EXPAT EUf ION MTU The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924012833053 Cornell University Library JX 4265.U58 1873 Opinions of the principal officers of th 3 1924 012 833 053 OPINIONS 01' THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, OTHER PAPERS RT5LATING TO EXPATRIATION, NATURALIZATION. CHANGE OF ALLEGIANCE. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPFIOE. 1873. LIST OF PAPERS. Pago. No. 496. Letter from the President to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, requiring his opinion in writing upon a series of questions, relating to allegiance and expatriation, which were inclosed in the letter 9 No. 497. The Secretary of State to the President, answer to No. 496 10 No. 498. The Secretary of the Treasury to the President, answer to No. 496 11 No. 499. The Secretary of War to the President, answer to No. 496 39 No. 500. The Secretary of the Navy to the President, answer to No. 496 41 No. 501. The Postmaster-General to the President, answer to No. 496 46 No. 502. The Attorney-General to the President, answer to No. 496 47 No. 503. The Secretary of the Interior to the President, answer to No. 496 51 No. 504. Mr. Fish to Mr. Marsh, Mr. Bancroft, and Mr. Washburne, (circular,) August 11, 1873, asking information respecting Americans residing in Europe 56 No. 505. Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish, reply to No. 504 56 No. 506. Mr. Marsh to Mr. Fish, reply to No. 504 60 No. 507. Mr. Washburne to Mr. Fish, reply to No. 504 63 No. 508. Report of a commission appointed by the Queen of Great Britain for inquiring into the laws of naturalization and allegiance 64 Memorandum by Baron Bramwell and Mr. Mountague Bernard, two of the commissioners 74 Memorandum by Mr. Vernou Harcourt, one of the commissioners 75 APPENDIX No. I. — Naturalization and Allegiance. Memorandum by Mr. Abbott (Lord Tenderden.) 80 [JV. B. — Tlie Italics in this list indicate the pa^iers added by order of the Secre- tary of State to Lord Tenderden' s list.'] Part I.— British and Colonial 'Ls.vtb. Act of May 12, 1870, (now m force) 82 Colonial naturalization — Antigua, Grenada, St. Vincent 87 Bahamas 87 Barbadoes, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Grenada 88 Bermuda 88 British Columbia 88 British Guiana 8- Canada '. 88 Cape of Good Hope -. 89 Honduras 89 Hong Kong 89 Jamaica 89 Natal ■■ -'. 90 New Brunswick 90 Newfoundland 90 New South Wales 90 New Zealand 91 Nova Scotia 91 Prince Edward's Island 91 Queensland 91 St. Kitt's and Anguila - 92 Sierra Leone 92 South Australia 92 Tasmania 92 Trinidad. - 93 Turk's Island and Caicos Island 93 Victoria 93 Western Australia 93 Page. APPENDIX No. 1— Continued. Part II. — ^Laws of the United States. A. — Eeport of the Examiner of Claims upon the provisiona of the statutes and Constitution respecting naturalization and expatriation 94 B.— Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the " SlaugUterSouse eases," December term, 1879 99 C. — Extract from the anali/tical index to tlie Treaties and Conventions of the United States toith other Powers" 106 D. — Extract from the regulations for the consular service 106 Part III. — Laws op other countries. France— Nationality 108 Loss of civil rights 309 Decree of 1811 — Naturalization of Frenchmen abroad 109 Law of 1851 — Nationality of the sons horn in Africa of aliens themselves born in France 110 Conscription of Frenchmen naturalized abroad — Count Walewski's note 118 to the United States oharg^ d'affaires in 1859 110 Con scriptioTi — Zeiter's case— Report by M. Treitfc 1 12 Naturalization of aliens in France 115 Naturalization laws of 1849, 1867 115 Debate on army bill, 1867 117 Statistics — Naturalization in France, 1851 to 1861 117 Prussia — Naturalization of aliens 117 Expatriation 118 Austria — Naturalization and expatriation 119 Bavaria — Wurtemburg — Netherlands 119 Russia — Naturalization law, 1864 120 Hamburg — Belgi um — Switzerland 121 Italy — Codes of Sardinia and Two Sicilies 121 Conscription law, 1855 122 Revised Italian code, 1866 122 Spain — Constitution of 1845; decree of 1852 124 Part IV. — Correspondbnob between the United States and Great Britain. \_Not reprinted in this colleiition.] Part V. — Correspondbnob between the United States and other countries. Page. Prussia — Mr. Wheaton's doctrine, 1840 125 Mr. Barnard's doctrine, 1851 126 Mr. Everett's doctrine, 1853 126 Baron Manteuffel's explanation of Prussian practice and law of 1843. .. 127 Mr. Cass's doctrine, 1858 127 Correspondence interrupted by civil war 128 Correspondence resumed, 1865. Count Bismarck's suggestions for an arrangement by a convention 128 Further proposal of Prussian government 129 Austro-Prussian war. Renewed negotiations 129 Substance of treaty of February 22, 1868 , 129 German States — Hamburg expatriation law — Correspondence with Bre- men, &c 130 Austria — Case of Martin Koszta 130 Case of Martin Koszta — Mr. Marcy's assertion of claim to protection ac- quired by domicile 131 Case of Simon Tonsig — Such claim forfeited by return to native country 132 Bavaria — Case of Amthor — Renunciation of naturalization 132 France — Mr. Webster's doctrine, 1852 132 Alibert's case — French conscription 133 Zeiter's case — French conscription 133 Recent conscription cases, 1866 134 Spain — Thrasher's case — Domicile — Exercise of foreign jurisdiction over Americans in cases of treason 134 Case of Liaiio — Mr. Webster's docti ine, 1852 135 Denmark — Boie Smidt — Conscription case . . ^ 135 Russiii — Law as to renouncing naturalization — Russians naturalized abroad expelled from Russia 135 5 Page. APPENDIX No. 1— Continued. Part V.— Correspondence between theJUnited States and other COUNTRIES — Continued. Costa Rica — Protection refused to persons fraudulently naturalized in United States without intention of residing. 136 Austria — Baron Ledger to Mr. Fish, November 21, 1872— Case of Frangols A. Heinrich 137 2fr. Fish to Baron Lederer, Deceniber 24, 1872 - 138 Attorney-General IfllUams to Mr. Fish, Deceniber 21, 1872 139 France — Mr. Wushburve to Mr. Fish, January 31, 1873— Effect of new mili- tarti laxo upon Frenchmen naturalized, as American citizens 141 Mr. Washburne to Mr. Fish, March 18, 1873— Case of Pepin 141 Mr. Fish to Mr. Washlm-ne, June 28, 1873 Ui Germany and Egypt — Mr. Beardsley to Mr. Fish, {telegram,) March 20, 1873. Case of Leopold Ungar 147 Mr. Fish to Mr. Beardsley, (tele(/ram,) March 22, 1873 148 Mr. Beardsley to Mr. Fish, March2i,lS73 148 Mr. Fish to Mr. Beardsley, Api-il 28, 1873 151 Same to same, June 30, 1873 152 Mr. Sehlozer to Mr. Fish, September 8, 1873 153 Mr. Fish to Mr. Sdi liizcr, September 12, 1873 154 Mr. Sehlozer io Mr. Fish, September 1^, 1873 154 Mr. Daris to Mr. Sehlozer, September 18, 1873 155 Netherlands — Mr. Davis to Attorney-General Soar, May 11, 1869, asking his opinion respecting persons in tlie island of Curofoa claiming American citizenship 156 Attorney-General Soar to Mr. Fish, June 12, 1869 — Reply to the foregoing 156 Spain — Consul Sail to Mr. Davis, February 22, 1870 — Case of Felix Gavin y Pinto 158 Mr. Daris to Mr. Fox, May 12, 1869 — Cases of Valdespino, Vingut, Suarez, and Graragorri 159 Turkey — Mr. Fish io Mr. Boker, April 19, 1872 — Persons residing in Turkey claiming to be naturalized American citizens 161 Mr. Boker to Mr. Fish, May 12, 1872 162 Mr. Smithers to Mr. Sunter, October 19, 1872 — Case of Hubert Eeggio 103 Eeport of the examiner of claims on the case of Kindinieio 164 Pari' VI. — Correspondence between Great Britadst and other coun- tries. Observations — Conflict between British statute law and common law of native allegiance in regard to children of British subjects born abroad 166 Instructions given as to their protection to Vice-Consul Dale, December 20, 1842 167 Argentine Eepnblic — Buenos Ayres — Sir E. Peel's statement in the House of Commons, 1845 167 As to British subjects wearing the badges of foreign citizenship 167 Conscription — Substitutes allowed to tlie sons of aliens 168 Correspondence between English and French governments as to protec- tion to be accorded to the sons of their subjects born in Buenos Ayres — Anomaly of French law of nationality 168 Further as to conscription law of 1863 declaring all persons born in the confederation to be Argentines 169 Austriar— Venetian cases in 1848 — Citizenship acquired by domicile 169 Belgium — Rules as to protection to be aiforded by Her Majesty's ministers abroad to naturalized Englishmen 169 Brazil — Nationality and conscription cases 170 Mr. Spence — Brazilian law of nationality 171 China — Notification of 1868. Distinctive dress to be worn by British Chinese within the Chinese Em pire 172 Colombia— New Granada— British protection not forfeited by entering foreign civil service — Panama riot claims — United States doctrine of domicile — Laws respecting foreigners 173 Senor Montoya— As to status of sons of a Colombian born in England . . 174 Denmark — Mr. Rainal's case — Effect of taking a " borgerbrev" 174 France — Sefior Braza's children — Status of minor children of aliens born in France - 176 Militia in British Guiana — French residents refused exemption 176 Julien Colonua Walewski, born in England of Polish parents J77 Page. APPENDIX No. 1— Continuea. Part VI. — Coheespondhnce between Great EnrrAiN and other coun- tries— Continued. France. — Continued. Answer returned to French government as to British law of native allegiance 177 British naturalization does not protect in native country — Mr. Casau- bon — Conscription case— Domiciles 178 Mr. Z winger — Marriage of a naturalized Swiss at British embassy 178 Germany — Frankfort — Mr. Grimm — Claim to British protection from English or colonial naturalization 178 Hanse Towns — James Terry — Liability to conscription of sons of British subjects who have taken up Hamburgh citizenship — Messrs. C. and A. Bosdet 179 Saxony — Children born on board British vessels, or born without the Queen's dominions, naturalized parents 180 Greece — Conscription of British subjects domiciled in Ionian Islands 180 Don Pacifico, a native of Gibraltar 180 Guatemala — Conscription — Sons of British subjects exempted up to twenty-one years of age, and can then provide substitutes 180 Italy. Sicilian nationality cases, 1837 181 Mr. Vertu, born in England of Sardinian parents 181 Messrs. Salteri and Sofio, Sicilian and Tuscan nationality 181 Philip Smith, 1866, provisions of new code as to the sons of domiciled aliens render them liable to conscription until they are 21 182 Liability of British subjects to forced loans on mines, &c., in which they are associated, with Italians 182 Mexico. Protection to be given to naturalized British subjects 182 Law as to aliens holding land, and illegitimate children of aliens 183 Mr. Crowther not debarred from British protection by service in Amer- ican Army 183 Montevideo. Instructions to Mr. Vice-Consul Dale .'. 183 Netherlands. Liability to conscription of domiciled aliens, British subjects exempted; question as to the enrollment of aliens in British militia. 183 Norway. Conscription of domiciled aliens 184 Persia. Protection to children born in British India of Persian parents; such cases must be treated exceptionally in countries like Persia 184 As to the protection of the grandson of a British-born subject 185 Peru. Eegistration of children of British-born subjects 185 Portugal. Children born in Portugal of British parents cannot be pro- tected against Portuguese laws 186 Prussia. Status of British widows of foreigners 186 Mr. Consul Cronthwaite, liability to conscription of sons of aliens nat- uralized in Prussia 186 Answer returned to Prussian government as to British practice of enlist- ment on return to England of British subjects naturalized abroad 187 Russia. Madame von Essen, claim to a British passport as the widow of a naturalized Russian 187 Status of British Jews in Russia 187 As to children of British subjects who have been naturalized in order to carry on trade in Russia; case of Mr. Woolff, born in England of Hanoverian parents 188 Spain. Conscript on sons of domiciled aliens exempted ; claims of grand- sons of British subjects 188 Switzerland. Answer to Swiss government as to loss of English nationality 189 Conscription of British-born sons of naturalized Swiss 189 European Central Railway Company, as to British protection to compa- nies whose direction is domiciled abroad ; Mr. Roch, conscription case, 189 Tunis. Grazia Abela Maltese turned Mahometan 190 Turkey. Protection to naturalized British subjects, and their agents 191 Cases of Messrs. Casavetti, Culimachi, Theologo, and Giro ; protection of naturalized Turkish rajas in Egypt 191 Mr. J. Asian, Ionian nationality, Mr. S. Theologo's agent at Galatz; Mr. Rodocanachi Scioan bankrupt ; claim of a naturalized British subject . resident abroad, to b? registered as part owner of a British ship, Mr. T. G. Asian .' 191 Megsrs. Cuppa's claim to British nationality, as sons of a British naval officer ; M. Mavrogodato's case 192 Venezuela. Status of illegitimate children of British parents 192 Objection of Venezuelan government to persons born in Venezuela being regarded as British claimants 192 Venezuelan nationality law of 1863 193 Pago, ADDENDA. A. Attorney-General Cushing's opinion on expatriation • 194 C. Sir W. Scott's judgment in the case of the Ann 206 D. Jnclgment of Weissembonrg court in Zeiter's case, (French conscription) 208 E. Attorney-General Bates's opinion on citizenship 209 F. Chief Baron Piggott's ruling in Warren's case, (mixed jury) 213 G. Memorandum on Prussian laws 215 H. Report by counsel to Vienna embassy on Austrian laws 216 I, K, L, M, ami N, not reprinted. APPENDIX No. II. — Disabilities of aukns. Reports from foreign states: 219 Austria, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmart, France, Greece, Hanse Towns, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Enssia, Saxony, Sweden, Switzerland. \^Tn!s ajjpciidix (iho ediUaiiied a report from the United States for xoliich there is substituted in this compilation — A. A report on the subject from the examines- of claims. B. Extracts from the Analytical Index to the Treaties of the United States, showing what disabiliiies are remolded from aJiens by treaty.^ Wiirtem- burg. APPENDIX No. III. — Eight op aliens to hold lands. Colonial and Indian 259 laws. Memorandum by Mr. Abbott. APPENDIX No. IY.— {Omitted.) APPENDIX No. V. — Nationality of children bohn op alien parents. 265 Austria, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Hanse Towns, Hesse Darmstadt, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Eussia, Saxony, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland APPENDIX No. YI.— (Omitted.) I> A.PERS RELATIKR TO EXPATRIATION, NATURALIZATION, AND CHANGE OF ALLEGIANCE. No. 496. The President to the Secretary of State. ' ExECTJTivE Mansion, Washington, D. C, August 6, 1873. SiE: Circumstances have made it desirable that I should have the opinions of the principal officers in each of the Executive Departments respecting several questions which are stated below. It is proper to say that these questions concern solely the relations between the Government and persons who may claim its protection as citizens of the United States. They do not extend to an inquiry whether rights of succession or of property may or may not be affected by any of the conditions referred to. Your opinion on these subjects, in writing, at your early convenience, is desired, with a view to forming a general plan of conduct for the Executive in respect to such questions. You will inclose your reply, addressed to me, undercover to the Secre- tary of State, indicating on the envelope that it is in reply to my letter of this date. 1 am, sir, your obedient servant, U. S. GRANT. Hon. Hamilton Pish, Secretary of State. 'A similar letter was addressed to each head of an Executive Department. 2 SD 10 (>UESTIONS. EXECtJTIVli MANBIOK, Washington, August 6, 1873. I. The law-raakiug power baviug declared that "therightof expatria- tion is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pirrsuit of happiness," (15 Stat, at Large, 223,) should the Executive refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States ? II. May a formal renunciation of United States citizensliip, and a voluntary submission to the sovereignty of another power, be regarded otherwise than as an act of expatriation ? III. Can an election of expatriation be sliown or presumed by an acquisition of domicile in another country, with an avowed purpose not to return ? IV. Ought tlie Government to hold itself bound to extend its protec- tion, and consequently exert its military and naval power for such pro- tection, in favor of persons who have left its territories, and wlio reside abroad, without an apparent intent to return to them, and who do not contribute to its support f V. What should constitute evidence of the absence of an intent to return in such cases ? VI. When a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native country and resides there for a series of years, with no apparent purpose of returning, shall he be deemed to have expatriated himself, where the case is not regulated by treaty ? VII. Are the children born abroad of a person who has been a citizen of the United States, but who has become a subject or citizen of another power, or who has expatriated himself, citizens of the United States entitled to its protection ? VII. Can a person who has formally renounced his allegian ce to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by general laws "? U. S. GRANT. No. 497. The Secretary of State to the President. Department op State, Washington, August 25, 1873. To the President : I have had the honor to receive your communication, dated the Cth instant, requiring my opinion as the principal oflicer of one of the Ex- ecutive Departments respecting several questions which accompanied your communication. 11 In obedience to that reqnirement I respeetfnlly snbaiit my opinion, in answer to the several qnestions, as follows : " QiiestioH 1. The law-making power bn,viug declared that 'the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' (15 Stat, at Large, 223,) should the Executive refuse to give e^ct to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States f ' The act of Congress of 27th Jnly, 1868, (15 Stat, at Large, 223,) dis- posed of the contradictory opinions and decisions of officers of this G-overnment as to the right of expatriation (so far as it concerns citizens of the United States) by declaring in its preamble that " the right of extradition is a natiu?al and iidierent right of all people." This is the legislative declaration of the jirincipie on which the nat- uralization, laws of the United States have ever rested; and is the legis- lative sanction of the doctrine which has, almost withont exception, been nniforinily held in the diplomatic correspondence, and by the ex- ecutive and i)olitical branch of the Government. There seems, therefore, to be no difiionlty in answering to the first question that the Execnti^•e should not refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States. But the legislative authority which declared it "to be a natural and inherent right of all people," has failed to define "expatriation," or to de- clare how or under what circumstances it may be exercised, what is es- sential to its full attainment, or what shall be the evidence of its accom- l)lishment. The absence of authoritative or of legislative definition on these points has given rise to much doubt aiul correspondence on the part of the Ex- ecutive Departments of the G-overnmeut. Expatriation, I understand to mean, the quitting of one's country with an abandonment of allegiance, and with the view of becoming perma- nently a resident and citizen of some other country, resulting in the loss of the party's pre-existing character of citizenship. The quitting of the country must be real, that is to say, actual emigration for a law- ful purpose, and should be accompanied by some open avowal or other attendant acts showing good faith, and a determination and intention to transfer one's allegiance. It cannot be exercised by one wliile residing in the country whose al- legiance he desires to renounce, nor during the existence of hostilities ; no subject of a belligerent can transfer his allegiance or acquire another citizenship, as the desertion of one's country in time of war is an act of criminality, and to admit the right of expatriation ^^ flagrante hello " would be to afford a cover to desertion, and treasonable aid to the pub- lic enemy. It can be exercised only by persons of lawful age, and not by those who leave their country under the charge or conviction of crime, or other disabilities. And the same considerations of public jiolicy which deny the right of any citizen in time of war, would seem to justify its 12 denial to auy citizen while in the actual service of liiis country ; and it will be rejuembered that Congress has asserted its right to denatiomdize its own citizens, and has defined one mode whereby the right of citizen- ship shall be forfeited, in the act of March 3, 1866, (13 Stat., p. 490,) which pro\'ides that, in addition to the other lawful penalties of deser- tion from the military or naval service of the«[Jnited States, all persons who shall desert such service, or who, being enrolled, shall depart the jurisdiction of the district in which he is enrolled, or go beyond the lim- its of the United States with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval service, duly ordered, shall be deemed to have voluntarily re- linquished and forfeited their rights of citizenship, or to become citizens, and shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof. " Question 2. May a formal renunciation of United States citizenship, and 'a voluntary submission to the sovereignty of another power, be regarded otherwise than an act of expatriation?" This question is understood to presuppose an actual change of res- idence; inasmuch as no person can make himself subject to another power while domiciled and resident Avithin one to which he owes alle- giance. Chief Justice Marshall (2 Cranch, p. 119) says that when a citizen by his own act has made himself the subject of a foreign power, his situa- tion is completely changed, and that the act certainly places him out of the protection of the United States while within the territory of the sovereign to whom he has sworn allegiance. This opinion is in conformity with public policy and right, and is sustained by the general authority of the writers on public law^ The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution makes subjection to the iurisdiction of the United States an element of citizenship of the United States. If, then, to this act of voluntary submission of himself to the sov- ereignty of another power be added a formal renunciation of American citizenship, I cannot see that it can be regarded otherwise than as an act of expatriation. Hence, it would seem that the marriage of a female citizen of the United States with a foreigner, subject of a country by whose laws marriage confers citizenship upon the wife of its subject, and her removal to and residence in the country of her husband's citizenship, would divest her of her native character of an American citizen. A Frenchman loses his native character by foreign naturalization, or by accepting office under a foreign government without permission of the State, or by so establishing himself abroad as to CAddence an inten- tion of never returning to his country. The Austrian and Prussian emigrant who has obtained permission and quits his country " sine animo revertendi,'" forfeits the privilege of citizenshij). 13 Bavarian citizenship is lost by the acquisition, without the special permission of the King, of '■'■jura incbigenatus^ in another country, by emi- gration, and by the marriage of a Bavarian woman with a stranger. Wiirtemberg citizenship is lost by emigration sanctioned by govern- ment, or by the acceptance of a public ofiice iu another state. In Spain citizenship is lost by foreign naturalization, or by entering the service of another state witliout permission of government. In Portugal, by foreign naturalization; by acceptance, without per- mission of the King, of a pension and of a decoration from a foreign state, and by judicial banishment. '^Question .3. Can an election of expatriation be sliown or presumed liy an aciiuisition of domicile in another country with an avowed purpose not to return?" Protracted absence from the country of one's allegiance is not of itself evidence of abandonment or of intentional change of allegiance. But in answering this question with reference to the policy or practice of tlie United States, regard must be had to the change which late years have brought about with respect to the doctrine of perpetual alle- giance, for a long time persistently maintained by Great Britain at least, ■ and with reference to which doctrine many of the opinions and decisions of jurists and of courts have been framed, as also to the facility which the policy of this Government in its naturalization laws has extended to the subjects of other powers to throw oft"' their previous allegiance and to the earnestness with which the United States, in all branches of its Government, asserts and enforces the right of expatriation and of re nunciation of pre-existing citizenship. The international treaties of naturalization of late years make an entire change of doctrine from that laid down by jurists, and held hy courts, before the overthrow and abandonment of the doctrine of per- petual allegiance. This question, therefore, presents itself for consideration somewhat in the nature of one of first impression, and to be answered with refer- ence to a policy and to principles but recently of general acceptance, rather than to the dogmas of books. If government assume the duty of protection, the citizen must be ready to support the government with his services, his fortune, and his life even, should the public exigencies be such as to require them. He may reside abroad for purposes of health, of education, of amuse- ment, of business, for an indefinite period; he may acquire a commer- cial or a civil domicile there; but if he do so sincerely and botia fide animo revertendi, and do nothing inconsistent with his pre-existing alle- giance, he will not thereby have taken any step towards self-expatria- tion. But ifj instead of this, he permanently withdraws himself and his property, and places both where neither can be made to contrib- ute to the national necessities, acquires a political domicile in a loreign country, and avows his purpose not to return, he has placed 14 himself in the position where his country has the right to presume that he has made his election of expatriation. In several of the treaties of natui'alization of this with other powers, the residence of a naturalized citizen in the land of his nativity with- out intent to return to the United States, is declared to work of itself a renunciation of the citizenship acquired by naturalization, and such in- tent may be held to exist when the residence continues for more than two years. The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution makes personal sub- jection to the jurisdiction of the United States an element of citizenship. The avowed, voluntary, permanent withdrawal from such jurisdiction would seem to furnish one of the strongest evidences of the exercise of that right which Congress had declared to be the natural and inherent right of all people. But in the absence of legislative definition of what constitutes " ex- patriation," and of the mode whereby it is to be effected, the experience of the Government has made manifest that while expatriation is declared to be a right, which may be converted into a fact, it is, like other facts, to be established in each individual case by e^^dence peculiar to itself; and each case to be decided upon its own merits. " Question 4. Ought tlie Government to hold itself bound to extend its protection, and consequently exert its military and naval power for such ])rotection, in favor of per- sons who have left its territories, and who reside abroad, without an apparent intent to retvu-n to them,, and who do not contribute to its support?" It does not necessarily follow that a citizen has lost his right to the protection of his Government because he may have left its territories and resides abroad without apparent intent to return and without contribu- ting to its support. The intent to return, although not apparent, may be really and hona- Me entertained, and it does not necessarily follow that he is avoiding any obligation to his country because he does not contribute to its sup- port. There may be no contributions at the time required of the citizen. While thus resident or "domiciled" in another country he becomes amenable to its laws ; but unless he assume some i^osition or commit some act inconsistent with his pre-existing citizenship he does hot forfeit that citizenship, or his right to look to his Government to extend to him all the protection which the nature of any wrong or injustice inflicted upon him by the Government within whose territories he may be domiciled may justify. In connection wath this question, and with reference to the exertion of military and naval power for the protection or in favor of citizens of the United States who may be unjustly deprived of their liberty by the authority of foreign governments, it may be remarked that while the act of July 27, 1868, (15 Stat., 223,) declares it to be the duty of the President to demand the reasons of such imprisonment, it pro- hibits his use of the military or naval power of the Government to ob- tain his release. "Queslioii 5. What should constitute evidence of the absence of au intent to return, in such cases ? " 15 13y some of the recent naturalization treaties two years' eontinned residence of a naturalized citizen in tlie country of his nativity after his naturalization nuiy be regarded as evidence of intent not to return to the United States. The strongest evidence of such intent would be the solemn declaration of intention of remaining abroad. Naturalization, or taking preliminary steps to become naturalized in a foreign country, voluntary entrance into the civil or military service of another government, express renunciation, or acts amounting thereto, or indicating a fixed intention of renunciation of pre-existing citizenship, might be regarded as evidence of the absence of intent to return, which might also be otherwise indicated by a variety of facts or of circum- stances. When a person who has attained his majority removes to another country and settles himself there, he is stamped with the national char- acter of his new domicile ; and this is so notwithstanding he may enter- tain a floating intention of returning to his original residence or citizen- ship at some future period ; and the presumption of law, with respect to residence in a foreign country, especially if it be protracted, is that the I)arty is there " aniino manendi,''^ and it lies upon him to explain it. It is probably not possible to lay down any general rule in answer to this question, and it results that each case must be decided upon its own merits. "Question 6. Wlien a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native c(iuntr\' and resides there for a series of years, with no apparent purpose of returning, shall he he deemed to have expatriated hims'Slf, where the case is not regulated liy treaty?" A person of foreign birth once dulj' naturalized is a citizen, entitled to all the privileges and protection which may be claimed by one born within the territory of the United States. He may, however, divest him- self of his acquired citizenship, or may lose his character as such, either in accordance with treaty regulations, or in the same mode by which a native-born citizen becomes expatriated or denationalized. The act of July 27, 1868, (15 Stat, at Large, p. 223,) enacts that all naturalized citizens of the United States T\iiile in foreign states shall be entitled to and shall receive from this Government the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances. ' The question recognizes the fact, already alluded to, that our treaties with some powers make a residence in the country of nativity, without intent to return to the country of adoption, to work a renunciation of the citizenship acquired by naturalization. By some treaties no fixed period of residence in the country of nativity works of itself a renunciation of the acquired citizenship, Avhile by others the intent not to return may be held to exist when the residence con- tinues more than two years. By the treaty with Great- Britain of 13th May, 1870, the British sub- ject naturalized in the United States after its date who renews Ifi his residence witliiu the British Iloiiiiiiioii may, on liis own appli- eation, and on such conditions as the British government may impose, he re iulmitted to the character of a British subject. Eesidence alone, however long continued, without a direct application to be re-admitted to British citizenship, and without the assent thereto of the British gov- ernmet, will not rehabilitate hun as a British subject. The adoption in numerous treaties of this period of