in the statute of 1855, which was substantially
like the English statute of 7 & 8 Vict. sec. 16. He also remarked
that it was unnecessary to advert to the question whether a person,
formerly a citizen of the United States, who had acquired a new
nationality abroad, might by domiciliary residence in the United
States become reinvested with the quality of an American citizen,
since there was nothing to show that Madame Berthemy had in
that way exhibited a desire and intention to assume the duties and
obligations of an American citizen.

By section 13 of the internal-revenue act of 1867, 14 Stat. 477, amending section 116 of the act of 1864, citizens of the United States residing abroad continued to be subject to an income tax. In September, 1868, the Secretary of the Treasury submitted to AttorneyGeneral Hoar the question whether an “American woman born in the United States, residing in France, and married there to a citizen of France, is, by reason of such marriage, to be regarded as having lost her American citizenship.” The Attorney-General held that the opinion given in the case of Madame Berthemy was “directly in point," since it decided “that a woman, a citizen of the United States, domiciled in France and marrying there a citizen of France," was not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the words in the revenue act. The Attorney-General added that he did not propose to express any opinion“ whether a woman who is by birth a citizen of the United States, and by marriage has become a citizen of France, is not after such a marriage a citizen of the United States in a qualified sense." In view of the fact that the laws of the United States had, as he said, “ adopted the policy of permitting women to acquire citizenship by marriage,” he preferred to adhere to the conclusion reached by Mr. Stanbery.

Hoar, At.-Gen., July 12, 1869, 13 Op. 128.

Mr. Fish, February 24, 1871, after observing that by the law of

England and the United States an alien woman, on Opinions of Secre

her marriage with a subject or citizen, merged her taries of State.

nationality in that of her husband, said: “ But the converse has never been established as the law of the United States,

« PreviousContinue »