two years as that when the intent not to return to the United States may be held to exist on the part of the naturalized citizen who has returned to his native country, indicates that while the principle on which rests the right of protection while in foreign countries of the naturalized is the same with that of the native-born citizen, there is an appreciation of the strong proclivity to resume his original citizenship on the part of him who, having wandered from home, returns to find the attractions of early as- sociations and of family ties enticing him at a period, perhaps, when the restlessness and spirit of adventure of the fresher years of life have passed, to rest and to end his days amicl the scenes of his childhood or youth and among those who claim the strong ties of common blood. Hence, probably, even when not regulated by treaty, the evidence would be more readily obtained to determine that a naturaUzed citizen who had returned to the covintry of his nativity should be deemed to have expatriated himself— or, perhaps it would be more proper to say, to have rehabilitated himself with his original citizenship — ^than to show that a native-born citizen had eJtpatriated himself by the same period of foreign residence. It not infrequently happens that naturalization is almost immediately followed by the return of the naturalized person to his native country, and his continued residence there, without having acquired property or established any permanent relations of family or of business in the United States. Again, cases are of constant occurrence of naturalized persons who have resided for years in the country of nativity, manifesting no purpose of returning to the United States and exhibiting no interest in the Gov- ernment, but who assert American citizenship only when called upon to discharge some duty in the country of their residence; thus making the claim to American citizenship the pretext for avoiding duties to one coirntry, while absence secures them from duties to the other. These are among the class of cases where the continued residence in the country of nativity, and the absence of apparent purpose of return- ing, may be taken at least sm prima facie e%'ldence of expatriation. But generally, when not regulated by treaty, the mere absence of ap- parent purijose of returning to the United States on the part of a natur- alized citizen who has returned to his native country and resided there for a series of years, does not of itself constitute evidence of his self-ex- patriation. The presumption of law to which reference has already been made, \iz, that lie is there anino manendi, applies, however, to hiin equuUy with the uative-bora citizen, and it rests with limi as with the native- born to explain it ; and here, again, in the absence of some prescribed rule, the circumstances attending each case must control its decision. "QiteMion 7. Are the children horn abroad of a person who has been a citizen of the United States, hut who has become a subject or citizen of anotlier power, or who has expatriated himself, citizens of the United States and entitled to its protection?" If born after the father has become the subject or citizen of another power, or after he has in anyway expatriated himself, the children born abroad are to all intents and purposes aliens, and not entitled to pro- tection from the United States. The act of 10th February, 1855, (10 Stat, at Large, 604,) provides that "persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall he deemed and considered, and are hereby declared to be, citizens of the United States : Provided, however, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States." It will be noticed that the act professes to extend citizenship only to those born abroad whose fathers at the time of their birth are citizens. Every independent state has as one of the incidents of its sover- eignty the right of municipal legislation and jurisdiction over all per- sons within its territory, and may therefore change their nationality by naturalization, and this, without regard to the municipal laws of the country whose subjects are so naturalized, so long as they remain, or exercise the rights conferred by naturalization, within the territory and jurisdiction of the state which grants it. It may also endow with the rights and privileges of its citizenship persons residing in other countries, so as to entitle them to all rights of property and of succession within its limits, and also with i)olitical privileges and civil rights to be enjoyed or exercised within the territory and jurisdiction of the state thus conferring its citizenship. But no sovereignty can extend its jurisdiction beyond its own terri- torial limits so as to relieve those born under and subject to another juris- diction, from their obligations or duties thereto ; nor can the municipal law of one state interfere with the duties or obligations which its citi- zens incur, white voluntarily resident in such foreign state and without the jurisdiction of their own country. It is evident from the proviso in the act of 10th February, 1855, viz, " that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States," that the law-making power not only had in view this limit to the efficiency of its own municipal enactments in foreign jurisdiction, but that it has conferred only a qualified citizenship upon the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and has denied to them, what pertains to other American'citizens, the right of transmitting citizenship to their children, 3 s D 18 miless they shall have made themselves residents of the United States, or, in the language of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, have made themselves " subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father. The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citi- zens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the cliildren of American fathers born without the jurisdic- tion of the United States, and entitles the country within whose juris- diction they are born to claim them as citizens and to subject them to duties to it. Such children are born to a double character : the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned and within the jurisdiction of that country ; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father. "Questions. Can a person who has formally renounced his allegiance to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, become again a ctizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by general laws?" Persons who have formally renounced their allegiance to the United States and have assumed the obligations of citizen or subject of another power — in other words, persons who have denationalized or expatriated themselves — are aliens to the United States, and can become citizens only by virtue of the same laws, and with the same formalities, and by the same process, by which other aliens are enabled to become citizens. Having replied to the several questions submitted, I may be permit- ted to express my opinion of the necessity of legislation to define how and by what acts, whether of commission or of omission, or of both. United States citizenship is lost. It has been shown that in some instances recent treaties provide one test ; but even in these cases further legislation is needed to relieve the decision in each case of much embarrassment and of much doubt. I have the honor to be, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. Xo. 498. The Secretary of the Treasury to the President. Trbasuby Department, Octoier 20, 1873. To the President; I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th August, 1873. In this letter you desire my answer to eight questions, each of which bears in some form upon the question of expatriation. 19 These questions are as follows : " I. The law-making power having declared 'that the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispeusahle to the rights of life, liberty, and the piu-suit of happiness,' (15 Stat, at Largo, 223,) sliould the Executive refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States ? " II. May a formal renunciation of United States citizenship, and a voluntary sub- mission to the sovereignty of another power, be regarded otherwise than as an act of expatriation ? " III. Can an election of expatriation be shown or presumed by an acquisition of domi- cile in another country with an avowed purpose not to return? " IV. Ought the government to hold itself bound to ex-tend its protection, and con- sequently exert its military and naval power for such protection, in favor of persons who have left its territories, and who reside abroad without an apparent intent to return to them, and who do not contribute to its support ? " V. What should constitute evidence of the absence of an intent to return in such cases ? " VI. When a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native country and resides there for a series of years, with no apparent purpose of returning, shall he be deemed to have expatriated himself, where the case is not regulated by treaty ? " VII. Are the children born abroad of a person who has been a citizen of the United States, but who has become a subject or citizen of another power, or who has expa- triated himself, citizens of the United States and entitled to its protection ? " VIII. Can a person Avho has formally renounced his allegiance to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by gen- eral laws ? " To reach a satisfactory answer to these questions it becomes necessary to consider with some precision whether a citizen of the United States could, before the passage of the act of July 27, 1868, expatriate himself; and, if so, what steps must be taken by him before he could carry his IHirpose in this regard into eli'ect. It is a. rule of the common law that a natural-born subject owes an allegiance which is intrinsic and immutable. This allegiance cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered by any change of time, place, or circum- stance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature. Thus it is held that the natural-born subject cannot by an act of his own, nor by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the country of his birth, for this natural allegiance was intrinsic and primitive and "antecedent to the other, and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of the prince to whom it was first due. In McDonald's case, who was tried in 1846 for high treason, it was held that it was not in the power of any subject to shake off his allegiance and transfer it to another, nor could a foreign prince by nat- uralizing a British subject dissolve the bond of allegiance between that subject and the Grown. Entering into foreign service or refusing to leave that service when commanded to by the King is held to be a mis- demeanor, and by a proclamation on the 16th of October, 1807, when the kingdom of Great Britain was menaced, all seamen who were nat- ural-born subjects were, on pain of contempt, ordered to withdraw them- selves and return home; and it was further declared that naturalization 20 did not alter their duty to their lawful sovereign. In later discussions, however, which have taken place between the British and American Governments, the practical application of the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance would seem to be confined to eases of return to Great Britain, and not to operate on their assumed obligation to their adopted country. In a note of Lord Palmerston, August 16, 1849, to Mr. Bancroft, min- ister to London, it is said : " It is well known that by laws of Great Britain no restraint can, except in very special cases, be placed upon the perfect liberty of every British subject to leave the realm when and for whatever period of time he chooses. So long as he remains in the United States, or in any other country, he is amenable to the laws of the country in which he resides." (Lawrence's Wheatou, page 927.) Publicists assert a doctrine in this respect different from that estab- lished by the common law. They hold whenever a person attains his majority he becomes free to change his nationality and abandon his native country, unless there be some positive restraint by law, or unless his country be in distress, or in war, and stands in need of his assist- ance. Cicero regarded it as one of the firmest foundations of Roman liberty that the Eoman citizen had the liberty to stay or abandon his residence at pleasure. " Haec sunt enim fundamenta flrmissima nos- tras libertatis, sui quemque juris retinendi et dimittendi esse dominum." "The laws of European countries contemplate and provide for expatria- tion. Thus the code ITapoleon provides ' that the quality of Frenchmen will be lost — first, by naturalization acquired in a foreign country ; sec- ond, by acceptance without authority of the government of public func- tions conferred by a foreign government ; third, by establishment in a foreign country without purpose of return." Expatriationis also lawful in Spain and the Spanish-American Eepublics. "In Prussia the law is similar, and in all the German states emigra- tion is permitted, with the express leave from the government. This permission cannot be granted to males between seventeen and twenty- five years unless they produce a certificate from the commission for recruiting the army testifying that they do not propose to expatriate themselves for the sole purpose of evading their military obligations. (Section 17 of the law of .Slst of December, 1842.) This certificate serves also as a guide when it is required to determine if there is reason to grant to minors authority to emigrate with their parents. " In Austria emigration is not permitted without consent of the proper authorities; but the emigrant who has obtained permission and who quits the empire, sme animo revertendi, forfeits the privileges of an Aus- trian citizen. " In Bavaria citizenship is lost — first, by the acquisition without the special permission of the King of the jus indigenatus in another country; second, by emigration ; third, by the marriage of a Bavarian woman with a foreigner. "In Wiirtemberg citizenship is lost by emigration authorized by the 21 government, or by the acceptance of a public office in another state." (PhiUiiuore on International Law, loc. cit.) "In Russia the quality of a subject is lost by a residence abroad ; by voluntary expatriation without the intention of return ; by disappear- ance. Every individual subject to the capitation-tax is considered to have disappeared who during ten years has not been heard of in the place of his domicile." (Rev. Etr. et Pr., torn, iii, p. 267). " In Spain the quality of Spaniard is lost by acquiring naturaUzation in a foreign country, and by entering into the employment of another government without the consent of the King." (Cos Gayon, Diccionario de Derecho Administrativo EspaQol, p. StiO ; Constitucion de la Monar- quia Espanola, Art. 1, § 4.) In the United States there were, prior to 1868, no laws which either expressly forbade or expressly authorized the expatriation of citizens of the United States, and it was a question which had commanded the seri- ous consideration of the American Government, whether the English doctrine of perpetual allegiance obtained in its fullest extent in this country. As far as the opinion of the executive branch of the Government can be ascertained from the discussions which arose, it would seem that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance was not in force in this country. The views of that branch of the Government, in the year 1793, were thus expressed in a letter from Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Morris: "Our citizens are certainly free to divest themselves of that character by emigrating, and other acts manifesting their intention, and may then become the subjects of another power, and free to do whatever the subjects of that power may do." Again, in the year 1794, -Mr. Randolph, Secretary of State, thus expressed himself relative to the alleged expatriation of one Captain Talbot : " I cannot doubt that Captain Talbot has taken an oath to the French Republic, and at the same time I acknowledge my belief that no law of any of the States prohibits expatriation. But it is obvious that, to prevent frauds, some rules and ceremonies are necessary for its gov- ernment. It then becomes a question, which is also an affair of the judiciary, whether those rules and ceremonies have been complied with." (Letter to M. Fauchet, October 28, 1797.) General Cass, while Secretary of State, held that "the moment a for- eigner becomes naturalized his allegiance to his native country is sev- ered forever. He experiences a new political birth ; a broad and im- passable line separates him from his native country." In a report, presented in December, 1851, by Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, in the case of John L. Thrasher, in obedience to a resolution of the House of Representatives, he says : " There is no doubt that John L. Thrasher is a citizen of the United . States by birth, nor is there any doubt that lie has resided in the island of Cuba for a considerable number of years, engaged in business trans- 22 actions, sometimes as a merchant, and sometimes as the conductor of a newspaper press, although the precise period and duration of such resi- dence are not known. "In a letter from the governor of Cuba to Her Catholic Majesty's minister in the United States, it is stated that he has not only been a resident in Havana for a considerable time, but domiciled there by regular proceeding, and that he has in a solemn form sworn allegiance to the Spanish Crown. " It appears that soon after the failure and breaking up of the late expedition of Narciso Lopez, in the invasion of Cuba by him and the troops under his command, Mr. Thrasher was arrested and tried for high treason or conspiracy against the Crown of Spain, condemned to eight years' imprisonment to hard labor, and sent to Spain in execution of that sentence. " The first general question is as to this right of exemption from Spanish law and Spanish authority on the ground of his being a native- born citizen of the United States. " The general rule of public law is, that every person of full age has a right to change his domicile, and it follows that when he removes to another place with the intention to make that place his permanent resi- dence, or his residence for an indefinite period, it becomes instantly his place of domicile, and this is so notwithstanding he may entertain a floating intention of returning to his original residence or citizenship at some future period. " The Supreme Court of the United States has decided ' that a person who removes to a foreign country, settles himself there and engages in trade of the country, furnishes by these acts such evidence of an inten- tion permanently to reside in that country as to stamp him with its national character,' and this undoubtedly is in full accordance with the sentiments of the most eminent writers as well as those of other high judicial tribunals on the subject. 'No government has carried this gen- eral presumption further than that of the United States, since it is well known that hundreds of thousands of citizens are now living in this country who have not been naturalized according to the provisions of law, nor sworn allegiance to this government, nor been domiciled among us by any regular course of proceedings. What degree of alarm would it not give to this vastly numerous class of men actually living among us as inhabitants of the United States to learn that by removing to this country they had not transferred their allegiance from the govern- ment of which they were originally subjects to this Government." ******* In Martin Koszta's case, a Hungarian by birth, who had on the 31st of July, 1852, made a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and who while in Turkey on private business of a temporary character was seized, at the instigation of the consul-general of Austria, and confined in irons on board the Austrian brig-of-war the Huzar, and 23 releiised on the deniaiul of Oajitain Ingraliam, who intimated that he should resort to force if the demand was not comjjlied with by a certain hour, the principles which apply to allegiance and exjjatriation are there stated by Mr. Secretary Marcy in answer to Mr. Hiilseman's demand that the President should surrender Koszta, disavow the acts of the American captain, and give satisfaction for the alleged outrage on Aus. tria. " There is great diversity and much confusion of opinion as to the na- ture and obligations of allegiance. By some it is held to be an indestruct- ible political tie, and though resulting from the mere accident of birth, yet forever binding the subject to the sovereign. By others it is consid- ered a political connection in the nature of a civil contract, dissoluble by mutual consent, but not so at the ojition of either party. The sounder and more prevalent doctrine, however, is that the citizen or subject hav- ing faithfully performed the past and present duties resulting from his relation to the sovereign power, may at any time release hunself from the obligation of allegiance, freely quit the land of his birth or adoption, seek through all countries a home, and select anywhere that which offers him the finest prospect of happiness for himself and posterity. When the sovereign power, wheresoever it may be placed, does not answer the ends for which it is bestowed, when it is not extended for the general welfare of the people, or has become oppressive to individuals, this right to with- draw rests on as firm a basis, and is similar in principle, to the right which legitimates resistance to tyranny." It is said that the naturalization laws of the United States proceed upon the principle that every individual has a right to change his alle- giance, and such has been the language of diplomatic communications, in accordance with the doctrine of publicists, that whenever a child attains his majority according to the law of his domicile or origin, he becomes free to change his nationality. In the instructions from Mr. Cass to the minister at Berlin, July 8, 1859, it is said " the right of ex- patriation cannot at this day be doubted or denied in the United States. The idea has been repudiated ever since the origin of our Government, that a man is bound to remain forever in the country of his birth, and that he has no right to exercise his free wiU, and consult his own happi- ness by selecting a new home. The most eminent writers on public law recognize the right of expatriation. This can only be contested by those who, in the nineteenth centijry, are still devoted to the ancient feudal law with all its oppression. The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is a relic of barbarism which has been gradually disappearing from Christen- dom during the last century." The question of expatriation has been frequently discussed by the courts of. the United States, and though no judicial determination has, so far as I know, ever been had, I think that a review of these discus- sions will sliow what is the opinion of -those tribunals. The question first arose in the case of Talbot vs. Janson, decided in 24 Auj>ust, 1795. Talbot, an American by birth, captnrpd a vessel and cargo belons'ing- to citizens of the United Netherlands, a nation at peace with the United States. Talbot claimed that he had been admitted a citizen of the French republic, had therefrom received a commission as, captain, and as such had taken as prize the vessel in question as the property of sxTbjects of the United Netherlands "with whom France was at war. The case came by appeal to the Supreme Court. In deciding it one of the judges (Iredell, J.) said: " The first point to be considered is whether Talbot, at the time of receiving his commission, or at the time of the capture, was a French citizen. This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this court. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion, but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject. " That a man might not be a slave ; that he should not be confined against his will to a ijarticular spot because he happens to draw his first breath upon it ; that he should not be compelled to. continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world clearly recognize. " The only dift'erence of opinion is as to the proper manner of execut- ing this right." The conclusion of the learned judge is, that the right of expatriation ought not to be restrained, but that it can be permitted only by an act of legislature, which, as fhe guardian of the public interest, is the only power that can take cognizance of the subject. It is not a natural right. As every man is entitled to claim the rights of society, he is in turn under a solemn obligation to discharge to society all his duties faithfully. If, therefore, he is in the exercise of a public trust, he cannot leave his country until he has fully discharged it. If he owes money he ought not to quit the state and carry his property with him without the con- sent of his creditors. Though a man may be naturalized abroad, yet, if he has not been discharged from his allegiance at home, it will remain, notwithstanding disagreeable dilemmas may be occasioned by the taking upon himself this double citizenship. The judgment of the court was that, under the circumstances of the case, Talbot must be considered a citize.n of the United States, but they gave no decided opinion upon the question of expatriation. The opinion, however, seems to have been that though the general right of expatriation existed, it could not be exercised without the sanction of the legislature. The point arose again in Isaac Williams's case, in the circuit court of the United States, in 1797. Williams was indicted for accepting a com- mission under the French government, and under the authority there- of committing acts of hostility against Great Britain. His defense was that he had expatriated bimsell' aud become a citizen of France. Upon the question of expatriation then raised, Judge Ellsworth is said to have held that the common law of this country remains the same as it was before the Eevolution. The question, therefore, was to be settled by the application of two principles. " One is that all the members of a civil community are bound to each other by compact ; the other is, that one of the parties to this compact cannot dissolve it by his own act." The compact is that society shall protect its members, who on their part are bound, at all times, to be obedient to it, and faithful to its defense. The necessary result is that a member cannot dissolve the compact without the consent or default of the community. The most visionary writers do not contend that a citizen may at any and at all times renounce his own and join a foreign country, and the fact that the government permits the naturalization of foreigners imphes no consent on its part " that its own citizens should expatriate themselves." The question again arose in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Charming Betsey, and though the point was earnestly argued the court- again avoided expressing an opinion upon it. They say, "Whether aperson born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest him- self absolutely of that character otherwise than in such a manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." This was in 1804. In 1805, Judge Washington, in the case of United Strttes vs. GUlies, heard in the circuit court at Philadelphia, said: " I do not mean to moot the question of expatriation founded in the self- wiU of a citizen. It may suffice for the present to say that I must be more enlightened on this subject than I haveyet been beforel can admit that a citizen of the United States can throw off his allegiance and his country with- out some laio authorizing him to do so. It is true a man may obtain a for- eign domicile which will impress upon him a national character for com- mercial purposes, and may expose his property found upon the ocean to all the consequences of his new character, in like manner as if he were in fact a subject of the government under which he resides. But he does not on this account lose his original character, or cease to be a subject or citizen of the country where he was born, and to which his perpetual allegiance is due." The question was again presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1822, in the case of the Santissima Trinidad; but Judge Story, in delivering the opinion of the court, allows the same uncertainty to remain in respect to the solution of it. "Assuming," he says, " for the purpose of argument, that an American citizen may, independently of any legislative act to this effect, throw off his own allegiance to his native country, as to which we give no opinion, it is perfectly clear that this cannot be done without a bona-fide change of domicile under cir- cumstances of good faith. It can never be asserted as a cover of fraud 4 s T) 26 or as a justillcation for the coiiimissioii of crime against the country, or for a violation of its laws when this appears to be the intention of the act. It is unnecessary to go further into the examination of the doc- trine. It will be safdcient to ascertain its precise nature and limits when it shall become the leading point of a judgment of the court." In the case of Stoughton vs. Taylor, howevpr, determined in the cir- cuit court of the United States, held at ISew York about 1828, a more liberal view of the right of expatriation was taken. In this case it is said, "The general evidence of expatriation is actual emigration, with other concurrent acts, showing a determination and intention to transfer allegiance. "The evidence in this case is emigration more than twelve years since, swearing allegiance to another government eight years ago, entering into its service and continuing in it uniformly from that time to this. On this evidence I cannot hesitate to say that the defendant has lost his character as a citizen of the United States ; he has abandoned his rights as such ; he cannot now claim them, and cannot be called upon to per- form any of the duties incident to that character. It may, perhaps, be said that the government to which he has sworn allegiance is not inde- pendent, and that the act is therefore inoperative and void. If that were so, yet the fact of emigration and the evidence of the animus ma- wew(i*, the intention to remain abroad and to abandon his citizenship here, as manifested by his oath of allegiance to another government claim- ing to he independent, are sufficient to sustain his expatriation. In what- ever light the government to which he professes to belong may be viewed by other nations, it is independent in fact, and may forever remain so, although not recognized in form." Finally, in 1830, in the case of Inglis vs. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Har- bor, the Supreme Court of the United States say : " Itcannot, I presume, be denied but that allegiance may be dissolved by the mutual consent of the Government and its citizens or subjects. The Government may release the governed from their allegiance. This is ever the British doctrine." And in the case of Shanks vs. Dupont, decided in the same court. Judge Story, who delivered the opinion, said : " The general doctrine is that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the Government, put off their allegiance and become aliens." Judge Thompson, who de- livered a dissenting opinion, not, however, upon this point, said : " There is not a writer who treats upon the subject who does not qualify the exercise of the right to emigrate, much more that of putting off or changing an allegiance, with so many exceptions as to time and circum- stance as plainly to show that it cannot be considered as an inalienable or even perfect right. A state of war, want of inhabitants, indispensable talents, transfer of knowledge and wealth to a rival, and various other grounds are imagined by writers on public law, upon which nature may lawfully and reasonably limit and restrict the exercise of individual voli- tion in putting off allegiance. AH this shows that whenever an indi- 27 vidual proposes to remove, a question of right or obligation arises between himself and the community, which, must be decided in some mode, and ichat other mode is there hut a reference to the positive legislation or re- ceived principles of the society itself? It is, therefore, a subject for municii>al regulation." The cases cited comprise all which have arisen in the Supreme or other courts of the United States in which the question of expatriation has been discussed, and it will be seen that they have studiously avoided a decision of it. The State courts, however, have not been so reticent in expressing an opinion on this question. As early as 1813 Chief Justice Parsons, in the case of Anslie vs. Mar- tin, said : " This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories may subject some persons who, ad- hering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconveniences, especially in time of war, when the opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. Their situation is not different in law, whatever may be their equitable claims, from the situation of those citizens of the commonwealth who may be natural- ized in the dominion of a foreign prince. The duties of these persons, arising from their allegiance to the country of their birth, remain unchanged and unimpaired by their foreign naturalization. For by the common law no subject can expatriate himself.^'' As far, therefore, as an opinion has been expressed in Massachusetts, the vigorous doctrine of the common law governs. Foreign naturaliza- tion is no evidence of expatriation. Two years before this suit the contrary opinion was expressed by the supreme court of appeals in Virginia. It was held in that State, in the case of Murray vs. McCarty, that nature had given to all men the right of relinquishing at pleasure the society in which birth or accident had thrown them. The court say : " It is believed that this right of emigra- tion or expatriation is one of those inherent rights of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or di- vest their posterity. But although municipal laws cannot take away or destroy this right, they may regulate the manner and prescribe the evi- dence of its exercise ; and in the absence of the regulations, juris positivi, the right must be exercised according to the principles of general law.'''' A temporary absence, however, will not divest a man of the character of citizen or subject of the State or nation to which he may belong. There must be a removal, with an intention to lay aside that character, and he must actually join himself to some other community. The State of Virginia also, by an act of the legislature, has defined citizenship, and has in terms provided for expatriation. This act declares that all free white persons, born in that or any other State, all aliens, being free white persons naturalized under the laws of 28 the United States, who become residents, all persons who were citizens under former laws, and all children, wherever born, whose father — or, if he be dead, whose mother — shall be a citizen of the State at the time of the birth, shall be deemed citizens of the State. And it provides that, whenever a citizen, by deed in writing, jjroved in court or by open declaration made in court and entered of record, shall declare that he relinquishes the character of a citizen and shall depart out of the State,' he shall be considered as having exercised the right of expatriation, and shall thenceforth be deemed no citizen thereof. The decision in Murray vs. McCarty was followed by the court of appeals in Kentucky, in 1839, and the right of expatriation declared in the strongest manner: "Whatever may be the speculative or practical doctrine of the feudal governments or ages, allegiance in these United States, whether local or national, is, in our judgment, altogether conven- tional, and may be repudiated by the native as well as by the adopted citizen with the presumed concurrence of the Government without its formal or express sanction. Expatriation maybe considered a practical and fun- damental doctrine of America. American history, American institutiohs, and American legislation all recognize it. It has grown with our gTowth and strengthened with our strength. The political obligations of the citi- zen and the interests of the republic may forbid a renunciation of alle- giance by his mere volition or declaration at any time and under all circumstances; and therefore the Government, for the purpose of prevent- ing absence and securing the public welfare, may regulate the mode of expatriation. But when it has not prescribed any limitation on the right, and the citizen has in good faith abjured his country and become a subject of a foreign nation, he should as to his native Government be considered as denationalized, especially so far as his civil rights may be involved, and at least as far as that Government shall seem to acquiesce in his renunciation of Ms political rights and obligations." This certainly is a plain enunciation of the principle. Expatriation is a fimdamental right, but circumstances may prevent the exercise of it, and the legislature may therefore regulate it, but unless they do, it is to be exercised at the discretion of the citizen. In the case of Lynch vs. Clark, decided in ]S"ew York, in 1844, the court say, notwithstanding the conclusions of Mr. Chancellor Kent, that the doctrine of expatriation does not stand upon the same foundation as that of allegiance by birth, and does not foUow from the adoption of the latter thecommon-law rule, " the rightto expatriate was recognized in Pennsylvania and Virginia while they were colonies. The constitution of Pennsylvaiiia prohibited laws restraining emigration from the State, and Virginia enacted a law as recently as the year 1792 providing for expatriation and prescribing its forms. Kentucky followed Virginia in this as well as in many other questions of national policy. This diversity prevailing in the colonies and States prior to 1784 would afford strength to the argument that in the N"ational Government the common-law rule of perpetual allegiance did not prevail." 29 As late, however, as 1863, the law upon this question seems to have been in doubt and unsettled in that State. In Ludlam vs. Ludlani it is said, " that the right of expatriation on the part of citizens of the United States, without the consent of the G-overnment, has never been recognized by the courts of this country or by any of the writers upon public law." The court, however, do not admit unqualifiedly the state- ment of Chancellor Kent, that the better opinion would seem to be that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance, and that the rule of the En- glish common law remains unaltered in this country. They say, " whether this statement of the law is to be considered as in all respects correct, may perhaps admit of doubt, as some courts and statesmen have been disposed to regard the right of expatriation as existing where the government has taken no steps to prohibit or limit it." On the other hand, they do not fully concur in the opinion expressed by the court of appeals of Kentucky, and by Secretary Cass, that a citizen has a right to renounce his allegiance at pleasure. They say that the argument of Mr. Eutherford possesses muc^h force, which is in substance ■ that if an individual was at liberty to leave the State when he pleased, civil society would be nothing but a rope of sand'; every member of society would be at liberty either to continue in it and advance its gene- ral interests, or leave it in order to advance a separate interest of his own. But the great end of forming civil society is to promote the com- mon good and to guard against a common mischief. Certainly, there- fore, the nature of civil society can never allow this liberty to its mem- bers, because it is inconsistent with the end which civil society proposes to itself; and they add that "without, however, pursuing, the subject further, it is sufficient for the present case, that all writers, including those who would give the greatest license to the citizen in the exercise of the power of expatriation, agree that no person casts off his allegi- ance to his native country before he becomes a citizen or subject of another country." In Jackson vs. Burns, decided in the supreme court of Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Tilghman speaks of a "principle not compatible with the constitution of Pennsylvania or her sister States, that is to say, that no man can, even for the most pressing reasons, divest himself of the alle- giance under which he was born." In Beavers vs. Smith, decided by the supreme court of Alabama, in 1847, it is said that "it would seem to follow, necessarily, from our naturalization laws, that our people can emigrate and transfer their allegiance at their pleasure to a foreign government, as our laws do not require the consent of the former sovereign to the expatriation of a foreigner as a condition of his becoming a citizen of the United States. They hold, however, that a mere removal is not enough, and that the general question is unsettled. In Fish vs. Stqughton, where the defendant, a British subject, became a naturalized citizen, and took the oaths of abjuration and allegiance to 30 the State of New York in 1794, and in 1795 took au oath of allegiance to the King of Spain, and was appointed a consul by the Spanish King, and continued to reside in New York without ever changing his domi- cile, he was still to be considered an American citizen.' Without con- sidering the general right of expatriation, the court were of the opinion that to divest himself of his character of an American citizen he must at least change Ms domioile. There is this much to be said of the question, in the light of the conflict- ing opinions declared by the different courts. It is evident that the common law of England, based upon allegiance in the feudal sense, arising out of the doctrine of tenures, is not the law here. The right which that law absolutely denies, viz, the right of expatriation, is con- ceded in all. The question which remains undecided is whether this right can be exercised without legislative enactment. As a result of the cases cited, it is not, perhaps, unreasonable to hold that when the case is presented to the highest court of judicature it will, inasmuch as it has abandoned the fundamental principle of the common law, refuse to be guided by its strict teachings, and under the influence of more liberal views than feudal ones, hold that, in the absence of legislation, a citizen may, with certain necessary limitations, abjure his own and be- come, in accordance with its laws, a citizen of another country. " It is the recognized principle of the law of nations that all can change their primitive nationality according to their convenience. This principle, admitted by all the world, and in virtue of which every indi- vidual may renounce the nationality which birth combined with parent- age gives him, does not release him who avails himself of it of the obli- gations which he owes to his country. So that the citizen or subject who, without authorization of his government, accepts the nationality of a foreign state, may be called upon for the performance of the per- sonal charges imposed upon him by his primitive country, in the form which the law established. Thus a deserter from the military service, who becomes naturalized in the state to which he flies, though not sub- ject to extradition without special treaty authorizing it, if nevertheless he comes within the jurisdiction of the authorities of his primitive country, cannot be reclaimed by his new one, but remains bound to fulfill the obligations of his service. While the law of nations concedes to individuals the liberty of chang- ing their nationality, it also empowers a state to restrict this faculty in certain circumstances, as in case of war and others, in return for the services and protection which it bestows upon the citizen or subject; and when he changes his nationality in contempt of the laws, he gives occasion for the disregard of his new nationality." (Derecho Interna- cional, tom. 1 p. 319.) In October, 1856, the Hon. Caleb Gushing, then Attorney-General, in a very elaborate review of the subject, expressed the. opinion that the right of expatriation exists, and may be freely exercised by the citizens 31 of the Uuited States, holding that in the absence of legislation the con- sent of the government is to be implied. In this connection he says: "of course the citizen cannot apply such implied consent to any act of pretended emigration which is itself a violation of the law either public or municipal, as in the case of illegal military enterprises, nor by it can he escape the punishment of crime or the performance of local contracts, nor appeal to it as a mask to cover desertion or treasonable aid of the public enemy, I am not prepared to say that the right of a citizen of the United States to expatriate himself, implied in the absence of any prohibition, may not be exercised in time of war, but if so it would have to be done with attendant circumstances clearly showing good faith in order to be justifiable, and it is not easy to see how citizenship could be transferred in time of war to tlie foreign enemy in such a way as to es- cape reprehension if the party should afterwards return to the United States. And whether in peace or war, the expatriation would have to be an actual one by foreign residence, and with authentic renunciation of the pre-existing citizenship. Under the circumstances, and with the conditions thus indicated, and subject to such others as the public in- terest might seem to Congress to require to be imposed, it seems to me that the right of expatriation exists and may be freely exercised by the citizens of the United States." Again, in the case of Christian Ernst, the right of expatriation was asserted by the Attorney-General: "Christian Ernst was a native of Hanover, and emigrated to this country in 1851, when he was about nineteen years of age. In February, 1859, he was naturahzed, and in March, after procuring a regxdar passport, he went back to Hanover on a temporary visit. He had been in the vOlage where he was born about three weeks, when he was arrested, carried to the nearest military station, forced into the Hanoverian army, and there he is at the present time, unable to retnm home to his family and business, but compelled against his will to perform military service." Upon this state of facts the Attorney-General says : " The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place — the general right, in one word, of exj)a- triation, is incontestable. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it ; and that some of oui' courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should 32 either he confined to tlieiv native soil or driven away from it against their will. '■'■JExpatrmtion inchides not only emigration oiitof one's native country, but naturalization in tlie country adopted as a future residence. "When we prove the right of a man to expatriate himself, we estab- lish the lawful authority of the country iu which lie settles to naturalize Mm if its government pleases. What, then, is naturalization ? There is no dispute about the meaning of it. The derivation of the word alone makes it plain. AU lexicographers and all jurists define it ia one way. In its popular, etymological, and legal sense, it signifies the act of adopt- ing a foreigner and clotliing him with all the privileges of a native' cit- izen or subject." Such was the law before the passage of the act of July 27, 1868. The just conclusion from it aU is, that a citizen of the United States in time of peace, not deserting a public trust, nor being a fugitive from justice, by renouncing allegiance to this, and becoming in good faith a citizen of another country, in accordance with the laws thereof, is de- nationalized. The act of July 27, 1868, therefore is, so far as the right of expatria- tion is concerned, only declaratory of what was tlie law of the land. But the act does not attempt to define what steps must be taken by a citizen before he can' be held to have become denationalized. This being so, whether an act of expatriation has been accomplished in any particular case, must be left to the decision of the Executive or the coiuis, when such case shaU arise, and their decision must be based substantially on the law as it is set forth in the cases cited. Upon an application of the principles established by these cases, I have to say, in answer to tlie first question asked by you, that the law-making power having declared by the act of July 27, that expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the Executive, when satis- fied that a citizen, under the limitations I have set forth, has become denationalized, should not refuse to give effect to such an act of expa- triation. Upon an application of the same rules, the second question must be answered in the affirmative, if "voluntary submission to the sover- eignty of another power" is understood to be the becoming a citizen of another power in accordance witli the naturalization laws thereof. But an exjiatriation cannot, I think, be shown or presumed by an acquisition of domicile in another country, with an avowed purpose not to return only. The rule of pubUc law is that every person of full age has a right to change his domicile, and it follows that when he removes to another place with tlie intention to make that place his permanent residence, or his residence for an indefinite period, it becomes instantly his i)lace of domicile. (Thrasher's case.) 33 Under the liberal influence of commerce, the strict rule of the common law with regard to allegiance has been relaxed ; and thus, though a natural-born subject cannot throw oft' his allegiance by change of domi- cile merely, and -is always amenable for criminal acts against his native country, yet for commercial purposes he may acquire the rights of a citizen of another country by change of domicile. And the place of domicile determines the character of the party as to trade. (2 Kent, 49.) Under the state of facts set out in the third question, an American citizen would therefore undoubtedly obtain a foreign domicile, which would impress itpon him a national character for commercial purposes only, in like manner as if he were a subject of the government under which he resided, without losing on that account Ms original character^ or ceasing to be hound by the allegiance due to the country of his birth. (1 Peters, 0. C, 161 ; 2 Oranch, 120.) The principle that for all commercial purposes the domicile of the party, without reference to the place of his birth, becomes the test of national character, has been repeatedly admitted in the courts of the United States. (Sloop Chester, 2 Dallas, 41; Murray vs. Schooner Betsey, 2 Cranch, 64 ; Manly vs. Shattuck, 3 Granch, 488 ; Livingston vs. Maryland Insurance Company, 7 Cranch, 506 ; the Venus, 8 Cranch, 253 ; the Frances, 8 Cranch, 363.) But this national character which a citizen acquires by residence "may be thrown off at pleasure by a return to his native country, or even by turning his back on the country in which he had resided on his way to another." To use the language of Sir William Scott, "it is an adventi- tious character gained by residence, and which ceases by non-residence." Such was the opinion of the court in the case of the Yenus, (8 Cranch, 280,) and in United States vs. Guillem, (11 Howard, 47.) Such is now the rule in England. It is there held that a British sub- ject may acquire the rights, for commercial purposes, of a citizen of an- other country, and the place of the domicile determines the character of the party as to trade. (Wilson vs. Maryat, 8 T. E., 31.) In the case of the Danaos, cited in 4th Eobinson Adm., 255, the rule was declared that an Englishman residing in a neutral country was en- titled to the privileges of a neutral character, and a British-born sub- ject resident in Portugal was allowed the benefit of the Portuguese character so far as to render his trade with Holland, then at war with England, not impeachable as an illegal trade. In the case of the Indian Chief, (3 Bob. Adm., 12,) Mr. Johnson, a citizen of the United States, was domiciled in England, and engaged in a mercantile enterprise to the British East Indies, prohibited to British subjects, but allowed to American citizens. In delivering judgment the court said : "Taking it to be clear that the national character of Mr. Johnson was founded in residence only, it must be held that from the moment he turned his back on the country where he resided, on his way to his own country, he was in the act of 5 s D 34 resuming his original character, and must be considered an American. The character that is gained by residence ceases by non-residence. It is an adventitious character, and no longer adheres to him from the moment that he puts himself in motion bona fide to quit the country sine animo revertendi. " Such being the law, the fourth question becomes one of easy solution. It must be considered, however, with regard to two classes of citizens, viz, natural-born and naturalized. It has been seen that a mere residence abroad, with no apparent in- tention of returning, does not denationalize an American-borncitizeu ; it only impresses upon him a national character for commercial pur- poses. He is still bound by the allegiance due to tbe country of his birth. By virtue of that allegiance that country can demand his services whenever they are needed. For this reason he is, it seems to me, en- titled to its protection. In the case of the Charming Betsey, (2 Cranch, 120,) Chief Justice Marshall said; "The American citizen who goes into a foreign country, although he owes local and temporary allegiance to that country, is yet, if he performs no other act changing his condition, entitled to the protection of our Government; and if, without the violation of any mu- nicipal law, he should be oppressed unjustly, he would have a right to claim that protection, and the interposition of the American Govern- ment in his favor would be considered a justifiable interposition." This doctrine of the Supreme Court seems to have been regarded by the Department of State as the true rule, and was declared to be the rule of the Government in the most emphatic manner by Mr, Webster, in the case of John S. Thrasher. There seems, however, to be a doubt with regard to the right of the United States to protect a naturalized citizen when he returns to the country of his birth, the doctinne of the State Department seeming to be, up to the year 1852, that if a foreign state did not admit the right of one of its subjects to sever his allegiance, it may lawfully claim his services when found within its jurisdiction, and that the Govern- ment of the United States will not interfere to protect him. The question first arose, I think, in 1840, in the case of a Prussian who had become a naturalized citizen of the United States, and who claimed to be exempt from military draft on his return to his native country. Mr. Wheaton, at that time the American minister, in reply to the party, wrote that it was not in his power to protect him. " Had you re- mained in the United States, or visited any other foreign country except Prussia on your lawful business, you would have been protected by the American authorities at home and abroad in the enjoyment of all your rights and privileges as a naturalized citizen of the United States. But having returned to the country of your birth, your natural domicUe and natural character revert, (so long as you remain in the Prussian domin- ions,) and you were bound in all respects to obey the laws exactly as if you had never emigrated." 35 These views were adopted by Mr. Everett, Secretary of State, in iu- structions to Mr. Barnard, January 14, 1853. He said : " If a Prussian subject chooses to emigrate to a foreign country without obtaining the certificate wliich alone can discharge him from the obligation of military service, he takes that step at his own risk. He elects to go abroad under the burden of a duty which he owes to his government. His de- parture is in the nature of an escape from her laws, and if at any subse- quent period he is indiscreet enough to return to his native country, he cannot complain if those laws are executed to his disadvantage. His case resembles that of a soldier or sailor enlisted by conscription or other compulsory process in the army or navy. If he should desert the service of his country and thereby render himself amenable to the military laws, no one would expect that he could return to his native land.and bid defiance toits laws, becauseinthe mean time he had become a naturalized citizen of a foreign state." This view was accompanied by a note from Mr. Webster when Secre- tary of State, in June 1852, to the effect that if a government of a coun- try does not acknowledge the rightof natives of that country to renounce their allegiance, it may lawfully claim their services when found within its jurisdiction. A distinction was taken, however, in 1859, by the State Department, which limited this view, and which confined the foreign jurisdiction in regard to naturalized citizens to such of them as were in the army or actually called into' it at the time they left the country ; that is, to the case of actual desertion or refusal to enter the army after having been regularly drafted and called into it by the government to which at the time they owed allegiance. In accordance with this view, Mr. Faulkner, minister of the United States at Paris in 1860, said, in reference to the case of a naturalized citi- zen who had emigrated before the period of military service, "the doc- tirine of the United States is that the naturalized emigrant cannot be held responsible, upon his return to his native county, for any military duty the performance of which has not been actually demanded of him prior to his emigration. A prospective liability to service in the army is not sufficient. The obligation of contingent duties depending upon time, sortition, or events thereafter to occur, is not recognized. To subject him to such responsibility, it should be a case of actual deser- tion or refusal to enter the army after having been actually drafted into the service of the government to which he at the time owed alle- giance." The Secretary of State under Mr. Buchanan made the same distinc- tion between the contingent liability of those naturalized citizens who left the country of their origin before the age of military service with- out the consent required by law, and those who escaped after they were actuallj^ enrolled. He claimed that the former were, irrespective of the obligations arising from the contingent liability, which in the interim 36 had become complete, entitled even in their native country to the full protection of American citizens. This doctrine is in entire harmony with the views of the Attorney- General, expressed in 1859, in the case of Christian Ernst, and may, I think, be considered the views of the Grovernment of the United States. (9 Opin.) That offtcer says that a naturalized citizen who returns to his native country " is liable, like anybody else, to be arrested for a debt or crime; but he cannot rightfully be punished for the mere nonperformance of a duty which is supposed to grow out of that allegiance which he has ab- iured and renounced. If he was a deserter from the army, he may be punished when he goes back, because desertion is a crime. On the other hand, if he was not actually in the army at the time of his emi- gration, but merely liable like other members of the state to be called on for his share of military duty, which he did not perform because he left the country before the time for its performance came around, he cannot justly be molested." In deciding the question contained in your fifth interrogatory, viz, what should constitute evidence of the absence of an intent to return, I must first consider whether, in any given case, a domicile has been ac- quired in another country, for the reason that the evidence of an ab- sence of intent to return can only be determined by the fact whether a foreign domicile has been acquired. If such a domicile has been acquired, the intent to return is gone ; if not, the intent to return still remains. Whether or not a domicile has been obtained, is purely a question of fact. It is said by the Supreme Court in the case of the Yenus, before re- ferred to, that whether a person had suflciently made known his inten- tion of fixing himself permanently in a foreign country, must depend upon all the circumstances of the case. " If he has made no express declaration on the subject, and his secret intention is to be discovered, his acts must be attended to as affording the most satisfactory evidence of his intention. On this ground it is that the courts of England have de- cided that a person who removes to a foreign country, settles himself there, and engages in the trade of the country, furnishes by these acts such evidence of an intention permanently to remain there as to stamp him with the national character of the state where he resides." It will be seen from my discussion of the proposition contained in the third interrogatory that the doctrine once held was that a naturalized citizen could not be protected by the Government of the United States, if he returned to the country of his birth, on the ground that his native domicile and national character reverted. It is also seen that this doc- trine has of late been a good deal modified — the foreign jurisdiction over a naturalized citizen being limited to those who were in the army or drafted, or were owing some accrued obligation at the time they left their native country. 37 A native or a naturalized citizen, therefore, may now go forth with equal security over every sea and into every land, including the coun- try where the latter was born. They are both American citizens, and their exlusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them owed no fealty elsewhere ; the other by his naturalization renounced and abjured all allegiance to the sovereignty whose subject he had been. This worked a dissolution of every political tie which bound him to his native country. (Ernst's case, 9 Opin. Atfys-Gen., 357.) This being so, it follows that if a naturalized citizen returns to his native country, and resides there for a series of years with no apparent purpose of returning, he only acquires, just as a native citizen of the United States would, a national character for commercial purposes, without losing his character of citizenship acquired by naturalization or ceasing to be bound by the allegiance thereby due from him. His origi. nal character does not under these circumstances revert, and therefore he does not become expatriated. The sixth question must, therefore, be answered in the negative. 7th. Are the children born abroad of a citizen who has expatriated himself citizens of the United States, and entitled to its protection ? By the common law a person born out of the dominions and jurisdic- tion of the United States, and under the actual obedience of a foreign king, is an alien, though his parents were American citizens. In Calvin's case it was held that " an alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the king and under the ligeance of another." (7 Eep., 16.) " There be regularly three incidents to a subject born : that the parents be under the actual obedience of the king ; that the place of the birth be within the king's dominion ; and that the time of his birth is chiedy to be considered, for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom." (7 Kep., 17.) In Doe vs. Jones (4 Dumford and Bast, 308) it is said "the character of a natural-bom subject, anterior to any of the statutes, was incidental to birth only ; whatever were the situation of his pareints, the being- born within the allegiance of the king constituted a natural-born sub- iect." Such was the common law of the United States anterior to the passage of the act of 1804. Chancellor Kent says, "An alien is a person born out of the jurisdic- tion and allegiance of the United States. There are som'e exceptions to this rule, he says, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power. So also it is said that in every case the children born abroad of English parents were capable of inheriting as natives, if the father went and con- tinued abroad in the character of an Englishman ivith the consent of the sovereign.''^ 38 This last proposition is an extremely doubtful one. Chancellor Kent gives as authority for it only the following cases, viz : Hyde vs. Hill, Oro. Eliz. 3, Bro. Abr., tit. Descent, pi. 47, and tit. Deni- zen, pi. 14. But it is clear, from what he says further on, that little re- liance can be placed upon this alleged doctrine. For in commenting upon the fact that the period wiU soon arise when there wiU be no stat- utory provisions in the United States in relation to the status of chil- dren born abroad of American parents, from the fact that the act of 1804 in relation to this question not being prospective will soon be inop- erative, he says such cnildren will be obliged to resort to the dormant and doubtful principles of the English common law. The rule, however, laid down in Calvin's case, and in Doe m. Jones, makes it clear that such children would be aliens in the absence of a statute to the contrary. It was because such was the common law that there arose the neces- sity in England of the statute of 25 Bdw. In relation to this statute Chancellor Kent says, " It appears to have been made to remove doubts as to the certainty of the common law on this subject." This statute settled the law in England. But in the United States the rule of the common law was supposed still to have effect. For Congress in 1804 enacted that "the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered citizens of the United States." The act was not prospective, however, and i|;s benefits were soon lost. In 1854 the question again arose, in the absence of every statutory provision, what was the condition of children of American citizens bom abroad 1 In an article published in February, 1854, in the American Law Eeg- ister, and attributed to Mr. Horace Binney, it was contended with great force that such children were aliens. All the authorities on the ques- tion were reviewed, the position taken by Chancellor Kent that such chil- dren might be citizens criticised, and the conclusion I have stated reached. The view contained in this article seems to have been adopted by Congress, for soon after its appearance a bill passed, based substan- tially upon the idea contained in the article referred to. A case involving this question has, however, since arisen in 'New Tork, and the doctrine of Chancellor Kent maintained. (See Ludlam vs. Lud- 1am, 26 K. Y,, 357 ; Lynch vs. Clark, 1 Sandf., ch. 583.) The act provided that "persons heretofore born or hereafter to be bom out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fath- ers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of this country, shall be deemed and are declared to be citizens of the United States." If the father, therefore, was a citizen of the United States, his chil- dren born are now citizens by force of the statute. So much is settled. But the father must be a citizen. If the father 39 was not a citizen, tlieu his children horn abroad are undoubtedly aliens. Upon the principles laid down in the cases cited, a citizen of the United States who has expatriated himself is no longer a citizen, and consequently his children born abroad are aliens, and not entitled to be protected by the United States. The eighth question must, upon the principles laid down in the cases I have cite'd, be answered in the negative. Upon these principles a native-born citizen of the United States can- not become expatriated until he has become a citizen of another coun- try in accordance with the naturalization laws thereof. When this has been done, he is from that time no more a citizen of the United States than a foreign-born subject. According to the same law, laid down in my answer to the sixth ques- tion, his original character does not, therefore, revert on his return to the' United States, and before he can be regarded as a citizen he must again be naturalized. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, WILLIAM A. EICHAEDSO:if, Secretary of the Treasury. No. 499. The Secretary of War to the President. War Department, Washington City, November 6, 1873. Sir : In response to your request of August 6, addressing to me cer- tain questions concerning the relations between the Government and persons who may claim its protection as citizens of the United States, I have the honor to reply as follows : First question. The law-making power having declared tliat "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," (15 Stat. Large, 223,) should the Executive refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the Uni- ted States ? Answer. In my opinion the Executive should not refuse. Second question. May a formal renunciation of United States citizenship, and a volun- untary submission to the sovereignty of another power be regarded otherwise than an act of expatriation ? Answer. In my opinion it may not. Third question. Can an election of expatriation be shown or presumed by an acquisi- tion of domicile in another country with an avowed purpose not to return? Answer. It can. Fourth question. Ought the Government to hold itself bound to extend its protection, and consequently exert its military and naval power for such protection in favor of persons who have left its territories, and who reside abroad, without an apparent intent to return to them, and who do not contribute to its support? 40 Answer. It ought not. Such a residence abroad, prolonged and accom- panied by no avowed, Ivuown, or apparent intent to return, would con- stitute a prima-facie case of expatriation which would justify the Gov- ernment in withholding its protection until explained away and over- come by counter satisfactory testimony. Fifth question. What should constitute evidence of the absence of an intent to return in such cases ? Answer. The evidence indicating an absence of an intention to return may consist of a great number of particulars, which it would be difiO.- cult to enumerate. The question is purely one of fact, to be determined by testimony, and each case must be decided on its peculiar circum- stances, since it is clear that Congress, in its declaration on the subject, neither required nor contemplated any special form or mode in which the right of expatriation, so broadly recognized by it, should be exer- cised. Long residence abroad, accompanied by an absence of busi- ness relations with and a failure to assert and exercise the political rights of citizenship in the country left, would naturally be among the most conclusive indicia of expatriation. Sixth question. When a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native country, and resides there for a series of years, with no apparent purpose of return- ing, shall he be deemed to have expatriated, himself where the case is not regulated by treaty? Answer. This, like the former, is a question of fact, to be determined on the testimony. The naturalized citizen may expatriate himself, and thut lose his newly-acquired citizenship, in the same manner as the citizen born can do. Perhaps, in his case, a smaller measure of proof as to the animus of his continued residence in his native country would be required than might be deemed necessary in the case of the citizen born. Seventh question. Are the children born abroad of a person who has been a citizen of . the United States, but who has become a subject or citizen of another power, or who has expatriated himself, citizens of the United States, and entitled to its protection ? Answer. This question is supposed to relate to children born abroad, and who are minors at the time their parent expatriates himself. Under such circumstances, his domicile being theirs, in contemplation of law, it is believed that they would necessarily share the change wrought in his status by expatriation. In our country minors become citizens through the act of their parents in bringing them here, and their result- ing residence, and there seems to be no reason why they should not equally abide the effect of his action when it results in their expatria- tion. Eighth question. Can a person who has formally renounced his allegiance to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, be- come again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner pro- vided by general laws? Answer. He cannot. A citizen who expatriates himself becomes, it is thought, to all intents and purposes, an alien, and, like all other aliens 41 or subjects of a foreign government, he can only become again a citizen of the United States by a compliance witli our naturalization laws. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, WM, W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. To the President, (Through the honorable the Secretary of State.) No. 500. T/te Secretary of the Navy to the President. Navy Depaktment, November 1, 1873. To the President of the United States : Sib: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, through the Sec- retary of State, of your letter requesting my opinion, in writing, upon certain questions therein stated concerning the relations between the Government and persons who may claim its protection as citizens of the United States, and in reply I beg to submit the following: Some general observations are proper before examining each question in detail. Every government may make such laws as it sees fit in regard to the expatriation of its own citizens, aiid may also enforce within its own iurisdiction such laws as it makes in regard to the naturalization of foreigners. These subjects belong, within the limits here indicated, to the munici- pal laws of each nation. It follows from the first proposition that, on the subject of the right of expatriation, the declaration of Congress in the act of July 27, 1868, is law as to our own citizens, while as to the rights of citizens of other countries, in reference to their allegiance, it is only a declaration of opinion as to what is the law of nature or of nations, and is binding on other nations so far only as they assent to it by treaty, or as it may, in truth, accord with the law of nations. Being latv as to the right of our own citizens to expatriate themselves, it must, of course, be given full effect by the Executive as regards them; the only question which can arise in this application of the doctrine being the question of fact as to whether a citizen has actually expatriated himself. But as regards the application of the principle declared in the act to persons bearing other natural relations and having original duties to other nations, the subject is much more complicated and difScult. While the act of 1868 is declaratory of what is considered the Ameri- can doctrine, it must be remembered that Congress cannot alter the law of nations ; and anything contained in the act contrary thereto is not binding on the President, who is charged with the administration of our foreign relations. 6SB 42 If, for example, Congress slioxild declare that the President must iu- terfere to protect a naturalized citizen contrary to the tenor of treaties or contrary to the law of nations, the enactment would pro tanto be void. Therefore the declaration of the act and the references and the con- clusions which follow them must be considered subject to certain quali- fications of the right of protection and interference, which grow out of the rights of other governments and are still recognized by the law of nations. In considering these it must be borne in mind that the rights of expatriation and naturalization are not strictly correlative rights. A man may have a right, by the laws of the country to which he emi- grates, to be naturalized, and yet may not have a right, by the laws of his own country, to expatriate himself; and much more clear, though not more true, is the principle that a man may have the right of expatria- tion from one country without the right of naturalization in another. As every country makes such laws on these several subjects as it sees fit, without inquiring as to the laws of other countries, it may be consid- ered settled that the assent of a man's mother country to his change of allegiance is not regarded as necessary in the country which naturalizes him. This is so universally the principle on which all nations act, that it may be assumed to be in conformity with international law. After a man is naturalized in the country to which he emigrates, he is then, admittedly, entitled to all the protection, at home and abroad, (excepting only the country from which he emigrated,) which is accorded to a natural-born citizen. As regards the country from which he emigrated, if he returns there, the question of the protection - to be given by his adopted country be- comes again complicated with other questions of natural rights and duties. He cannot justly claim to be discharged from obligations or penalties which he actually incurred before his emigration, unless they are discharged by lapse of time, or other intrinsic reason. This is gen- erally conceded in all the treaties which our Government has effected on the subject. (See the treaties mostly collected in the note to Ohap. I of Wharton's Conflict of Laws, pp. 1-20.) In the simple case where a naturalized emigrant returns to his native country with the purpose of remaining there permanently and never returning to his adopted country, he is considered as having relinquished his acquired citizenship and re-assumed the duties of his natural one. In such case, of course, all obligation to protect him, on the part of his adopted country, ceases. This is also provided in most of the treaties. (See Halleck's International Law, 692-700. Wharton's Conflict of Laws, pp. 1-20; Wheaton's International Law, by Lawrence, appendix, pp. 891, &c.) But if he returns to the jurisdiction of his native country without re- turning to his natural allegiance, the question of opposing existing rights arises. The right of expatriation, it is seen, is not entirely abso- 43 lute ; but is somewhat qualified. An emigrant, notwithstanding he be- comes naturalized, may be liable to some obligations to his mother country actually incurred. Formerly the governments of Europe, which were mostly founded on feudal principles, regarded the sovereign as having a kind of property in his subjects, or lieges, which bound them to him for life. Idegeance, or allegiance, therefore, was a tie which the subject could not sunder at his pleasure. But the practice of all nations to naturalize the subjects of other nations without inquiry as to the will of their former sovereign, shows that the doctrine of the law of nations, as now accepted, really is, that a man may throw off his old allegiance and embrace a new one. This has always been the American doctrine, and has now become a subject of treaty with Great Britain, all the German states, Denmark, and Sweden. These treaties, recently effected, dispose of many of the intricate questions which formerly arose out of the claim of perpetual allegiance put forth by foreign nations. (See these treaties; Wharton's Conflict of Laws, pp. 1-20, and Statutes United States, vols, xvi, xvii.) By these treaties, the rule now prevailing may be expressed generally thus : Continuous residence in this country for five years, and naturali- zation, effects an entire change of citizenship and allegiance, and all ob- ligations to the mother coontry are extinguished, except those actually incurred before emigration; these remain if the emigrant return to his native country ; but all liability to military duty which he evaded by emigration is discharged. But if an emigrant return to his native coun- try, without the intent to return to his adopted country, he is held to have renounced his naturalization. Two years, residence in the native country manifest such intent not to return. The following references will be useful in examining the history of the controversy respecting perpetual allegij\.nce and the right of expatriation : Lawrence's tract on the subject, appendix to Wheaton's International Law. Halleck's Intoraational Law, 692-700. Wharton's Conflict of Laws, pp. 1-20 Marcy's letter to Hulseman, in Koszta's case, September 26, 1853. Marcy's letter to Jackson, in Tousig's case, January 10, 1854. Cass's letter to Wright, in Tousig's case, July 9, 1859. Cushing's opinion on the right of a citizen of the United States, to expatriate him- self, 1856, Attorney General's Opinion, Tiii, 139. Black's opinion's, on expatriation, Attorney General's Opinions, ix, 63-356. Grot, 1, 5, 24. Puff, 8, 11, 2. Vattel, 1, 332, p. 105. Foelix, Droit, Int. Priv., § 28. With ttiese preliminary remarks I make the following replies to the questions respectively : Question 1. The law-making powijr having declared that "the right of expatriation is a national and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," (15 Stat, at Large, 323,) should the Executive refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States? Answer. If a citizen of the United States should expatriate himself so ab- solutely that he remains under no obligation of citizenship incurred before 44 such expatriation, then the answer is, Fo; the President should not re- iiise to give effect to the act of expatriation. But the act of expatria- tion must of course be established by proper proofs, on which it is un- necessary to make a prolonged discussion. Suffice it to say, that naturalization in another country is plepary proof; and in case of a naturalized citizen then resident in his native country, without any in- tent to return to the United States, is sufficient proof. Question 2. May a formal renunciation of United States citizenship, and the voluntary submission to the sovereignty of another power, be regarded otherwise than as an act of expatriation ? Answer. Such renunciation and submission cannot be regarded other- wise. But what will constitute them is a question of some uncertainty. A formal renunciation of United States citizenship includes, I assume, a renunciation of aU claims upon the Government of the United States for future protection, and places the party under the protection of the government he adopts. Our own laws do not prescribe any special form of renunciation. The proper and most effective form would be a natur- alization in another country ; and wherever, and by whatever means, a citizen properly assumes the status of a new citizenship, there he may be considered as having renounced the status and relinquished the rights of his old one. It is difficult to say what form can be adopted short of that which will preclude the party from afterwards demanding United States protection. How could the formal renunciation be authenticated against him ? It seems to me that until a citizen of the United States becomes a citi- zen of some other country he remains a citizen of the United States. If he takes initiatory and inchoate proceedings to change his citizenship he must follow them up. Within reasonable limits of time it may be pre- sumed that he will do so. But if that be not done, the presumption fails. Question 3. Can an election of expatriation be shown, or presumed, by an acquisition of domicile in another country, with an avowed purpose not to return ? ~ Answer. As to naturalized citizens, if they return to their native coun- try with an avowed purpose never to return they are to be deemed as having renounced their acquired citizenship ; but in case of a native citi- zen, I do not think that an election of expatriation can be shown, or presumed, simply by an acquisition of domicile in another country, even with an avowed purpose not to return. Such a person, by long residence abroad, may lose all claim of the Government to protect him, but cannot be said to have changed his citizenship. A claim of protection is not of absolute right. It may be much modified by the conduct of the citizen. He may be estopped to claim protection by his own conduct without the loss of citizenship. Thus, where he plots against, or abuses and vilifies, his own Government, or plots against or attacks a friendly one, he may lose all absolute claims on his Government, and yet he may not lose his citizenship. 45 Question 4. Ought the Governmeut hold itself hound to extend its protection, and con. sequently exort its military and naval power for such protection, in favor of persons who have left its territories and who reside ahroad, without an apparent intent to return to them, and who do not contrihute to its support ? Answer. As before said, the duty of protection depends much on the conduct of the citizen abroad. If he manifests a contempt or hostility to his own Government or country, and avoids every duty of a citizen, the Government is not bound to protect such person. The Government is left to its own discretion in such cases, and must act, under its responsi- bility, in each particular case. A request for protection is always to be listened to with attention, and not denied to a citizen, unless such citi- zen, by his conduct, has forfeited clearly his claim to it. If by absence in time of war or distress he has avoided every obligation and duty which a good citizen owes to his country, he cannot demand its protec- tion as a matter of right when he is in distress. If he has been absent on account of business or recreation, or travel, or other fair and legiti. mate object of pursuit, the case and the conclusion will be different.. (See Vattel, Book I, sec. 220, p. 103.) Question 5. Wnat should constitute evidence^of the ahsenoe of an intent to return, in such cases ? Afiswer. The evidence of want of intent to return depends on so many circumstances that it is difficult to lay down a definite rule as to what constitutes such evidence. If the citizen be a naturalized citizen, slighter and less evidence will be required than if he is a native; and if resid- ing in his native country, two years' residence there has been deemed sufficient evidence of the abandonment, by a naturalized citizen, of Ms adopted country, and intent not to return to it. But no mere length of residence abroad, it seems to me, is sufficient, standing alone, to raise, in the case of a native citizen, such a presumption. Other circumstances are required, such as disposing of property at home, and purchase of property abroad, and having all his interests centered in his foreign abode. Question 6. When a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native coun- try and resides there for a series of years, with no apparent purpose of returning, shall he be deemed to have expatriated himself, where the case is not regulated by treaty ? Answer. A naturalized citizen returning to reside in his native coun- try will be presumed, after two years' residence, not to intend to return to his adopted country. But this would be presumption only from mere residence and lapse of time. Circumstances, actions, and even declara- tions might vary it. I name two years because that is the period named in several treaties for that purpose. Question 7. Are the children bom abroad of a person who has been a citizen of the United States, but who has become a subject or citizen of another power, or who has expatriated himself, citizens of the United States and entitled to its protection ? Answer. ,G\a\Av&a. sub potestate parentis follow the condition of the father; or, if no father, of the mother. If of full age, and emancipated, they are subject to the same rules as any adult person. 46 Question 8. Can a person who has formally renounced his allegiance to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by general laws ? Answer. A citizen of the United States wlio has renounced his citi- zenship and become naturalized aljroad, by returning to his own coun- try and residing there without intent to return to his adopted country, will be regarded as having renounced his adopted citizenship ; but he will not be again a citizen of the United States without naturaHzation or the force of some special law on the subject. (See the naturalization treaties before referred to, which are based on good sense, and on rea- son.) It should be added, although it does not come within the direct scope of the questions submitted, that the right of protection is not confined to citizens, but extends to denizens and those having their domicile in the United States. All persons, citizens or not, who make the United States their home, whose domicile is here, and who claim the protection of the Government, will obtain it if the claim be made in good faith and the conduct of the party has not been such as to forfeit the claim. This was the case of Martin Koszta, who had only declared his inten- tion to become a citizen, and who resided in the United States, but was temporarily absent in Turkey, innocently employed. All of which is respectfully submitted. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEO. M. EOBESOIif, Secretary of the Wavy. No. 501. The Postmaster- General to the President. Post-Oppice Department, Washington, D. C, November 17, 1873. SiE : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th August, asking the opinion, in writing, of the principal oflacer in each of the Executive Departments upon certain questions, therewith submitted, relating to the expatriation of citizens of the United States, and the relations between the Government and expatriated persons who may claim its protection by virtue of restored citizenship. After giving the subject such study and deliberation as its importance demanded, I cannot find any ground to differ from the views of the Attorney-General of the United States, given in his well-considered and very able opinion in answer to the same questions, also submitted to him. The conflict of opinion heretofore expressed by eminent statesmen and jurists upon some of the points raised by the questions; the tide of im- migration flowing to, and the facilities of travel from, this country ; the prolonged and sometimes permanent residence of our citizens in foreign 47 countries — all induce me to unite earnestly with tlie Attorney-Greneral in the recouimeudation that some positive legislation be invoked to put at rest, so far as legislation can do so, these delicate international ques- tions, -which may at any time involve us in serious complications with foreign powers. I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, JS"0. A. J. OEESWELL, Postmaster- General. His Excellency TJ. S. Grant, President of the United States. No. 502. The Attorney- General to the President. Department of Justice, August 20, 1873. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communi- cation of the 6th instant, submitting for my ofQcial opinion certain questions hereinafter stated, to which I respectfully make answer as follows : Question I. The law-making power having declared that the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, (15 U. S. Stat., p. 223,) should the Executive refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States ? Answer. My opinion is that the afftrmation by Congress that the right of expatriation is "a natural and inherent right of all people," includes citizens of the United States as well as others, and the executive should give to it that comprehensive effect. Question II. May a formal renunciation of United States citizenship, and a voluntary submission to the sovereignty of another power, be regarded otherwise than as an act of expatriation ? Answer. Congress has made no provision for the formal renunciation of citizenship by a citizen of the United States while he remains in this country; but if such citizen emigrates to a foreign country, and there, in the mode provided by its laws, or in any other solemn or public.man- ner, renounces his United States citizenship, and makes a voluntary submission to its authorities with a honafide intent of becoming a citi- zen or subject there, I think that the Government of the United States should not regard this proceedure otherwise than as an act of expatriation . Question III. Can an election of expatriation be shown or presumed by an acquisition of domicile in another country, with an avowed purpose not to return 1 Answer. Eesidence in a foreign country and an intent not to return are essential elements of expatriation ; but to show complete expatria- tion as the law now stands, it is necessary to show something more than these. Attorney-General Black says (IX Opinions, p. 359) that expat- 48 riation includes not only emigration out of one's native country, butnat- viralization in the country adopted as a future residence. My opinion, however, is that, in addition to domicile and an intent to remain, such expressions or acts as amount to a renunciation of United States citi- zenship and a willingness to submit to or adopt the obligations of the coiintry in which the i^erson resides, such as accepting public employ- ment, engaging in a military service, &c., may be treated by this Gov- ernment as expatriation, without actual naturalization. Naturalization is, without doubt, the highest but not the only evidence of expatriation. Question IV. Ought the Government to hold itself bound to extend its proteetion, and exert its military and naval power for such protection, in favor of persons who have left its territories, and who reside abroad, without an apparent intent to return to them, and who do not contribute to its support ? Answer. Persons born in the United States, who, having left them, reside abroad with no apparent intention of returning, and who do not contribute to their support, do not necessarily discharge the United States Government from its obligation to interpose for their protection in proper cases. Foreign domicile, which is substantially described in this inquiry, is not the equivalent of expatriation. When a citizen of the United States becomes domiciled in a foreign country he becomes, as a general rule, subject to its laws and its authorities like one of its citizens ; but if, by his acts or declarations, he continues to assert his United States citizenship, and takes no oaths, or public or of&cial obliga" tions inconsistent therewith, it is the duty of the Government of the United States, though he may have at the time no real or apparent in- tent to return to them, to protect him against special acts of ^vrong or injustice by the Government of the country in which he resides, and from the imposition upon him by that government of duties which are exclusively due from its own citizens or subjects, or which may be in- consistent with his allegiance to the United States. Question V. What should constitute evidence of the absence of an intent to return in such cases ? Answer. When a citizen of the United States goes abroad without in- tending to return, he takes one indispensable step toward expatriation; but to effect a complete annihilation of all duties and obligations be- tween the government of his native country and himself, which ex- tradition implies, it is necessary that he should become a resident in some foreign country with an intent to remain there, superadded to which there must be acts in the direction of becoming a citizen or sub- ject of such foreign country, amounting at least to a renunciation of United States citizenship. Absence of an intent to return to one's na- tive country, or to speak, perhaps, with more accuracy in considering a question of expatriation, an intent to remain in a foreign country, may be evidenced in various ways and by a great variety of circumstances, and though it might not be difficult to determine from the facts in a specific case as to the intent of a party changing his domicile, it is im- possible to lay down any general rule upon the subject by which all 49 cases can be decided. Intent is the great criterion by which tbe char acter of domicile is determined. When a person avows his purpose to change his residence and acts accordingly, his declarations upon the sub- ject are generally received as a satisfactory evidence of his intent ; but in the absence of such evidence the sale of his property and the settling up of his business before emigration, the removal of his family, if he has one, arrangements for a continuing place of abode, the acquisition of property after removal, the formation of durable business relations, and the lapse of a long period under such circumstances are among the lead- ing considerations from which the intent to make a permanent change of domicile is inferred. Question VI. Wlien a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native country, and resides there for a series of years with no apparent purpose of return- ing, shall he he deemed to have expatriated himself where the case is not regulated hy treaty ? Answer. Conflicting views have been advanced upon this question by distinguished lawyers and statesmen of this country ; but I know of no principle upon which it can be held that, with respect to protection in foreign countries, the rights of a naturalized are different from those of a native-born citizen. Domicile in his native country without an intent to return to the United States, by a naturalized citizen, would not of themselves, so long as he maintains his claim and distinctiveness as such naturalized citizen, deprive him of his right of protection in proper cases by the Government of the United States. But less evidence would per- haps be requisite to show that a person residing in his native country had thrown oft' a foreign citizenship acquired by naturalization, or, in other words, had expatriated himself from his adopted country, than to show that a person born in the United States, but residing elsewhere, had expatriated himself from his native country. Naturalization eft'ected in the United States without an intent to reside permanently therein, but with a view of residing in another country, and using such natural- ization to evade duties and responsibilities that wordd 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. Section 2 of the act of July 27, 1867, (supra,) as to protection in foreign countries, puts naturalized and na- tive-born citizens upon the same ground. Question VII. Are the children horn ahroad of a person who has heeu a citizen of the United States, but who has become a subject or citizen of another power, or who has expatriated himself, citizens of the United States, and entitled to its protection? Answer. Section 1 of the act of February 10, 1855, (10 U. S. Stat., p. 604,) provides that "persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or shall be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered, and are hereby declared to be, citizens of the United States : Provided, however, that the rights of citizenshii) 7 s D 50 sball uot deaceud to persous whose fathers never resided in the United States ;" from which, as well as from other considerations, it is evident that children born abroad of persons once citizens of the United States, but who have become citizens or subjects of a foreign power, are not citizens of the United States, or, as such, entitled to their protection. Question VIII. Can a person who has formally renounced his allegiance to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by general laws? Answer. Persons born in the United States who have, according to the laws of a foreign country, become stibjects or citizens thereof, must be regarded as aliens ; and section 1 of the act of April 14,_ 1802, (2 U. S. Stat., p. 153.) declares that an alien maybe admitted to become a cit- izen of the United States as provided in said act, and not otherwise. Actual naturalization abroad would seem to be necessary to make a person born in the United States an alien. Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution declares that "aU persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But the word "jurisdiction" must be under- stood to mean absolute or complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment* Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a Ifmited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. I have made the foregoing answers as specific as I can to what are abstract propositions ; but I beg to add, generally, that, in the absence of treaties and legislation by Congress touching the subjects involved in said questions, the rules of law relating thereto are to be drawn from writers upon interuatioDal and public law, who do not always agree, and therefore it will be difficult for the Government to act upon any such rules without a chance of controversy. Legislation is needed to declare by what acts United States citizen- ship is lost. According to the French code, not only naturalization in a foreign country, but a fixed residence there without the intention of returning, destroys the quality of a Frenchman; and regulations to the effect that a subject by acts other than naturalization in a foreign coun. try may expatriate himself have been adopted by Russia, Austria Italy, and other countries of Europe. I can see no good reason why Congi'css may not put an end to controversy upon the subject by declar- ing that a citizen of the United States who emigrates to a foreign coun. try with the avowed purpose of remaining there, or who resides abroad for a definite period without an avowed purpose of returning to the United States, shall be considered as thereby expatriating himself or losing the right to call upon the Government of the United States for protection during such foreign residence. Several treaties have been 51 made with Eui'opean powers to the effect that when a naturalized citi- zen renews his residence in his native country with intent to remain, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization; and something like this, it seems to me, might with great propriety be incorporated into the laws of this country, to be applied as well to our citizens who, hav- ing been naturalized abroad, return to reside in the United States, as to those who, naturalized here, return to reside in their native country. Very respectfidly, GEO. H. WILLIAMS, Attorney- General. The President. No. 503. The Secretary of the Interior to the President. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C, September 30, 1873. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communi- cation of the 6th of August last, which requests me to answer certain interrogatories relative to the rights and duties of citizens of the. United States and the manner in which, under our institutions, citizenship may be acquired and lost. This communication came to hand during my absence from the city, M'hich was protracted longer than I anticipated by providential circum- stances over which I had no control. Since my return I have consid- ered, as fully as time and official engagements would permit, the im- portant subject embraced in your interrogatories, and now have the honor to express in writing my opinion upon the questions referred to, which are as follows : " I. The law-making power having declared that ' the right of expatriation is a nat- ural and inlicrent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' (15 Stat, at Large, 223,) should the Exec- utive refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation of a citizen of the United States'? " II. May a formal renunciation of United States citizenship, and voluntary submis- sion to the sovereignty of another power, be regarded otherwise than as an act of expatriation ? "III. Can an election of expatriation be shown or presumed by an acquisition of domicile in another country, with an avowed purpose not to return? "IV. Ought the Government to hold itself bound to extend its protection, and con- sequemtly exert its military and naval power for such protection, in favor of persons who have left its territories and who reside abroad withou.t an apparent intent to return to them, and who do not contribute to its support? "V. What should constitute evidence of the absence of an intent to return in such cases? "VI. AVhen a naturalized citizen of the United States returns to his native country, and resides there for a series of years, with no apparent purpose of returning, shall he be deemed to have expatriated himself, where the case is not regulated by treaty? "VII. Are the children born abroad of a person who has been a citizen of the United States, but who has become a subject or citizen of another power, or who has expa- triated himself, citizens of the United States and entitled to its protection? 52 "VIII. Can a person who has formally reuotinced liis alleginiRc to the Uuited States, aud assumed the ohligations of a. citizen or subject of another power, become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than in the manner provided by general laws ? " These questions open au interesting field of inquiry, and render it proper to consider what is citizenship of the United States, where is the power which can confer or take it away, and how may it be acquired or lost It i«not easy to define citizenship, and but few have done it, although the general idea of what is included in the term citizen is pretty well un- derstood. All agree that it includes males and females and minors. It includes all those who owe allegiance, fidelity, and support to the Govern- ment, aud who, in return for the same, are entitled to be protected and defended by it. "Allegiance," says Blackstone, "is the tie or ligament that binds every subject to be true and faithful to his sovereign mi return for protection which is afforded him." " The duty of allegiance," says Attorney-General Bates, "and the right to protection are correlative ob- Ugations, the one the price of the other, and' they constitute the bond be- tween the individual aud his country." " If the body of society," says Vattel, " or he who represents it, (the government,) absolutely fail to discharge their obligations toward the citizen, the latter may withdraw himself, for if one of the contracting parties does not observe his engage- ments the other is no longer bound to fulfill his, as the contract is recip- ■rocal between society and its members^ I would define a citizen of the United States to be a native-born or naturaUzed person, of either sex, who owes allegiance to and is enti- tled to protection from the United States, or a person who is made a citizen by treaty stipulations or statutory or constitutional law. The power of conferring or taking away citizenship rests in Congress. The Constitution has conferred upon it the power " to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." (Article 4, section 8.) It is impossibly to execute this power and make citizenship uniform unless the United States have exclusive control over the subject ; and hence it must be admitted that all the powers which the States previously had were surrendered and vested in the nation. This seems so palpably just and necessary that it requires no argument or authority in its support ; but, as it may be de- nied, I venture to refer to the following authorities : In 2 Kent Com., 30, it is said, " The question of citizenship is one of national, and not of individual (or State) sovereignty." Judge McLean, in the Dred Scott case, 19 How., 533, declares, " that a State may authorize a foreigner to hold real estate, but it has no power to naturaUze foreigners and give them the rights of citizens. Such a right is opposed to the acts of Congress and subversive of the Federal powers." Attorney-General Bates, (10th Opinions, 382,) says : " Every person who is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, holds his great franchise by the laws of the United States, and above the control of any particular Stat<^." 53 It has frequently been held that no State can confer the elective fran- I'liise upon one who is not a citizen of the United States. Cit'zenship 's national. It is the nation, and the nation only, that can ina\e and rn- make citizens. If the elective franchise can be conferred by a State ujicn persons not citizens of the United States, it would enable the State to subvert and overthrow the institutions and form of the National Govern. Hient. Upon this point I will refer to the opinions of some of our ablest urists and sta tesmen. Judge Curtis, in 19 How., 581, before quoted, says : " The enjoyment of the elective franchise is not essential to citizenship. It is one of the chiefest attributes of citizenship under the American Oonstitution ; and the just and constitutional possession of this right is decisive evidence of national citizenship." Judge Story illustrates this i3oint with admirable power. He says : " If aliens might be permitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the wiU of a single State, the Union itself might b3 •> dangered by the influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its forms, and incai)able of ardue estimation of its privileges." (1 Story on Const., 1103.) In Wheaton, page 910, Mr. Lawrence says : " If tlie States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing tlie A'otes of citizens, not only the federal power of the nation becomes a nullity, but a majority of actual citizens, by the aid of ahens, may con- * trol the government of the States, and through the States the govern- ment of the Union." Mr. Calhoun (Wheaton, 905) has stated the point very clearly, and, without intending to indorse his opinions on all other subjects, I heartily approve of what he has said on this. I quote : " Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to what other rights appertain to a citizen, all nuist agi'ee that he has the right to petition, and also to claim the jjrofec- ion of the Grovemment. These belong to him as a member of the body, politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the low est condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an aUen a citizen, or confer on him the right of voting, would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control over the action of the General Government, from which he can claim no protection, and to which he has no right to present a petition." " Now, admit that a State may confer the right of voting on aliens, and it foUows that we might have among our constituents persons who have not the right to claim the protection of the Government nor pre- sent a petition to it. But a still greater difficulty remains. Suj)pose a war should be declared between the United States and the country to which the aliens belong. They, as alien enemies, would be liable to be seized under the laws of Congress, and to have their goods confiscated, and themselves imprisoned or sent out of the country." The power being with Congress, as I have attempted to show above to regulate, control, confer, and take away citizenship, lias it acted or 54 done auythiug to iudicate its will upon this subject ? It lias from the oi'igia of the Governnieut provided by law for the naturalization of for- eigners, and thus conferring citizenship upon them. It has required of them to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince or potentate. The fact that such i-enuuciation is rec[uired by Congress is satisfactory evi- dence to niy mind that Congress regarded the foreigner as having the lawful right to renounce such allegiance, and thereby to expatriate him- self. After practically recognizing this doctrine for three-fourths of a century, Congress expressly declared it by the act of July 27, 1868, (15 Stat., 224.) It enacted— '' That any declaration, instruction, or opinion, order or decision of any ofiicers of this G-overumeut which denies, restricts, impairs, or ques- tims the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this Government. " That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this Government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances." It would be dif&cult to frame a more stringent legislative declaration of the right of expatriation. If a foreigner has the right to renounce allegiance to his government and assume that of our own, then, to be consistent, it must be conceded, e converso, that a citizen of our Gov- 'ernment has the right to throw off his allegiance and transfer it to that of another government, provided it be done bona fide. I think this may be done. In my opinion, man has the natural right to relinquisli the society in which he was born and seek his home and happiness else- where. In other words, he has the natural and inherent right to expa- triate himself. How this may be done has not been defined by Federal legislation. The method is left to the individual. It must be done in good faith, with an actual change of residence, without the purpose to evade responsibility for criminal acts, or to escape duties already im- posed, and, in general, in time of peace. When thus done, allegiance is ended, and the right of protection and defense gone. Attorney-General Black, in speaking of a native or naturalized citizen, says: " In my opinion, if he emigrates, carries his family and effects along with him, manifests a plain intention not to return, takes his permanent residence abroad, and assumes the obligation of a subject of a foreign government, this would imply a dissolution of his previous relations with the United States ; and I do not think we could or would after- ward claim from him any of the duties of a citizen." (9 Op. Atty.-Gen., 63.) Believing, as I do, that the citizen has the right to expatriate him- self, I must answer your first interrogatory that, in my opinion, the Executive should not refuse to give effect to an act of expatriation oi a citizen of the United States. 1 answer your second interrogatory, that a formal renunciation of 55 United States citizenshiij and a voluntary submission to the sovereignty' of another power should, in my opinion, be regarded as an act of ex- patriation. I answer your third interrogatory that, in my opinion, an election of expatriation can be shown by an acquisition of domicile in another country with an avoicecL purposenot to return. I answer your fourth interrogatory that, in my opinion, the Grovern- ment is not bound to extend its protection or to exert its military or naval power for the protection of persons who have left its territories and reside abroad without an apparent intent of returning and who do not contribute to its support. The duty of protection is correlative with that of support, and the voluntary withdrawal of support bj^ the citizen releases the Govern- ment from its duty to defend and protect such citizen. I answer your fifth interrogatory, that it is very difficult, if not im- possible, to lay down any general rule that will apply to all cases. Each case must stand upon its own circumstances. They must be such as to fairly satisfy a reasonable man that the citizen has gone abroad with intent to remain and without intent to return. The best evidence of this would be the declaration of the party, accompanied by an actual removal. But declarations are not absolutely essential. Acts may be entirely satisfactory. For example, if a citizen who is the head of a family and the owner of property in this country should dispose of all his property here, take his family with him and go to a foreign state, and there purchase a home, or such other property as the owner ordi- narily looks after in person, and should remain with his family some considerable time, without any avowed purpose of return, I think that would be sufficient evidence that he had expatriated himself. I answer your sixth interrogatory that, in my opinion, a naturalized citizen, who has returned to his native country and resided there for a series of years, without any apparent purpose of returning to this, and whose case is not regulated by treaty, should be deemed to have expa- triated himself. I answer your seventh interrogatory that, in my opinion, children born abroad of parents who have been citizens of the United States, but have become subjects or citizens of another power, or who have expa- triated themselves, are not citizens of the United States, and are not entitled to its protection. I answer your eighth and last interrogatory that, in my opinion, a person who has formally renounced his allegiance to the United States, and assumed the obligations of a citizen or subject of another power, cannot become again a citizen of the United States in any other way than that provided by general laws. If a person may rightfully expa- triate himseli and become the subject of another power, then he is no longer a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of such other power, and it follows logically that, if he would again become a citizen of the United States, he must pursue the method pointed out by law, which 56 t'tiiiblc-i ;i person wlio i.s not a citizen of the United States to become one. Tliis is the dictate of common sense, and should be, and is, the law . Very respectfully, your obedient servant, O. DELANO, Secretary of the Interior. The President. No. 504. Mr. Fish to Mr. Marsh, {same to Mr. Washburne and to Mr. Bancroft.) No. 395.] Department op State, Washington, August 11, 1873. number of American citizens resident or temporarily sojourningin Italy- Sir : It is desirable to know with a reasonable approach to accuracy the If practicable you will ascertain — I. The number of Americans whose residence in Italy has been of long continuance, or seems to be indefinite in its intended duration. II. The number sojourning or traveling and temporarily abiding in the country, and you will consider and report whether the number to be stated in yonr return may be regarded as above or below the average number of such Americans for a series of years. III. The number of children born in Italy (annually) of fathers who claim to be American citizens. IV. The number of Americans who may have been naturalized as Italians, or otherwise formally disavowed American citizenship. I wish also to know whether any record or registration is made, or a ny notice is generally filed, either in the legation, or at the consulates 0^ the United States in Italy, of the birth of cliildren born in Italy of fathers who claim to be American citizens. It is understood that some American citizens have registered the births of children born to them out of the United States, either as those of subjects of the country in which they were born, or so as to entitle them to the option of claiming citizenship in that country. It is re- ported that instances of this kind were quite frequent during the rebel- lion in this country. You will endeavor to ascertain whether this be so, and, if it be, whether you can obtain a list of those who were thus reg- istered and the names of the parents or others who registered them. I desire the information asked, especially that under the four enumer- ated heads, with as little delay as possible. I am, sir, your obedient servant, HAMILTON FISH. George P. Marsh, Esq., (S;c., (fie, cfic. [Same mutatis mutandis to the ministers of the United States at Ber- lin and Paris.l No. 505. Mr. Bancroft to Mr. Fish. No. 518.] American Legation, Berlin, September 8, 1873. (Eeceived September 26.) Sir: The main question on which you inquire in your instruction No. 599 has engaged my attention ever since I bave resided in Germany as minister. 57 When measures were adopted for taking the census of the United Grerman Empire, I requested that theofflcers employed in taking it might be instructed to make a special count of the Americans in Germany. The German government acceded to my request, anditappears from the returns that on the 1st day of December, 1871, the Americans present in Grermany numbered 10,672. Tbis census includes the AmericaTi-born aot less than the naturalized Germans ; and travelers and sojourners as svell as resideuts. But it was taken at a period of the year when the number of transient travelers is at a minimum. As a help to a conjecture on the question how these are to be distrib- ated as residents or sojourners, (and nothing more than a conjecture is possible,) I have made fresh inquiries at Bremen and at Hamburg, on the number of passengers which the two great lines of steamers annu- ally bring to those ports. In the year from July 1, 1872, to July 1, 1873, the regular Hamburg steamers brought9,594: passengers to Europe, of whom 9,000 may have been destined for Germany. Extra Hamburg steamers brought about 1,000 passengers more, so that we may set down the arrivals in Germany by that line of steamers at 10,000 a year, and of these 7,500 may be German- Americans. During the same period of twelve months bhe passengers in the Bremen line amounted to 3,910 first-class passen- gers and 7,216 steerage passengers ; in all, 11,126. Of these, I think L0,000 were American citizens, of whom perhaps 1,000 remain in Germany 3r some part of Europe for more than one season. These statistical iccounts obtained from Hamburg and Bremen in my judgment go to show that the census return for December 1, 1871, fell short of rather jhan exceeded the true number of Americans then present in the German Empire. Your instruction to me is, if possible, to ascertain the numbers ^ou inquire after. To that I must reply that to ascertain is impossible, 3ut relying on the candor of the Department, and repeating that esti- nates, if made at all, must be made on mixed and imperfect data, I ?^enture to give to your questions conjectural answers. I. Of Americans whose residence in Germany has been of long con- tinuance, or seems to be indefinite in its intended duration, 1 estimate ;he number at 10,000, and that number rather on the increase. II. Of Americans annually arriving from the United States in the jrerman Empire, I estimate the number at about 15,000, of whom about L3,000 return in the same season, leaving, perhaps, about 1,500 as so- ourning or temporarily abiding in the country, and about 500 to be idded to the class of those whose residence seems to be indefinite, thus loing a little more than making good the losses by death and otherwise n the resident class. III. It is not possible to state the number of children born in Germany »f fathers who claim to be American citizens. But as the class of resi- lent Americans is composed mainly of persons advanced in life, or of amilies of whom the heads are advanced in life, the number of children )orn in Germany of American parents must be proportionally very much ess than the number born among the same number of Germans. IV. There is no record kept at the legation of children born of Ameri- an parents in the German Empire. The only instances of a registry hat have occurred in my time are those of children born in families of his legation. So far as I know, no such record is kept at any of the onsulates. The Germans, however, are very particular in registering 11 births : but as these registers are kept by the clergy, so that a separ- te one is kept for each parish in the Empire, it would not be possible for he legation to ascertain how many have been registered as American itizens. In special cases the inquiry would be easy, for a claimant of 8 SD 58 American citizenship of this class might be called upon to jiroduce an authenticated copy of his baptism. I annex a translation in detail of the reports made to me from the cen- sus bureau of the Americans present in the German Empire on the first day of December, 1871, and copies of letters from the consulates at Hamburg and Bremen. I remain, &c. GEOEGE BANCEOFT. View of the Americans counted as present on the 1st December, 1871, in the states of the Ger- man Empire, Prussia and the principalities of Pyrmont and Waldeck excepted. States of the G-erman Empire. Male. Female. Total. Lauenburg Bavaria Saxony Wiirtemberg Baden Hesse Mecklenlmrg-Scliwerin Saxe-Weimar MecklenbuTg-Strelitz Oldenburg Brunswick Saxe-Meiningen Saxe-Altenburg , Saxe-Coburg Gotlia Anbalt Scliwarzburg-Eudolstadt Scli-warzbuxg-Sondershausen . Reuss, elder brancb Keuss, younger brancb Schaumburg-Lippe Lippe -' Iiiibeck Bremen Hamburg Alsace and Lorraine 757 595 624 450 892 37 56 11 56 48 27 12 50 9 8 10 1 5 1 22 8 246 333 56 381 241 16 35 7 41 28 17 10 36 5 1 11 14 233 235 33 1 1,446 1,247 1,292 831 533 43 91 18 97 76 44 15 17 18 1 10 2 479 568 In tbe G-erman "Empire, exclusive of Prussia, Waldeck, and Pyrmont. In tbe Kingdom of Prussia In Waldeck and Pyrmont 3,704 2,016 6 3,377 1,567 2 7,081 3,583 Total. of the Americans cotmted as sia and on the 1st December, 1871, in the Kingdom of Prus- Waldeek and Pyrmont. Districts and provinces. !N"umber of Americans. Male. Female. Total. 1 District of Konlgsberg 7 1 4 7 1 1 5 3 g 2 3 District of Dantsic 9 4 Province of Prussia . I 19 10 29 5 346 21 16 187 13 4 6 District of Potsdam 34 7 n 383 204 District of Stettin 8 26 9 3 16 6 3 42 9 District of Co-slin 10 T)istHr,t nf Rtralsmid Q TTT 38 25 11 21 16 13 5 34 12 Province of Posen ... IV 37 18 55 59 View of the Americans counted as present on the 1st Decembei; 1871, in the Kingdom of Prus- sia and the ^"'"'o'l'O'tmes Waldeclc and Pyrmont — Continued. Districts and provinces. Number of Ajneilcans. Male. Pemale. Total. 13 26 25 7 23 33 3 14 15 IC Province of Silesia V 58 58 116 16 12 17 13 10 14 13 23 17 31 18 District of Erfnrt 35 VI 42 36 78 Province of Sclileswlg-Holsteln vn 92 56 148 District of Hanover 19 122 75 14 87 41 10 113 53 7 64 31 9 335 ao District of Hlldeslieim 21 23 District of Stade ^ 151 23 24 District of Osnabraclc 63 19 Province of Hanover ViU 349 267 616 25 17 54 17 7 30 13 34 26 Diatrir.t of Mindp.n 84 27 DistHp.t, of ATTishf>T>g„ , 30 IX 88 50 138 District of Casael 28 147 543 116 538 263 29 District of "Wiesbaden 1,081 Province of Hesse-!N"as8an X 690 654 1,344 District of Coblentz 30 44 99 48 15 12 36 62 66 16 18 go 31 District of Dusscldorf 161 32 District of Cologne 104 33 Kstrict of Treves 31 34 District of Aix-la-Chapelle 30 T?.TiiTi« PrnviTn^fi XI 218 188 406 ■X-TT •2 1 3 Tn thfi TTiTigdnTn nf PTHissifii , 3,016 1,567 3 583 6 3 8 Mr. BoMnson to Mr. Bancroft. Hambubg, Septemfiei- 3, 1873. Dear Sik: I am in receipt of your favor of the 1st, and fear you will find it a diffi- cult task to ascertain the number of German-Americans who annually resort to Gor many. The twenty-six regular Hamburg steamers which arrived here from July 1, 1872., to July 1, 1873, brought 9,594 passengers to Europe. Although one-flf th of these landed at Cherbourg or Plymouth, they were mostly bound for Southern Germany, so that I can safely assume that 9,000 of them came to Germany. By the extra steamers which came about 1,000 passengers were brought. This would make 10,000 persons, of whom, knowing what material they are generally composed of, I can say that 7,500 were Ger- man-American citizens, their wives, children, &o. How many of these came to remain it is impossible to state, but I should say certainly not more than 500 or 1,000, leaving 6,000 to 6,500 as temporary visitors during the year. I am, (fee, ED. EOBmSON, United States Consul. 60 Mr. Gnmer to Mr. Bancroft. BjiEMEX, September 3, 1873. Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication dated September 1, In answer I beg to state that it is nearly au impossibility to ascertain the fact inquired for, there being no data to refer to. The passengers arriving here from the United States do not state their nationalities, but merely the State or city they came from, and the only criterion to go by is their name, whicli, of course, is only guess-work, as they may just as well be American-born as naturalized. Taking, there- fore, into consideration that the passengers arrived here from the United States during the year 1872 amount to 3,910 first-class and 7,216 steerage, (the same proportion about in 1873 up to date,) it can be safely calculated that nearly from two-thirds to three- fourths of the former class, and at least five-sixths to seven-eighths of the latter, bear German names. From this statement, however, have to be deducted the commercial agents, who yearly mal^e several trips to and fro ; the quantity of those who remain in Germany permanently it is impossible to state, as all of them pass through this city for tlie interior. I judge, however, there are but few families, although it is said that lately more of the working-class of people have returned on account of the higher wages and cheaper living. Trusting these explanations will meet your a^jprobation, I remain, &c., J. GEUNEE, • Acting U. S. Consul. No. 506. Mr. Marsh to Mr. Fish. No. 478.] Legation op the United States, Borne, October 10, 1873. (Eeceived l^ovember 3.) SiE : Eeferring to your instruction No. 395, dated 11th of August, 1873, requiring information respecting the number of American citizens resident or temporarily sojourning in Italy, and to Mr. Wurts's dispatch on the same subject, No. 472, dated September 7, 1873, I regret to say that, though the legation has resorted to all the sources of inquiry readily accessible to us, we have failed to obtain as full and as exact details as we hoped and expected. Eeturns have been received from all the consuls of the United States in Italy, except those at Genoa and Carrara, who have not yet replied to Mr. Wurts's circular j but on several of the points suggested the records of the consulates contain but scanty information, and, as will be seen from the note of the Italian minister of foreign affairs, dated September 27, a copy and translation of which, marked 1, are hereto annexed, nothing is at present to be gathered from the returns, of the last census or from any of the public offices of this kingdom. Your -first inquiry is as to the number of Americans whose residence in Italy has been of long continuance, or seems to be indefinite in its intended duration. On this point the consulates report as follows : At Ancoua, the American residents are none. At Brindisi, none. At Florence, about 60, whose residence is upward of ten years, and of half of these the residence may be considered as indefinite in in- tended duration. At Leghorn, two families, consisting of ten persons. At Messina, native-born, 1 ; naturalized Sicilians, 18, with residence dating from various periods since 1844. Their families are apparently not embraced in the enumeration. 61 At Naples, 7, with their families, amounting in all to 16. At Palermo, none. At Eome, 110. At Spezia, none. At Venice, a family of 7, naturalized, garded as above or below the annual average for a series of years. II. Yowc second inquiry respects the number sojourning and tempora- rily abiding in the country, and asks whether such number is to be re- The consuls report : At Ancona, none. At Brindisi, many Americans pass through the town, on their way to or from the East, but their stay does not exceed one week. KoTE. — The steamers from Alexandria are weekly, and passengers often fail by a few hours to reach Brindisi in time, and are delayed until next trip. At Florence, of winter residents about 200, the number having in- creased since the removal of the seat of government to Eome ; of trav- elers spending one or two weeks in town, from October to June, an average per month of 300. At Leghorn, in the summer, on the average about 20. N'OTB. — These I believe are chiefly persons residing in other Italian to^vTis, and repairing to Leghorn for sea-bathing. At Messina, none excepting passing travelers, who may remain two or three days only. At l^Taples many temporary visitors, but number not stated. Eesi- dents of long duration, 21. At Palermo, a family of three persons. Average annual number, about three or four families of twenty persons. At Eome, students in American Catholic College, 30, and a few in the Propaganda. Number of temporary visitors not given, but supposed to be much smaller than foimerly. Note. — Upon personal inquiry of bankers and other well-informed persons, I learn that the probable average number of American travel- ers at Eome is from three to four thousand. It appears to have been somewhat greater for a year or two before the occupation of the city by the Italians, but the difference is not very sensible. The majority of American visitors to Eome remain from one to four weeks, and two or three hundred pass the whole season from November to April at the city. At Spezia a few, number not stated, in summer. Note. — These, with the exception of naval officers, are, I believe, chiefly persons residing in other Italian towns, and repairmg to Spezia for sea-bathing, as at Leghorn. At Venice 48, which is much below the ordinary average, on acco of the prevalence of cholera. III. The third query is as to the number of children born in Italy of fathers claiming to be American citizens. At Anconia are reported none. At Brindisi, none. At Florence, annually about 2. At Leghorn, none. At Messina, since 1848, 20, all apparently of naturalized parents who have returned to reside in their native country. At Naples, last two years registered 2; number not registered is not given. At Palermo, none. 62 At Eome none registered, and no means of knowing actual number. At Spezia, none. At Venice in 1872, 1. IV. The fourth inquiry refers to the number of Americans who may have been naturalized as Italians, or otherwise formally disavowed American citizenship. No cases of this sort are reported by the consuls, but it is within my personal knowledge that in the year 1871, Guadagui ToreUi, an Italian, naturalized as an American citizen and residing at Florence, formally renounced his American citizenship by a proceeding before a public judi- cature in conformity with the laws of Italy, and the consul at Messina reports a case of renunciation of American citizenship by a native of Messina whose naturalization was discovered to be fraudulent. Ton inquire further whether any record or registration is made, or any notice filed, either at the legation or at the consulates of the United States in Italy, of the birth of children of fathers claiming to be Ameri- can citizens. It appears from the consular returns that at many of the consulates no records of the births of such children are kept. Since 1859 one such birth has been registered at the consulate in Florence ; within the last twenty years four at that of Leghorn. A register is kept at Messina, and the number since 1848, as appears under III, is 20. None registered dur- ing the past year at Naples. At the consulate at Eome there is a book for the purpose of recording such births, but few parents cause the births of children to be registered. At Spezzia births of children of naval officers are registered. At the consulate at Venice a book for that pur- pose is kept. I have no means for ascertaining the number of Italians and other foreigners naturalized in the United States and now residing in Italy, but though it is doubtless considerably smaller than during and soon after the rebellion, I think it must still amount to several hundred. These persons very frequently make no claim to American nationality, unless in cases of conscription, and in these, I have reason to believe, they often succeed in obtaining from the local authorities an exemption without an appeal to the national government. In fact, excejJt in the cases where they return to their own native residence, and are recog- nized by old acquaintances, they are not usually called upon to dis- charge civil or military obligations, and, as many of them have no vis- ible property and no very stable residence, they escape taxation. I have known one case, and heard of others, of Italians who had never been in the United States, but had resided many years in Italy as Amer- ican citizens upon no other evidence of nationality than passports issued to them by the United States consul at Eome on the surrender of that city to the French army in the invasion of 1849. In many cases where I have been applied to by naturalized Italians for recognition as American citizens, I have found that an interval of several years elapsed between the first application to the courts and the granting of the certificate, the intermediate time having been spent in other countries or in a wandering life in the United States, and in these cases the certificate has been granted only on the eve of their departure for Europe. In most cases of applications for release from the obliga- tion of miUtary ser^ace, the applicant has either been discharged for physical disability, or, more commonly, has escaped across the frontier, and we have thus far avoided a direct collision with the Italian govern- ment on this question. The regulation of the Department reqiiiring the renewal of passports 63 every year is totally disregarded by both naturalized and native Ameri- can citizens, and passports are almost never asked, except for travel. I have often strongly suspected that i>assports presented to me had been fraudulently obtained, but the only cases within my knowledge where positive proof of such fraud existed are those of a native of Alex- andria, Egypt, residing in Italy, which was, I have understood, a sub- ject of correspondence between the State Department and the consulate- general at Florence, but never came before the legation officially, and a recent Instance at Messina, which, I suppose, has been reported to the Department by the consul at that place. I have, &c., GEOEGE P. MAESH. [Inclosure 1 Translation.] Mr. Peirolierl to Mr. Wurts. Rome, Septeniber 27, 1873. Mr. ChaegiS d'Ajt aires : I regret to be unable to satisfy the request made in your note of the 8th instant. The ministry of agriculture and commerce, from which I might have been able to obtain the statistics relating to the number of Americans born and residing in Italy, has replied to me that a work of this kind would require a long time and great labor, although not impossible to accomplish. In fact the lists of the census for each district make the distinction only between persons born in Italy and those born abroad. To de- termine the nationality of each individual it would, therefore, be necessary to examine each list of the families when the place of birth is indicated. It is, neverthelessi, the intention of the bureau of statistics to study the results of the last census also from the point of view of the nationality of the foreigners residing in the kingdom. When this work is completed — a time, however, difficult still to appoint — the Government of the United States will be able to obtain all the statistics it wishes. * Accept, &c., A. PEIROLIERI, For the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 'So. 507. Mr. Washhurne to Mr. Fish. 'No. 870.J Legation op the United States, Paris, October 20, 1873. ( Eeceived November 7.) Sir : Eeferring to your dispatch No. 522, of August 11, and to my No. 847 of August 30, in reply I have the honor to inclose you the ad- vertisement of a proposed American Directory, got up by the "Amer- can Eegister" of this city. This work will give more complete infor- mation upon the subject of the number of Americans in France than any that I can obtain from other sources, and I shall forward you a copy so soon as it shall be published, with such remarks as it may seem to call for. In the mean time I have taken steps, by consulting the prominent American bankers here and other well-informed persons, to inform my- self as well as possible upon the subject in question. It results gen- erally from the information I have thus oTstained that the number of resident Americans in France does not increase, but, on the other hand, rather diminishes; that the number of traveling Americans passing 64 tlii'ongli France increases every year, and that there have probably been 20 per cent, more of thisclass here this year than ever before. As regards the number of children born in France of American par- ents, I have reason to believe that they are in most instances registered at the consulates. I have applied to the consul-general for information on this point, as I have already stated, and he has promised to give it -to me at the earliest possible date. In reference to American citizens registered at the " mairie," with a view to their having the option of being French citizens, I have never heard of an instance of the kind. Children born here of American par- ents are almost universally registered at the "mairie," because the laws of the country require it, and because it is made the duty of the attend- ant physician to see that it is done. Such children, I have reason to believe, do sometimes, on coming of age, select {opter) to become French citizens, but I know of but one such instance, and I am sure that they are extremely rare. In reference to your fourth inquiry, I doubt if any American citizen has formally disowned American citizenship; at least no such case has ever come to my knowledge ; and the laws requiring military ser- vice in France are so onerous that I doubt.if any one who is free from their operation voluntarily submits himself to them. I shall have the honor to refer to this subject again when I shall have received a copy of the "American Directory" referred to. I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, E. B. WASHBUENE. Hon. Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State. [Inclosiire.] Will be published shortly, THE AMEEICAN DIRECTORY FOR PABIS AIO) BUKOPE. In addition to the names and addresses of all Americans permanently residing in Paris and the diifererent cities in Europe, the above work will contain many valuable docu- ments and much useful information upon all subjects of interest to Americans residing or traveling on the Continent. Americans residing in remote parts of Europe are kindly requested to send their names and addresses to the offtces of the "American Register," 5J me Scribe, Paris, or 4 Langham Place, London, for insertion in the above. No. 508. REPORT OF A COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE QITEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN FOE INQUIRING INTO THE LAWS OF NATURALIZATION AND ALLEGIANCE, WITH A MEMORANDUM BY MR. ABBOTT, (LORD TENTER- DEN,) THE SECRETARY OF THAT COMMISSION. ALSO EXTRACTS FROM AN APPENDIX ACCOMPANYING THAT REPORT, SHOWING THE CONDITION 01^ THE LAWS OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES ON THESE SUBJECTS, WITH AD- DITIONS, CORRECTIONS, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, MADE UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM CONFORM TO EXISTING LAWS. [2V. B. — By rnyal commission dated May 21, 1868, the Earl of Clarendon, Mr. Car dwell, Sir Robert J. Phillimore, Baron Bramwell, Sir John Kar slake, Sir Tr avers Twiss, Sir Boundell Palmer, Mr. Forster, Mr. Vernon Har G5 court, and Mr. Momitaguc Bernard were named commissioners to inquire into the legal condition of British subjects residing in foreign countries, and to report how and in what manner it might be expedient to alter and amend the laics of the realm relating to such subjects, their wives, children, descendants or relatives; also to inquire into and consider the legal condi- tion of aliens residing ivithin the realm and becoming naturalised, and to report hoicfar it was expedient to alter or amend the laws relating to them or to persons claiming rights or privileges through them. Mr. Abbott (now Lord TenterdenJ was the secretary of this commission. The commission made a report to the Queen on the 20th of February, 1869, with a voluminous appendix, a copy of all which was duly transmitted to the Department of State by the minister of the United States in London. The Secretary of State transmits herewith this report, with such extracts from the appendix thereto as appear to explain the laws of foreign countries on the subject of the re- port. Several changes are made in the matter contained in the appendix, in order to make it conform to what are understood to be existing laws. All such changes are noted. Some American correspondence is also added, which has talcen place or been made public since the report was made.] KEPOET. To the Queen's most excellent Majesty : We, your Majesty's commissioners appointed to inquire into the laws of naturalization and allegiance, have to state that, in compliance with the terms of your Majesty's commission, we have inquired into the legal condition of natural-born British subjects who may depart from and reside beyond the realm in foreign countries, and have considered how and in what manner, having regard to the laws and practice of other states, it may be expedient to alter and amend the laws relating to such natural-born subjects, their wives, children, descendants, or relatives. We have also inquired into the legal condition of persons, being aliens, entering into or residing within the realm and becoming naturalized as subjects of the Crown, and have considered how far and in what manner it may be expedient, having regard to the laws and pi'actice of this country, of foreign states, or otherwise, to alter or amend the laws relating to such persons, or persons claiming rights or privileges through or under them. We have found it necessary, iu order to deal satisfactorily with the matters referred to us, to enter into some others bearing closely on them but not embraced within the express terms of your Majesty's commis- sion ; and on these latter, as well as on the former, we have thought it right to submit to your Majesty the conclusions to which we have been led. We now humbly lay before your Majesty the following report: I. There are two classes of persons who by our law are deemed to be natural-born British subjects : 1. Those who are such from the fact of their having been born within the dominion of the British Crown. 2. Those who, though born out of the dominion of the British Crown, are by various general acts of Parliament declared to be natural-born British subjects. 9 SD 66 The alleg-iance of a iiatural-born British subject is regarded by the comiiion law iis indelible. We are of opinion that this doctrine of the common law is neither reasonable nor convenient. It is at variance witii those jirinciples on which the rights and duties of a subject should be deemed to rest ; it conflicts A\'ith that freedom of action which is now recognized as most conducive to the general good as well as to individual hai)piness and prosperity ; and it is especially inconsistent with the practice of a state which allows to its subjects absolute freedom of emigration. It is inex- pedient that British law should maintain in theory, or should by foreign nations be supposed to maintain ui practice, any obligations which it cannot enforce and ought not to enforce if it could ; and it is unfit that a country should remain subject to claims for protection on the part of persons who, so far as in them lies, have severed their connection AAdth it. We accordingly submit to your Majesty the following recommenda- tions for an amendment of the law in this respect. 1. Any British subject who, being resident in a foreign country, shall be naturalized therein and shall undertake, according to its laws, the duty of allegiance to the foreign state as a subject or citizen thereof, should upon such naturalization cease to be a British subject. 2. The principle of this rule should be applied to a woman who, being a British subject, shall become by marriage with an alien the subject or citizen of a foreign state. 3. The wife of a British subject who shall become naturalized abroad, and his children, if under the age of 21 years at the date of his natural- ization, should likewise cease to be British subjects from that date; but this rule should not include a wife or child who has not emigrated to the country of naturalization, nor should it operate unless, according to the local law, the naturalization of the husband or father has naturalized also the wife or child. 4. IS'aturalization in a foreign country, though operating from the time of its completion as an extinguishment of the original citizenship, should not carry with it discharge from responsibility for acts done before the new allegiance was acquired. Provision should be made for applying the same principles to the case of British subjects who have become so by naturalization. We have considered the question whether the acquisition of a foreign domicile, or a certain length of residence abroad, should divest a person of British nationality. We have not been able to satisfy ourselves that jeither continued residence or domicile could be practicallj' adopted as a rule to determine the allegiance of the subject, having regard to the difficulties which attend the definition of domicile and proof of the fact, and also to the great diversity of circumstances under which men reside in foreign countries. II. It is expedient that the foregoing recommendations should be applied to British subjects already naturalized in foreign countries, as well as to those who may hereafter become so. A certain period, however, not less than two years, should be allowed, within which any person akeady so naturalized (that is, before the proposed alteration of the law is made) might declare his desire to remain a British subject. The mode in which this should be done might be settled reciprocally by treaty or otherwise with such foreign governments as are Avilling to permit it to operate as 67 ail extiHguishiacnt of the acquired allegiance. In the absence of sncli an agreement, the naturalized person might malie a formal declaration of such his desire, if resident abroad, before a Britisli minister or consul, or, if within your Majesty's dominions, before a justice of the peace, such declaration to be registered or recorded in such manner as might be judged expedient, in the Unitpd Kingdom by the secretary of state for the home department, in a colony by the governor or other chief officer of the government. Any person thus electing within the prescribed period to remain a British subject should be deemed to retain his British nationality, and the benefit of this election should extend to his wife, and to his children if under age at the time ; but the election should not (unless permitted by the state of his naturalization to extinguisli his ac- quired allegiance) entitle liim or them to claim any Britisli privileges when within the tenntories of tliat state. These provisions should be deemed to apply to women already natu- ralized abroad by marriage with an alien or by theforeigTi naturalization of their husbands, and to children already naturalized abroad by the foreign naturalization of their fathers. Such women, becoming or hav- ing become widows, and sucli children, attaining or having attained the age of 21 years, should be enabled to retain their British nationality by exercising a like option at any time before the expiration of the period to be limited as aforesaid. Persons already naturalized abroad who might not exercise this option within the prescribed period would be able at any time afterwards to regain British nationality in the mode pointed out in a subsequent part of this report. III. The above recommendations, if carried into eftect, would impose the condition of aliens upon many persons who have hitherto enjoyed the legal rights proper to British subjects. It was necessary, therefore, to consider what effect the deprivation of such rights would have upon those affected by the change. And here it was impossible to overlook the serious question raised by the existence of those disabilities which (subject to certain limitations) attach by law to aliens' in respect to the holding and inh eritance of real estate in the United^ Kingdom. Those disabilities have hitherto only affected persons who had never been regarded by the law as natural-born British subjects, such persons alone coming within the legal definition of aliens. But when it is pro- posed to bring within the same category a new class of persons who, having been originally British subjects, are for the future to lose that character, different considerations arise. To deprive persons already naturalized abroad, who now enjoy the right of holding and inheriting lands, of that right, might be thought harsh if not unjust. In the case of those who may become so naturalized hereafter, the same objection would not arise ; but even here the penalty of exclusion from possible rights of inheritance appears to be an impolitic restriction on the liberty of emigration. We have to choose, then, between two courses : one is to maintain the existing disabilities, making special provision for the new class of cases to which our recommendations would give rise ; the other, to abrogate the disabilities altogether in respect of all classes of aliens. The first course, viz, that of making special provision for expatriated British subjects who will now become aliens, while it would break in upon the general principle, might, in practice, be productive of embar- 68 rassment and litigation. We have accordingly considered the other course. The question whether aliens ought any longer to be prohibited by our law from holding landed property within the realm has not, indeed, been expressly referred to us by the terms of Your Majesty's commission ; but we have foimd it impossible to deal with the position of those who, under the terms of our previous recommendations, will cease to be British subjects, without forming an opinion as to the posi- tion of aliens generally in this respect. We think it right to point out that not only can aliens hold real estate in France and many other European countries, but they are also enabled by colonial enactments to hold real estate in the Dominion of Canada, (except New Brunswick,) British Columbia, Cape of Good Hope, ]Sratal, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, St. Kitts, and Hong-Kong, while the regulations prohibiting aliens from possess- ing real estate have recently been repealed in Bengal, and are now un- der revision in Madras and Bombay. By the act of 1844, (7 and 8 Vict., c. 66,) "every alien now residing in, or who shall hereafter come to reside in, any part of the United Kingdom, and being the subject of a friendly state, may, by grant, lease, demise, assignment, bequest, representation, or otherwise, take and hold any lands, houses, or other tenements, for the purpose of res- idence or of occupation by him or her, or his or her servants, or for the purpose of any business, trade, or manufacture, for any term of years not exceeding twenty-one years, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, and with the same rights, remedies, exemptions, and privileges, except the right to vote at elections for members of Parlia- ment, as if he were a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom." This term of twenty-one years may, of course, be renewed. We have arrived at the conclusion tliatthe grounds formerly assigned for the rule are either untenable in themselves or have ceased to be applicable; and we are prepared, therefore, instead of making any dis- tinction between the two classes of aliens, to recommend that the pres- ent disabilities of alienage in respect of the holding and inheritance of land should be abolished altogether. It has been suggested that, in time of war, danger might occasionally arise from the possession of land by aliens. We think it sufficient to say that this is a danger against which, should it be deemed serious enough to demand special legislation, it would not be difidcult to guard IV. In considering whether the character of a natural-born British sub- ject .should be regarded as indelible, and, if not, how it should be lost, we have found it necessary to consider also whether any changes should be made in the laws which determine what classes of persons should be deemed to possess that character. There are two classes with respect to whom this question may be raised. They are — 1. Persons of foreign parentage born within the dominions of the Crown ; 2. Persons of British parentage born abroad. All persons, of whatever parentage, born within the dominions and allegiance of the Crown, are, by the common law, natural-born British subjects. All persons, on the other hand, of whatever parentage, born beyond its dominions and out of its allegiance, were, by the common law, regarded as aliens. 69 By various statutes it has beeu enacted as follows: 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 : "All children inheritors which henceforth shall be born out of the ligeance of the king, whose fathers and mothers at the time of their birth be and shall be at the faith and ligeance of the King of England, shall have and enjoy the same benefit and advantage, to have and bear inheritance within the same ligeance as the other inheritors aforesaid, in time to come; so always that the mothers of such children passed the sea by the license and will of their husbands." 7 Anne, c. 5: "The children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever." 4Geo. 2, c. 21: "And whereas some doubts have arisen upon the construction of the said recited clause in the said act of the seventh yenv of her late Majesty's reign, now, for the explaining the said recited clause in the said act, relating to children of natural-boru subjects, and to prevent any disputes touching the true intent and meaning thereof, be it enacted that all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be boin out of such ligeance, whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, shall and may be adjiiged and taken to be natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all intents, con- structions, and purposes whatsoever." 13 Geo. 3, cap. 21: "All persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the ligeance of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, whoso fathers were or shaU be, by virtue of a statute made in the fourth year of King George the Second, to explain a clause in an act made in the seventh year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, entitled to all the rights and pri\Tleges of natural-born subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shaU and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby de- clared and enacted to be, natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this kingdom." Without entering into any discussion on the construction of these statutes, we think it right to state that, so far as • we are aware, no attempt has ever been made on the part of the British government (unless in eastern countries where special jurisdiction is conceded by treaty) to enforce claims upon, or to assert rights in respect of, persons born abroad as against the country of their birth while they were resident therein, and when by its laws they were invested with its nationality. A rule corresponding to that of the English common law has been retained by the IJuited States. Every person born within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States is an American citizen by American law. But it is also provided by an act of Congress passed in 1855, that "Persons heretofore born, or hereafter to bQ born, out of the limits of .the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered, and are hereby declared to be, citizens of the United States : Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not de- scend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States." By the Code NapoMon, (art. 10,) "Tout Fran9ais n6 d'un Frangais en jiay.s etranger est Prangais." As to children born in France, they were under the code French if their fathers were French, aliens if their fa- 70 thers were aliens, but with a right in the latter case to claim French citi- zenship on making a declaration and fixing their domicile in France. An exception has been introduced, however, by a law passed in 1851, by which, if the alien father were also born in France, the child is deemed French, but is at liberty to claim the status of an alien on attaining twenty-one years of age. The Prussian law of 1842 declares that "every legitimate child of a Prussian subject is, by birth, a Prussian subject, even though born in a foreign country." Of these two tests of nationality — the place of birth and the nation- ality of the father — neither is at present adopted without qualification by British, French, or American law. The laws of these countries ex- hibit, in fact, different combinations of the, two. Great Britain and the United States laying chief stress on the place of birth, while in France the father's nationality determines, though not absolutely and in all cases, that of the child ; and this latter theory has found acceptance among other European nations. The rule which impresses on persons born within your Majesty's do- minions the character of British subjects is open to some theoretical and some practical objections, of the force of which we are aware. But it has, on the other hand, solid advantages. It selects as the test a fact readily provable; and this, in questions of nationality and allegi- ance, is a point of material consequence. It prevents troublesome ques- tions in cases (numerous in some parts of the British Empire) where the father's nationaUty is uncertain ; and it has the effect of obliterating speedily and effectually disabilities of race, the existence of which within any community is generally an evil, though to some extent a necessary evil. Lastly, we beheve that of the children of foreign parents, born within the dominions of the Crown, a large majority would, if they were called upon to choose, elect British nationality. The balance of convenience, therefore, is in favor of treating them as British subjects unless they disclaim that character, rather than of treat- ing them as aliens unless they claim it. The former course is, of the tw6, the less likely to inflict needless trouble and disappoint natural expectations. We do not therefore recommend the abandonment of this rule of the common law, but we are clearly of opinion that it ought not to be, as it now is, absolute and unbending. In the case of children of foreign parentage, it should operate only where a foreign nationality has not been chosen. Where such a choice has been made it should give way. As to the second class — ^persons of British parentage born abroad — we think it expedient that the statutes now in force should be repealed, in order to introduce some limitations and place the law on a clearer and more satisfactory basis. Birth abroad is often merely accidental, while of those British subjects who go to reside in foreign countries a great number certainly prize British nationality for themselves, and wish that it should be enjoyed by their children. The law, as it stands, concedes this bene- fit to their children born abroad, and we do not recommend that it should be withdrawn ; but we think that the transmission of British nationality in families settled abroad should be hmited to the first generation. The following recommendations embody the conclusions we have formed on this branch of the subject: As to persons born within the dominions of the Crown : {a.) All persons born within the dominions of the Crown should be regarded by British law as Britisli subjects by birth, except children born of alien lathers and registered as aliens. 71 (b.) Provision should be made for enabling children, born within the dominions of the Oro^vn, of alien fathers, to be registered as aliens ; and cliiklren so registered should be thenceforth regarded as aliens. The child, if not so registered on his birth or during his minority by his father or guardian, should be permitted to register himself as an alien at any time before he has exercised or claimed any right or privilege as a British subject. (c.) If the father, being an alien when the child was born, becomes during the child's minority naturalized as a British subject, the child, though registered as an alien, should follow the condition of the father. 2. As to persons born out of the dominions of the Crown : (a.) Every child born out of the dominions of the Crown, whose father at the time of the birth was a British subject, should be regarded by British law as by birth a British subject, jirovided the father was born within the dominions of the Crown, but not otherwise. (b.) Provided, that any such person as aforesaid who, according to the law of a foreign country, is a subject or citizen of that country, and who has never exercised or claimed any right or privilege as a British sub- ject, should, in the administration of British criminal law, be treated as a subject of the covmtry in which he was born. (c.) And if any such person, charged with a criminal offense for which an alien would not be liable to be tried, should successfully de- fend himself on the ground that he was not, in respect of the act al- leged, amenable as a British subject to the criminal law of this country, he should be thenceforth, to all intents and purposes, an alien. {d.) If, before the child's birth, the father had become naturalized in the foreign country, he would, under our previous recommendations, have ceased to be a British subject. If he should become so natural- ized during the child's minority, the child born abroad should follow the condition of the father. (e.) By the statute 12 and 13 Vict., c. 68, provision is now made for the registration at British consulates abroad of marriages of British subjects celebrated abroad; and official copies of such registers are made evidence in the courts of this country. We think that a similar system of registry, with the like legal effect, should be adopted for the purpose of procuring evidence (as far as practicable) of births and deaths of British subjects abroad, due provision being made for secur- ing the accuracy of such registration ; and we further recommend that such registries should be established in all British legations as well as consulates. The above recommendations, in so far as they may be inconsistent with the present law or practice of this country, are not intended to apply to children born of Brtish fathers within the dominions of the Ottoman Porte, China, Japan, or other countries with which Great Brit- ain may have special treaties for exclusive jurisdiction, nor any part of Asia or Africa not the possession of some civilized state. As to such children we contemplate no alteration in the existing law. We have considered the present practice of naturalization under the act 7 and 8 Vict., c. 66. In dealing with this question we have desired to give eflfectto our opinion, that to be a British subject is a valuable priv- ilege, to be considerately imparted to those who desire its advantages and are willing to undertake its duties. If aliens are, as we recom- mend, made capable of holding real estate, the considerations applicable 72 to tbe q'.iostion -will be simplified ; the indncement wliicli now most (^ominonly leads foreigners to apply for naturalization will be removed ; tbe ri.iibts conferred by it wiU be political rights ; and we tbint, on the one hand, that these rights should in no case be granted without tbe security which previous residence affords, and, on the other, that when granted they should be full and complete. We recommend, therefore, that the act should be amended so as to make a certain length of resi- dence in the United Kingdom, or of service under the British Crown, to be proved to the satisfaction of the secretary of state, a necessary con- dition of obtaining the privilege of naturalization ; that, subject to this condition, the privilege should continue to be granted at the discretion of the secretary of state ; and that a person so naturalized shouM be thereupon entitled to all the rights and privileges of a natural-born British subject within the United Kingdom. This alteration of the law, if made, will be incompatible with the con- tinuance of the practice of issuing certificates of naturalization revoc- able or determinable if the naturalized person resides abroad for six months without the permission of the secretary of state, a practice which, in other respects, appears to us to be open to serious objec- tions. VI. V/e have previously stated our opinion that British-born subjects, who have already been naturalized in foreign countries, should be al- lowed a period of not less than two years within which to resume their original nationality. We further recommend that provision should be made to enable Brit- ish-born subjects, who may at any time have lost their British nation- ality, to be re-admitted to the privileges of British subjects by a system similar to that by which aliens are naturalized in this country, and on the same condition of a previous term of residence. Such persons should only be re-admitted to British nationality at the discretion of one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, on addressing a memorial to the secretary of state setting forth the grounds on which they seek re- admission, and their intention thenceforth to reside and settle within the British dominions. The secretary of state might then, if he saw tit, and on being satisfied that the prescribed conditions were complied with, grant certificates re-admitting the applicants to the rights and capacities of natural-born British subjects, on their taking an oath of allegiance; but such certificates should not entitle the holders to British privileges within the country of their foreign naturalization, should they return thereto, unless according to its law tbey had Ceased to be subjects or citizens of that country. The wives, or children under HI years of age, of persons so re-admit- ted to British nationality, should also, if resident within the British dominions, be considered and taken to be British subjects from the date of that re-admission, subject to the above reservation. The same rule as to re-admission should apply to women of British birth whose British nationality had been lost by marriage with an alien, on their becoming widows ; but the children of such women, born of an alien father, should not by the re-admission of the mother become naturalized as British subjects. The foregoing provision will apply to the case of persons who shall desire to be re-admitted within the United Kingdom to the privileges of British subjects. 73 It seems also desirable to make provision for the case of persons who, having lost their British character, may desire to be re-admitted within the colonial dominions of the Crown to the advantages of British uationalty. In the case of an alien-born, naturalization in the United Kingdom under -the act of 1844 does not confer any rights of nationality within the colonies, (10 and 11 Vict., c, 83.) On the other hand, colonial natu- ralization confers no rights of nationalty beyond the limits of the col- ony granting naturalization. The case of persons, however, who have lost their British nationality by force of such enactments as those which we recommend, will stand upon a different footing. When they are re-admitted to British nation- ality withiu the United Kingdom they will also recover it in the colo- nies, since no colonial law has deprived them of their nationality. We think it advisable that the governors or chief officers in the colo- nies should have a similar power to re-admit such persons to British nationality upon the same conditions as to residence and otherwise as those prescribed for re-admission in the United Kingdom. Persons so re-admitted will thereupon revert to their former rights, as in the case of re-admission withiu the United Kingdom. VII. In the foregoing recommendations we have endeavored to diminish the number of cases in which one who by British law is a British sub- ject is regarded by foreign law as a foreign siibjeqt or citizen, and to obviate, as far as possible, the diificulties and inconveniences arising from such a double allegiance. But this, we are aware, cannot be done, otherwise than imperfectly, by British legislation alone; it requires the co-operation of foreign governments and legislatures. If Great Britain renounces the doctrine of indelible allegiance, and acknowledges that British subjects can divest themselves of their na- tionality by foreign uaturalization, it may be hoped that the same prin- ciples will be recognized by other countries with respect to aliens natu- ralized within the British dominions; and we accordingly recommend that efforts should be made to procure that reciprocity, as well as to secure to the children of British subjects born abroad, the same power of choosing their nationality which it is proposed to confer on the children born of alien parents within British territory. This might be effected by agreements or conventions concluded with different states separately ; or better, perhaps, by means of a general understanding arrived at, in conference or otherwise, by the powers most interested in the subject. VIII. Among other matters which have been brought under our notice, we have had occasion to remark the unsatisfactory results of the operation of the law enabling aliens to claim a jury de medietate Hngum. The mixed jury was iustituted by Edward III as an encouragement to foreign woolen merchants to resort to the English market, (27 Edw. Ill, Stat. 2, c. 3, and 28 Edw. Ill, c. 13.) The clauses of the statutes enacting it were confirmed by the act 8, Hen. VI, c. 29, and by the last act for consolidating and amending the laws relating to jurors and juries, (6 Geo. IV, c. 50.) 10 HH 74 L. S.' L. S.' L. S.' L. S." L. S.' L. S.' L. S.' L. S.' L. S.' L. S.' It is settled law tbat those members of a mixed jury wbo are foreign- ers need not be of the same nationality as the alien ; they need not even speak the same language, but may each of them belong to a different nation and speak a different tongue. We see no advantage in the maintenance of sucb a system, while the inconveniences which may arise from it are obvious ; and we accord- ingly recommend tbat the statutes authorizing trials by mixed juries should be repealed. We have not thought it necessary, in making these recommendations, to enter into any general review of the subjects referred to us; as a full account of British and foreign laws, and of the diplomatic cor- respondence which has passed between Your Majesty's government, the Government of the United States, and other governments is contained in the memorandiim by our secretary, Mr. Abbott, and other papers an- nexed to our report. OLAEENDOK EDWAED OAEDWELL. EOBEKT PHILLIMOEE. W. E. POESTEE. *G. BEAMWELL. TEAYEES TWISS. J. B. KAESLAKE. EOTJNDELL PALMEE. tW. VEENON HAECOUET. *M. BEENAED. Charles S. A. Abbott, Secretary. February 20, 1869. *We concur, except on one point, with the recommendations of the report. As that point is important, we think it right to express onr dis- sent, and to state, very briefly, the reasons on which it is founded. The report recommends, (Section IV, recommendations 1, a b,) that the child born within the dominions of the British Grown of an alien father should be regarded by British law as a British subject. This is the subsisting rule of the common law. A majority of the commission- ers think that it should be retained, but that provisions should be engrafted on it, which would enable such persons, during minority or at any time afterward, to assume, by simple registration, the condition of aliens. We think otherwise, for the following reasons : Such a law tends to produce, and must produce, in many cases, that double allegi- ance which we all hold it desirable, as far as possible, to extinguish. (Eeport, Section VII.) It is inconsistent in principle with the recom- mendation that the child born abroad of a British father should be regarded by British law as a British subject. It is at variance with the law and practice of other European states. It agrees. Indeed, with those of the United States of America ; but this very agreement, if examined, will be found to be such as to make a conflict of claims be- tween the two countries more probable. None of the duties of a British subject could practically be enforced against a person who, though born here, had always resided in the foreign country to which his father be- longed. He could not, if he happened to be here, be justly made amenable to any duties other than such as the law imposes on all com- morant foreigners; but he would, nevertheless, possess the rights of a subject, without having any real title to them. He might renounce, in- deed, if he pleased, his British allegiance. But why should he re- nounce that which might be a benefit to him and could not be a bnr- 75 den 1 If, on the other hand, he were regarded as an alien by birth, he could (provided he were resident here) obtain the advantages of nationality by undertaking its obligations. We do not dispute that the common-law rule, which impresses British nationality at the moment of birth on all persons boru on British soil, has arguments of some weight in its favor, nor that the substitution of a different rale would be attended by some inconveniences. But these inconveniences, which would rapidly diminish as the new rule became known and understood, do not, in our judgment, constitute a sufficient reason why, in deliberately revising our law on a matter which con- cerns foreigners as well as Englishmen, we should forego the great ad- vantage of legislating on a consistent and generally accepted principle, and that principle one which is intrinsically reasonable and sound. The qualification that, where the father, though an alien, was born here, the child, likewise born here, should be deemed a British subject, appears to us to limit conveniently the application of the principle with- out substantially breaking in upon it. An analogous provision has been adopted in French law. GEOEGE W. W. BRAMWELL. MOUNTAGUE BERNARD. t Concurring, as I do, in the fundamental reeommendation of the re- port contained in its first section, I have thought it right to sign the report. I feel compelled, however, after the best consideration I have been able to give to the subject, to dissent from the scheme contained in Sec- tion lY of the report for determining the nationality of children of foreign parents born within the realm. Most persons will probably agree that the true rule for determining nationality, if it were practicable, would be found in the principle of domicile, i. e., that the home of a matfs choice should also be the coun- try of his allegiance ; and, indeed, the report asserts the soundness of this principle. The difficulty, however, of ascertaining the true domicile of a person resident in a foreign country, in the legal acceptation of that term, is a bar to its adoption in a case where it is requisite that the rule should be simple and obvious. Of all questions of law those which concern domicile are the most complicated and obscure, because they ultimately depend upon intention, which is necessarily of all things the most difficult to determine. "We are driven, therefore, to adopt some less accurate but more practical rule, which shall approximate to though it may not reach the same result. In the case of persons born within British territory, of Britith par- ents, the presumption of British nationality and British domicile is, of course, conclusive. In the case of persons of British origin who have formally accepted a foreign naturalization, the presumption of change of domicile, and, therefore, of nationality, is sufficiently evidenced by the overt act of naturalization ; and to such a condition of things the pro- visions of Section I of the report apply themselves. Here the national- ity follows distinctly the domicile which is clearly ascertained. But there exist further two classes of cases with which Section IV of the report deals, viz, (1) that of the children born of British parents abroad, and (2) that of children of foreigners born in the dominions of the Crown. In these cases the real domicile may be said to be indeter- minate, or at least ambiguous ; for the British subject resident abroad . or the foreigner resident in England may, in either case, desire to adhere to the domicile of his origin. 76 Hitherto, as is well known, by the common law of England, inherited rather than adopted by the IJnited States, the nationality of such chil- dren has been determined solely by the locality of their birth. The inconveniences of this principle, where rigorously applied, have been nniversally recognized. The statute law of England and America has made provision to remedy its operation in the case of the children of their own subjects born abroad. Indeed, the rule is wholly indefensible in principle. By the law of all modern nations the condition of the child primarily depends on that of the father. But the doctrine of deriving nationality from the locality of birth makes it depend on the accidental situation of the mother ; and by this rule a child may become a subject of a country in which his father not only never made his home but which he never even entered. The rule of determining nationality by locality of birth was of purely feudal origin, and accordingly in the legislation of modern Europe since the French Eevolution it has been discarded as the governing principle among continental nations. The Code Ifapol^on has adopted another principle, viz, that the nationality of the child should follow the nation- ality of the father, in the absence of any proof of an election on the part of the child to adopt the nationality of the country of his birth. This doc- trine seems sound in principle. In the absence of naturalization by the father in the country of the birth of the child, there is no ostensible evidence of the desire of the father to change his domicile or his country. The nationality of the child ought not, therefore, to be altered while that of the father remains unchanged, except by some deliberate act of the child. That this principle is also convenient in its operation is proved by the fact that almost all continental states have in practice adopted the doctrine of the Oode JSTapdl^on ; and, as has been men- tioned above, it has been incorporated into the statute law of England and America in the case of their own subjects born abroad. That the commissioners do not dissent from this rule is shown by the fact that in Section IV (§ 2) as to persons born of British fathers out of the dominions of the Orbwn, they recommend that the nationality of the child shall, in the first instance, be determined by that of the father. But in the same section, (Section IV, § 1,) in the case of children of foreign parents born within the realm, the report proposes that the old rule of the locality of birth should ^rma/fflcte prevail. From this latter recommendation I dissent, and that for several reasons : (1.) If it is desirable to recast the doctrine of nationality by such extensive changes as those proposed in the report, it seems expedient to found the whole system on some intelligible and self-consistent prin- ciple. It would be difficult to suggest any reason for adopting the rule by which the nationality of the father determines that of the child in the case of the children born of British fathers abroad, which does not equally apply to the case of the children bom of foreign fathers in En- gland; and to lay do^^Ti an opposite rule in the two cases seems not only indefensible in principle, but to be a course which, in respect of policy, is very likely to be misunderstood by foreign governments. If, while we assert that the child born of an Englishman abroad is a British subject, we also claim that the child born of a foreigner in England is likewise a British subject, it will be thought that acting for our own advantage on inconsistent principles we are grasping at the combined chances of a double event. (2.) It seems very desii-able, as is stated in Section VII of the report, to lay doAvn soine rule in which all or most states are likely to agree. 77 Now, the rule of determining the nationality of the child pritna facie by that of the father is adopted by all states as regards the children borii of their own subjects abroad. As regards the children of foreigners born in the realm, it is adopted by all states except England and Amer- ica. It is ob^^.o^^8, therefore, that this is the rnle by the adoption of which will be most readily obtained that consent of nations which on siTch a subject is of capital importance. It is stated in Section VII of the report that " we have endeavored to diminish the number of cases in which one who by British law is a British subject is regarded by foreign law as a foreign subject, and to obviate as far as possible the difficulties and inconveniences arising from a double allegiance." In that object I entirely concur ; but it seems to me that it is not accom- plished but rather defeated by laying down the rule that the child born of a foreigner in England is prima facie a British subject. In the view of every state (including the United States, so far as regards the chil- dren of bom Americans in England) such person is a sirbject of the state of his father's origin ; and therefore the proposed rule necessarily creates all the difficulties and inconveniences of a double allegiance. Assume, on the other hand, the rule adopted by the report m the case of the chil- dren born of British parents abroad, to be applied consistently to the case of the children born of foreign parents iu England, it will be seen that the desired object wiU be completely accomplished. If the child B, of a foreigner A, is boru in England, he would then be regarded by the English laAv as a foreigner; amd so he would be regarded by all the world; and thus there would be no conflict of allegiance. Suppose A, the father, to become naturalized in England, then B, the child, would be by EngHsh law a British subject, and cease to be the subject of the cocntry of his father's origin — and so he would be regarded by all the world — assuming the United States to adopt (as we have reason to believe they would adopt) the principle laid down in Section I of the report, viz, that foreign naturalization extinguishes the native allegi- ance. The same thing would occur if B were himself naturalized. And thus, by the adoption of a simple and consistent mle, we should lay the foundation of a general haiTnony in the doctrine and practice of nations which is not only of theoretical value but of great practical conse- quence ; for nothing would more sohdly conduce to the peace of the world than that the same allegiance shoiild be predicated of the same person by all governments. (3.) I am by no means insensible of the practical conveniences which may result in some cases from the adoiition of tlie rule of the locality of birth, which are set forth in Section IV of the report, but there appear to be grave disadvantages attendant on the rule which more than coun- teract them. Such a rule, as has been shown above, will ha^e the eft'ect of imposing the quality of British subjects on a number of persons who neither seek nor desire it. It is true that the report makes provision in the case of such persons for a machinery by which they may divest themselves of that character. Upon this it may be observed that a foreigner in transitu may, through ignorance or carelessness, omit to take measures which shall have the intended eft'ect. But it is not neces- sary to urge this point, because in fact it would be as impossible in the future as it has proved iu the past, to insist against the will of the indi- vidual on his British character thus imposed by the mere accident of birth. The real evil to this country is of an exactly opposite character, viz, that by this rule persons are clothed with the character of British subjects, and become entitled to all its benefits, who have no real con- nection with the community, and who ought to have no claims upon it. 78 It is jiot probable that any foreigner accidentally resident in this country would disclaim the citizenship for his child which the law would confer, for the simple reason that the child would be enabled to take all the bt'neflts but could in no case be really made to fulflU the obUgations of a British subject. Under this rule the child of a foreigner born here might return to his own country in his infancy, and he would thereafter possess whenever he chose to claim them, not only for himself, but (since he is a natural-born British subject) for his children also, all the benefits of the character of a British subject, while it is abundantly clear that neither he nor his children could ever be called upon to perform any of its duties. This is the practical mischief of the present rule, and to re- enact it would be to give fresh authority to a principle the inconvenience of which is sufficiently apparent. Nothing can be more politically inexpe- dient than that this country should be exposed to the claims of a class of persons who have no interest in its welfare, and who, neither by origin, nor domicile, have any community with its affairs. On the other hand, in the case of foreigners and their children who reaUy desire to incorporate themselves and their interests in the common stock of this country, and to embark their fortunes with ours, there seems neither hardship nor inconvenience in recjuiring that they should evidence their intention to change their nationality and adopt a new domicile hy some formal act which, while it would establish their British nationality, would at the same time terminate their foreign allegiance. , They would then no longer be able to blow hot and cold, and adopt in turn such nationality as happened for the moment to suit their interests. If the alien father is domiciled in England, and intends to cast in his lot and that of his family with this coxmtry, why should he object to naturalize himself or his child °! But if he is unwilling by such an act to sever his comiection or that of his family with the country of his origin, whj' should we embarrass our relations with foreign states by conferring our nationality on such a person — ^to his advantage, it may be, but certainly not in any respect to our own °! It the father and the child are really domiciled in this country, the process of naturalization would be simple and easy, and having regard to the recommendation in Section V of the report it will be seen that a person so naturalized will enjoy all the advantages which belong to a natural-born subject; if they are not so domiciled I venture to think the child ought not to acquire the privilege of British nationality by the simi)le accident of birth. The great importance of insisting on natu- ralization in such cases is, that it is by this means alone that the double allegiance can be avoided. For tins purpose it is essential that the act which confers the nationality should in itself openly and unam- biguously terminate the old allegiance. This the rule which requires naturalization of a foreigner born in England as a condition of British nationality would do ; while the rule conferring nationality by the mere fact of birth would give the new nationality without dissolving the old allegiance. I shoiild therefore propose that in the case of the children of foreign- ers born within the realm, the following rule should be adopted : "Children born within the realm of alien fathers who have been themselves born abroad shall be deemed aliens. But such children shall become British subjects (1) upon the naturalization of their fathers, or (2) upon their being themselves naturalized either by their fathers during their miuority or by themselves at full age." This lule would make tlie child born in this country, of an alien father .also born in this country, a British subject by birth, and in this resiiect 79 it acoordM witli the French hnv. Though apparently 8omewhat in con- tlict with the general principle, it is in fact in strict coiifoi'initv with the l)rinciple which makes domicile the governing rule of nationality ; for though the presumption of domicile is very small from the mere fact of the place of birth of a single individual in one generation, it becomes A'ery strong when the birth both of the father and the child takes place in the same country. Such a condition of things may be safely taken as a sufficient proof of permanent change of domicile and of the elec- tion of a new nationality, which could not be inferred from a solitary and isolated instance. There is another point affecting the latter i)art of Section IV of the report, on which I feel great difficulty. Though I concur in the principle laid down in Section lY (§ 2 a) of the report, by which it is declared that the children born of British fathers abroad "should be regarded by British law as British subjects," I greatly doubt the expediency of the declaration in the same section (§ 2 b) that "in the administration of British criminal law" such children are under certain conditions not to be treated as British subjects. The word " subject," in my understand- ing of the term, involves of necessity subjection to the laws of the state of which such person is a subject, and above all subjection to its criminal law. If it is necessary (though I think that is more than doubtful) to create a class of persons who shall be capable of all the privileges while they are liable to none of the obligations of citizens, it would be desira- ble to discover for such a class some more appropriate title than that of "subjects." What is no doubt intended is that such persons should have the capacity of becoming at their election British subjects, and that till they have exercised the option to enjoy the benefits, they shall not be called upon to bear the burdens of that character, but that after they have claimed the advantages they shall not be able to decline the obligations of subjects. But surely if this be the view which it is in- tended to present, it should be distinctly asserted that while the person is not amenable to the law of England he is not yet a British subject, aud that as soon as he becomes a British subject he is at once amenable to that law. I cannot, therefore, assent to a definition which speaks of a person as "regarded by British law as by birth a British subject," (Section IV, § 2 a) and of the same person, at the same time, under certain conditions, as a person " who in the administration of British criminal law should be treated as a subject of the country in which he was born," (Section IV, § 2 b.) The question of whether a particular individual who is thus declared a British subject is or is not amenable to our criminal law is made to turq upon the point of whether he has or not "ever exercised or claimed any right or privilege as a British sub- ject." I confess that in terms so general and vague there seems to me to lurk a dangerous ambiguity very intractable in the administration of criminal law. What are these "rights and privileges;" what is to be the extent of the "exercise" or the nature of the "claim" which by their absence or their presence are to sustain or to defeat the juris- diction of the Crown over persons who are nominally British subjects"^ This distinction seems to constitute the same person a British subject by birth in the view of the English civil law, and to leave him an alien in the eye of the English criminal law. There may be persons against whom it is inexpedient that the rights of the Crown should be actually enforced in particular cases. But this is a very different thing from a formal declaration that there exist persons legally called "British sub- jects" who are not justiciable in the courts of the Queen. W. VEENON HARCOUET. 80 APPl-.XniX XO. I. — NATIRALIZATIOX AND ALI.UfflAXCK. ()hnerru1ionx lo ((cmiiipdiii/ incmoraiuhmi on naiuraU zaiion and uUiyUoicv Tlic iiiiicf.kiil question at the prosojit time is, wlipther Great Britain shall adopt the ])i-iueii)lc of expatriation, advocat(^il by the Govprnnient of the United States and ineoriiorated in the recent treaty between tliiit coiuitry and Prussia? In order fully to understand tlie position occupied by the United States and Great Britain on this matter, it is necessary to consider the princijiles on which naturalization and expati'iation are carried out by different countries. There are five main systems of naturalization : 1. By taking an oath of allegiance and obtaining a certificate, granted at the dis- cretion of the government, as in England. 2. By certificate from a court of law, granted on proving residence for a stated period and taking oath of allegiance, as in Canada. 3. By residence for a stated period, and certificate from the government, without oath, as in France. 4. By employment in the public service, or certificate from the government, a.s in Prussia. 5. By residence for a stated period, renunciation of native allegiance, and by taking an oatii of allegiance to adopted country, as in the United States. Provision is also made by many countries for the exceptional naturalization of aliens, OS in England, by two years' naval service during war, and in the United States by service in the army with one year's residence. There are three distinct doctrines of expatriation : 1. The continental, as embodied in the Code Napoleon, by which an emigrant incurs the loss of civil rights in his native country, ("privation des droits civils par la perto de la quality de Franfais ;" "perdita dellacittadinanza.") Should the emigrant return to his native country, this loss of civil rights may be accomjianied by penal conse- quences, as in Austria, when the emigration has taken place without the permission of the government. Looking to the circumstances under which the Code Napoleon was framed, and to the continental practice of conscription, it is obvious that expatriation, as provided for in that code, and in the laws subsequently founded on it, was intended to punish, and not to encourage, emigration. 2. The American, or theoretical. The American doctrine has varied from Mr. Whea- ton's axiom, when minister to Berlin in 1840, that native nationality reverted on return to the native land, to Mr. Cass's in 1858^ that, should a naturalized foreigner "return to his native country, he returns as an American citizen, and in no other character." While American politicians argue that "perpetual allegiance is a doctrine of bar- barism," no provision is made in the statutes of that country for the expatriation of Americans. This anomaly has been frequently pointed out, and was remarked upon in the recent debates in the House of Representatives, when one of the speakers urged that, before asking other countries to alter their laws, the United States should set the * example by altering their own. 3. The English. Originating in the feudal idea of native and indelible allegiance to the prince of the country in which the subject was born, the English doctrine has been gradually modernized into a system of native nationality adapted to a commercial people. It is in this latter spirit, with a view to retaining the connection between British subjects residing for mercantile purposes in foreign countries and their native land, that the statutes declaring the sons and grandsons*iof British subjects born abroad to be British subjects must now be regarded. There are, therefore, two conflicting principles of expatriation ; the continental, which punishes emigration by loss of civil rights, but does not necessarily admit that such emigration can free the emigrant from the obligations of his native nationality ; and the American doctrine, which claims for the subjects of other countries (but does not grant by law to Ameiicans) the right of free expatriation. That, this right is denied by most continental countries is shown by the fact that a Frenchman, whose certificate of foreign naturalization is not of three years' date, is liable to the French conscription ; a Russian, naturalized abroad, may be expeUed from Russia ; even a Prussian, under the new treaty with the United States, must reside uninterruptedly in America for five years, as well as be naturalized, before he can change his nationality. Each country hampers expatriation with such restrictions as it thinks fit, and this must probably continue to be the case so long as the present con- scription laws are retained. There does not seem any evident reason why such restrictions should be imposed by Great Britain if the principle of expatriation were adopted. In the Prince Regent's declaration of 1813, the necessity for inaintaining the doctrine of indissoluble allegiance is based upon the right of the Crown to the services of its subjects, specially seamen, in time of war. 81 A similiir argument was urged by Lord Stowoll and at the negotiations for the treaty of Ghent. lu fact, in those days, Great Britain stood toward the United States, auS regards maritime oonscription, much iu the same position as tlie continental countries now stand with regard to their military conscription. But the practice of impressment has now fallen into desuetude and is not likely ever to bo revived. The further claim to punish as traitors British sulijeots found in arms against their native country, was practically abandoned when the prisoners taken in the United States service were unconditionally exchanged in 1814, without having been brought to trial as threatened. It must he remembered that the theory of treason is the same in England and in the United States. The law of France piuiishes with death a Frenchman (whether nat- uralized abroad or not) who is taken in arms against France. The right of impressment having been given up, and the doctrine of treason thus modified by practice, there does not now remain any claim which Great Britain need seek to maintain upon the allegiance of British subjects emigrating to foreign countries. Moreover, the interest of the British colonies in urging the right of free expatriation is only second to that of the United States. Indeed, any privileges or rights which may be accorded to Germans, or others, becoming naturalized in the United States, and which may not be secured equally for emigrants to the colonies, more especially Canada, would oifer a direct premium on emigration to the former, to the manifest disadvantage, and probably discontent, of the latter. The importance of this view of the subject will be seen from the following statistics, taken from the census of 1861 : UPPER CANADA. Total population 1,396,091 Born in the United States 50, 758 Bom iu Prussia, German States, and Holland 22,906 LOWER CANADA. Total population 1,110,664 Born in the United States 13,641 Bom in Germany, &c 949 NEW SOUTH WALES. Total population 350,860 Bom in Germany 5,467 QUEENSLAND. Total population, (exclusive of aborigines) 30, 059 Born in Germany 2, 124 VICTORIA. Total population 540,322 Born in Germany 10,418 SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Total population : 126,830 Bom in Germany 8,863 It is stated that Germany affords 7 per cent, of the immigrants to this colony. * * * n * ^ » It is to bepresumed that if treaties could be agreed upon which would be practicable in operation and acceptable to foreign nations, a corresponding alteration in the law, at all events of this country, would have to be made ; and it must be a matter of con- sideration how such an alteration can be carried out, affecting, as it will do, the rights of property in the colonies as well as in England, and altering the whole system on which the hitherto received doctrine of British protection to British subjects resident abroad rests. While it seems perfectly fair to expatriate a person who willfully severs his con- nection with his native country, care should be taken to make a distinction between persons residing temporarily abroad for commercial purposes, and compelled by local laws to take an oath of allegiance in order to carry on their trade or profession, as was formerly the case in Russia and Denmark, and persons pennanently incorporating themselves and their interests in a foreign country, Thus it would be a hardship on Britiph merchants that a person who had taken out a l)urgher license to enable him to carry on {i broker's agency in Denmark, should he thereby absolutely expatriated apA dipablecT froTU inheriting real property in England. ' 11 S D 82 Xor slKnild a British snli,j<'(t lio expatriated for liaviiig worn a red waistcoat at IJueiiiis Ayres, (see Meiiioraiidiiiii,) or resided two years ill Colombia. The uiereliant shijijiing act of 1854 provides that no person who has taken an oatli f)f iillefcianee to a foreign sovereign shall be entitled to be registered as owner of a British rnerehant-vesscd unless ho shiill lla^'e 8nb.-ei]nently taken another oath of alle- giance to the British Crown. The principle of expatriation here recognized conld not be carried ont withont some further provisions, as it will ha'^'e been already seen that an oath of allegiance is not r.'finired for naturalization in France and other conntries. The simplest jilau would be to provide that a British subject naturalizing himself in a foreign country should be deemed, from the time of his being so naturalized, to be a subject or citizen of that country. The advantage of making the act of expatriation depend upon the act of naturalization would be that a record of the fact would he preserved ; whereas if the expatriation is made to depend also upon domicile (as in the Prussian treaty) the difficulties of subsequently proving such uninterrupted domicile would probably be almost insuperable. The Prussian treaty likewise contains a provision for repatriation by domicile. In Prussia this may be of impoi-tancej as it would no doubt be inconvenient to allow nat- uralized Prussian-Americans to return to Prussia and to claim continued exemption from the military service to which all their neighbors would be exposed. The new Italian code enables an expatriated citizen to recover his civil rights : 1. By returning to the realm with the special permission of the government. 2. By relinquishing foreign employment. 3. By declaring before the proper civil authority of the State an intention to re-establish his domicile within the realms, and by so iona fide establishing it within a year. The son of an expatriated Italian can also recover his nationality by making a similar declaration on coming of age, either before the authorities in Italy, or before any Italian diplomatic or consular agent abroad. Having regard to tlie British law of alienship, particularly as respects the right to inherit real property, there might be great difficulty in making similar provisions for the repatriatign of British expatriates, especially as there is no machinery in England or the cidouies for local registration for police and conscription jjrrrposes as in Italy, Prussia, and France. A careful consideration, therefore, of this intricate subject leads to the following conclusions : 1. That the time has arrived when the principle of free expatriation may be adopted, and even (in the interests of the colonies) advocated by Great Britain. 2. That such expatriation should depend on the expatriate being naturalized by some legal process in a foreign country, and not on domicile ; care being taken that the in- terests of persons resident abroad and assuming local and temporary allegiance for mercantile purposes are not injuriously affected. 3. That an expatriate should become from the time of his alien naturalization abso- lutely an alien, subject both as regards himself and his children (whether minors at the time of his naturalization or bom subsequent to it) to all the disabilities of alienship. 4. That repatriation should be effected in the same manner as naturalization, i. e., the expatriate having become an alien should only recover the rights and privileges of a British subject by the same process as aliens are admitted to them. (Signed) CHAS. S. A. ABBOTT. Foreign Office, Marcli 19, 1868. PART I.— BRITISH AND COLONIAL LAWS. ISince this report was made a neio statute lias ieen enacted hy the imperial Parliament This matter is substituted for the matter respecting imperial legislation contained in the rcjmrt.'l A'N ACT to amend the. law relating to the legal conditibn of ahens and British suhjects. [12th May, 1870.1 Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the legal condition of aliens and British subjects: Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament aHSorabled,and by the authority of the same, as follows : 1. This act may be cited for all purposes as "The Naturalization Act, 1870." 2. Real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held, and disposed of by an alien in the same manner in all respects as by a natural- born British subject ; and a title to real and personal property of every description 83 luay bo ilorivod through, from, or in succession to an alien, in tlie same manner i]i all respects as through, from, or in succession to a natural-born British subject: ProiiiUd, (1.) That this section shall not confer any right on an alien to hold real property situate out of the United Kingdom, and shall not qualify an alien for any office, or for any municipal, parliamentary, or other franchise: (3.) that this section shall not entitle an alien to any right or privilege as a British subject, except such rights and privileges in respect of property as are hercliy expressly given to him : (:5.) That this section shall not afi'ect any estate or interest in real or persona] property to which any person has or may become entitled, eitlK^r mediately or immediately, in possession or exjiectancy, in pursuance of any disposition made before the jiassing of this act, or in pursuance of any devolution by law on the death of any person dying before the passing of this act. 3. Where Her Majesty has entered into a convention with any foreign state to the eft'ect that the snlyeets or citizens of that state who have been naturalized as Brit- ish subjects may divest themselves of their status as such subjects, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by order in council, to declare that such convention has been entered into by Her Majesty ; and from and after the date of such order in council, any person, being originally a subject or citizen of the state referred to in such order, who has been naturalized as a British subject, may, within such limit of time as may be pro- vided in the convention, make a declaration of alienage, and from and after the date of his so making such declaration such person shall be regarded as an alien, and as a subject of the state to which he originally belonged, as aforesaid. A declaration of alienage may be made as follows ; that is to say, — If the declarant be in the United Kingdom, in the presence of any justice of the peace, if elsewhere in Her Majesty's dominions, in the presence of any judge of any coiu't of civil or criminal jurisdiction, of any justice of the peace, or of any other officer for the time being authorized by law in the place in which the declarant is to administer an oath for any judicial or other legal purpose. If out of Her Majesty's dominions, in the presence of any officer in the diplomatic or consular service of Her Majesty. 4. Any person who by leasou of his having been born within the dominions of Her Majesty is a uatural-b(U'n subject, but who also at the time of his birth became, under the law of any foreign state, a subject of such state, and is still such subject, may, if of full age and not under any disability, make a declaration of alienage in manner aforesaid, and from and after the making of such declaration of alienage such person shall cease to be a British subject. Any person who is born out of Her Majesty's dominions of a father being a British subject may, if of full age, and not under any disability, make a declaration of alienage in manner aforesaid, and from and after the making of such declaration shall cease to be a British subject. 5. From and after the passing of this act, an alien shall not be entitled to be tried by a jury de mcclietatc linguw, but shall be triable in the same manner as if he were a natural-bom subject. EXPATRIATION. 6. Any British subject whp has at any time before, or may at any time after the passing of this act, when in any foreign state and not under any disability, voluntarily become naturalized in such state, shall, from and after the time of his so having become naturalized in such foreign state, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject and be regarded iis an alien ; Frovidecl, (1.) That where any British subject has, before the passing of this act, voluntarily become natirralized in a foreign state, and yet is de- sirous of remaining a British subject, he may, at any time within two years alter the passing of this act, make a declaration that he is desirous of remaining a British sub- ject, and upon such declaration, herein-after referred to as a declaration of British na- tionality, being made, and upon his taking the oath of allegiance, the declarant shall be deemed to be and to have been continually a British subject ; with this qualification, that he shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state in which he has been naturalized, be deemed to be a British subject, unless he has ceased to be a subject of that state in pursuance of the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect : (2.) A declaration of British nationality may be made, and the oath of allegiance be taken as follows; that is to say — ^if the declarant be in the United Kingdom in the pres- ence of a justice of the peace; if elsewhere in Her Majesty's dominions, in the presence of any judge of any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction, of any justice of the peace, or of any other officer for the time being authorized by law in the place in which the declarant is to administer an oath for any judicial or other legal purpose. If out of Her Majesty's dominions, in the presence of any officer in the diplomatic or consular ser- vice of Her Majesty. NATURALIZATION AND RESUMPTION OP BRITISH NATIONALITY. 7. An alien who, within such limited time before making the application herein- after mentioned as may be allowed by one of Her Majesty's princi]ial secretaries of state, either by general order or (m any special occasion, has resided in the United 84 Kingdom for a term of not less than five years, or has been in the service of the Grown for a term of not less than five years, and intends, when naturalized, either to reside in the United Kingdom, or to serve under the Crown, may apply to one of Her Majes- ty's principal secretaries of state for a certificate of naturallzatiou. The applicant shall adduce in support of his application such evidence of his resi- dence or service, and intention to reside or serve, as such secretary of state may re- ([uire. The said secretary of state, if satisfied with the evidence adduced, shall take the case of the applicant into consideration, and may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold a certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision, but such certificate shall not take effect until the applicant has taken the oath of allegiance. An alien to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall, in the United King- dom, be entitled to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges, and be sub- ject to all obligations to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject in the United Kingdom, with this qualification, that he shall not, when within the limits of the foreign state of which he was a subject previously to obtaining his certificate of naturalization, be deemed to be a British subject unless he has ceased to be a sub- ject of that state in pursuance of the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect. The said secretary of state may, in manner aforesaid, grant a special certificate of naturalization to any person with respect to whose nationality as a British subject a doubt exists, and he may specify in such certificate that the grant thereof is made for the purpose of quieting doubts as to the right of such person to be a British subject, and the grant of such special certificate shall not be deemed to be any admission that the person to whom it was granted was not previously a British subject. An alien who has been naturalized previously to the passing of this act may apply to the secretary of state for a certificate of naturalization under this act, and it shall be lawful for the said secretary of state to grant such certificate to such naturalized alien upon the same terms and subject to the same conditions in and upon which such certificate might have been granted if such alien had not been previously naturalized in the United Kingdom. 8. A natural-bom British subject who has become an alien in pursuance of this act, and is in this act referred to as a statutory alien, may, on performing the same con- ditions and adducing the same evidence as is required in the case of an alien applying for a certificate of nationality, apply to one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state for a certificate herein-after referred to as a certificate of re-admission to British nationality, re-admitting him to the status of a British subject. The said secretary of state shall have the same discretion as to the giving or withholding of the certificate as in the case of a certificate of naturalization, and an oath of allegiance shall in like manner be required previously to the issuing of the certificate. A statutory alien to whom a certificate of re-admission to British nationality has been granted shall, from the date of the certificate of re-admission, but not in respect of any previous transaction, resume his position as a British subject ; with this qualification, that within the limits of the foreign state of which he became a subject, he shall not be deemed to be a British subject, unless he has ceased to be a subject of that foreign state according to the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect. The jurisdiction by this act conferred on the secretary of state in the United King- dom in respect of the grant of a certificate of re-admission to British nationality,' in the case of any statutory alien being in any British possession, may be exercised by the governor of such possession ; and residence in such possession shall, in the case of such person, be deemed equivalent to residence in the United Kingdom. 9. The oath in this act referred to as the oath of allegiance shall be in the form fol- lowing; that is to say, " I, . do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs, and successors, according to law. So help me God." NATIONAL STATUS OF MARRIED WOMEN AND INFANT CHILDREN. 10. The following enactments shall be made with respect to the national status of women and children : (I.) A married woman shall be deemed to be a subject of the state of which her husband is for the time being a subject: (2.) A widow being a nat- ural-born British subject, who has become ah alien by or in consequence of her mar- riage, shall be deemed to be a statutory alien, and may as such at any time during widowhood obtain a certificate of re-adndssion to British nationality ir; manner pro- vided by this act: (3.) Where the father being a British subject, or the mother being a British subject and a widow, becomes an alien in pursuance of this act, every child of such father or mother who, during infancy, has become resident in the country where the father or mother is naturalized, and has, according to the laws of such country, become naturalized therein, shall be deemed to be a subject of the state of which the father or mother has become a subject, and not a British subject : (4.) Where the father, or the mother being a widow, has obtained a certificate of re-admission to British na 85 tiouality, every child of such father or mother who, during infancy, has hecomo resi- dent in the British dominions with siicli father or motlier, shall he deemed to have resumed the position of a British subject to aU intents: (5.) Where the father, or the mother being a widow, has obtained a certificate of naturalization in the United King- dom, every child of such father or mother who, during infancy, has become resident with such father or mother in any part of the United Kingdom, shall be deemed to be a naturalized Britisli subject. SUPPLEMENTAL PEOVISIONS. 11. One of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state may, by reg-ulation, provide for the following matters: (1.) The form and registration of declarations of -British nationality : (2. ) The form and registration of certificates of naturalization in the United Kingdom : (3.) The form and registration of certificates of re-admission to British nation- ality: (4.) The form and registration of declarations of alienage: (5.) The registration by officers in the diplomatic or consular service of Her Majesty of the births and deaths of British subjects who may be born or die out of Her Majesty's dominions, and of the marriages of persons married at any of Her Majesty's embassies or legations: (6.) The transmission to the United Kingdom for the purpose of registration or safe-keeping, or of being produced as evidence, of any declarations or certificates made in pursuance of this act out of the United Kingdom, or of any copies of such declarations or certifi- cates, also of copies of entries contained in any register kept out of the United King- dom in pursuance of or for the piu-pose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act: (7.) With the consent of the treasury the imposition and application of fees in re- spect of any registration authorized to be made by this act, and in respect of the mak- ing any declaration or the grant of any certificate authorized to be made or granted by this act. The said secretary of state, by a further regulation, may repeal, alter, or add to any regulation previously made by him in piu'suance of this section. Any regulation made by the said secretary of state in pursuance of this section shall be deemed to be vpithin the powers conferred by this act, and shall be of the same force as if it had been enacted in this act, but shall not, so far as respects the imposition of fees, be in force in any British possession, and shall not so far as respects any other matter be in force in any British possession in which any act or ordinance to the con- trary of or inconsistent with any such direction may for the time being be in forces 12. The following regulations shall be made with respect to evidence under this this act : (1.) Any declaration authorized to be made under this act may be proved ni any legal proceeding by the production of the original declaration, or of any copy thereof certified to be a true copy by one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, or by any person authorized by regulations of one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state to give certified copies of such declaration, and the production of such declara- tion or copy shall be evidence of the person therein named as declarant having made the same at the date in the said declaration mentioned : (2. ) A certificate of naturaliza- tion may be proved in any legal proceediug by the production of the original certificate, or of any copy thereof certified to be a true copy by one of Her Majesty's principal sec- retaries of state, or by any person authorized by regulations of one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state to give certified copies of such certificate : (3.) A certificate of re-admission to British nationality may be proved in any legal proceediug by the production of the original certificate, or of any copy thereof certified to be a true copy by one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state, or by any person authorized by regulations of one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state to give certified copies of such certificate: (4.) Entries in any register authorized to be made in pursuance of this act shall be proved by such copies, and certified in such manner as may be directed by one of Her Majesty's jjrincipal secretarie& of state, and the copies of such entries shall be evidence of any matters by this act or by any regulation of the said secretary of state authorized to be inserted in the register: (5.) The documentary-evidence act, 1868,, shall apply to any regulation made by a secretary of state, in pursuance of, or for the purpose of carrying into effect any of the provisions of this act. MISCELLANEOUS. 13. Nothing in this act contained shall affect the grant of letters of denization by Her Majesty. 14. Nothing in this act contained shall qualify an alien to be the owner of a British ship. 15. Where any British subject has in pursuance of this act become an alien, he shall not thereby be discharged from any liability in respect of any acts done before the date of his so becoming an alien. 16. All laws, statutes, and ordinances which may be duly made by the legislature of any British possession for imparting to any person the privileges, or any of the privileges, of naturalization, to be enjoyed by such person within the limits of such possession, shall within such limits have the authority of hiw, but shall be subject to 86 l)e ooiilinuea or disallowed by Her Majesty in the same maimer, aud subject to the same niles in and subject to which Her Majesty has power to confirm or disallow any other laws, statutes, or ordinances in that possession. 17. In this act, if not inconsistent with the context or subject-matter thiTeof : — "disabilitv" shall mean the status of being an infant, lunatic, idiot, or married woman: "British possession" shall mean any colony, plantation, island, territory, or settlement within Her Majesty's dominions, and not within the United Kingdom, and all territories and places under one legislature are deemed to be one British pos- session for the purposes of this act: "The governor of any British possession" shall in- clude any person exercismg the chief authority in such possession: "OfScer in the diplomatic service of Her Majesty:" shall mean any embassador, minister, or charge d'atl'aires, or secretary of legation, or any person appointed by such embassador, minis- ter, charge d'affaires, or secretary of legation to execute any duties imposed by this act on an officer in the diplomatic service of Her Majesty. " Officer in the consular service of Her Majesty" shall mean and include consul-general, consul, vice-consul, and consular agent, and any person for the time being discharging the duties of consul- general, consul, vice-consul, and consular agent. KEPBAL OF ACTS MENTIONED IN SCHEDULE. 18. The several acts set forth in the first and second parts of the schedule annexed hereto shall be wholly repealed, and the acts set forth in the third part of the said schedide shall be repealed to the extent therein mentioned ; Provided, That the repeal enacted in this act shall not affect— (1.) Any right acquired or thing done before the passing of this act : (2.) Any liability accruing before the passing of this act : (3.) Any penalty, forfeiture, or other punishment incurred or to be incurred in respect of any offense' committed before the passing of this act: (4.) The institution of any investiga- tion or legal proceeding, or any other remedy for ascertaining or enforcing any such liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid. SCHEDULE. Note.— Reference is made to the repeal of the " whole act " where portions have been repealed before, in order to preclude henceforth the necessity of looking back to pre- vious acts. This schedule, so far as respects acts prior to the reign of George the Second, other than acts of the Irish Parliament, refers to the edition prepared under the direction of the record commission, intituled "The Statutes of the Realm ; printed by command of His Majesty King George the Third, in pursuance of an address of the House of Com- mons of Great Britain, From original records and authentic manuscripts." PART I. ACTS WHOLLY REPEALED, OTHER THAN ACTS OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. An act that all such as are to be naturalized or restored in blood shall first receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the oath of allegiance, and the oath of suprem- acy. (7 Jas. 1, c. a.) An act to ena.ble His Majesty's natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens. (11 Will. 3, c. 6.') An act for naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's colonies in America. (13 Geo. 2, c. 7.) An act to extend the provisions of an act inade in the thirteenth year of' his present Majesty's reign, intituled "An act for naturalizing foreign Protestants and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's colonies in America, to other foreign Protestants who conscientiously scruple the taking of an oath." (20 Geo.- 2, c. 44.) An act to explain two acts of Parliament : one of the thirteenth year of the reign of his late Majesty, "for naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others as are settled or shall settle in any of His Majesty's colonies in America ; " and the other of the second year of the reign of his present Majesty, "for naturalizing such foreign Protestants as have served or shall serve as officers or soldiers in His Majesty's royal American regi- ment, or as engineers in America." (13 Geo. 3, c. 25.) An act to prevent certain inconveniences that may happen bv bills of naturalization. (14 Geo. 3, c. 84.) An act to declare His Majesty's natural-born subjects inheritable to the estates of their .-incestors, whether lineal or collateral, in that iiart of Great Britain called Scot- land, notwithstandiug their father or mother were aliens. (16 Geo. 3, e. .52.) ' 11 ami la Wra.3. (Eiiff.) 87 All ai't to iilt<>r iuid aiupiid an act passed in tlio sovontli your of the reign of His Majesty King James the First, entitled "An act that all Bucli'aa are to l)e. naturalized or restored in blood shall 1irst receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supiier, and the oath of allegiance, and the oath of supremacy." (6 Geo. 4, e. 67.) An act to amend the laws relating to aliens. (7 and 8 Vict., o. 66.) An act for the naturalization of aliens. (10 and 11 Vict., c. 83.) PART II. ACTS OF THE IRISH PAELIAMJONT WHOLLY REPEALED. An act for encouraging Protestant strangers and others to inhabit and plant in the kingdom of Ireland. (14 and 15 Chas. 2, c. 13.) An act for naturalizing of all Protestant strangers in this kingdom. (2 Anne, c. 14.) An act for naturalizing such foreign merchants, traders, artificers, artisans, manu- facturers, workmen, seamen, farmers, and others as shall settle in this kingdom. (19 and 20 Geo. 3, c. 29.) An act for extending the provisions of an act passed in this kingdom in the nine- teenth and twentieth years of His Majesty's reign, intituled "An act for naturalizing Birch foreign merchants, traders, artificers, artisans, manufacturers, workmen, seamen, fariuers, and others as shall settle in this kingdom." (23 and 24 Geo. 3, c. 38.) An act to explain and amend an act intituled "An act for naturalizing such foreign merchants, traders, artificers, artisans, manufacturers, workmen, seamen, farmers, and others who shall settle in this kingdom." (36 Geo. 3, c. 48.) PART III. ACTS PARTIALLY KEPBALEU. An act for reviving, continuing, and amending several statutes made in this kingdom heretofore temporary. (4 Geo. 1, c. 9; act of Irish Parliament.) Extent of repeal: So far as it makes perpetual the act of 2 Anne, c. 14. An act for consolidating and amending the laws relative to jurors and juries. (6 Geo. 4, c. 50.) Extent of repeal: The whole of sec. 47. An act consolidating and amending the laws relating to jurors and juries iu Ireland. (3 and 4 WiU. 4, c. 91.) Extent of repeal : The whole of sec. 37. COLONIAL NATURALIZATION. Doubts having arisen whether the Act 7 and 8 Vict. c. 66, of 1844, extended to the colonies, an act was passed in 1847 (10 and 11 Vict., c. 83) declaring that it did not extend to the colonies, and that all laws, statutes, or ordinances duly x^assed or to be passed within Her Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad conferring the privileges of natural- ization within the limits of such colonies were valid, subject to the usual confirmation by the Crown. It may be interesting to notice the naturalization acts at present in force in the prin- cipal colonies. ANTIGUA, GRENADA, ST. ' VINCENT.i In Antigua, (Act No. 739, October, 1861,) Grenada, (Act No. 230, 1858,) and St. Vincent, (Act of October, 1857, sect. 17,) alien immigrants of African descent, arriving from the United States, or from the British North American colonies, who may have entered or may enter into a written contract of service for not less than a year, shall after three years' residence enjoy all the privileges of a natural-born subject upon taking the oath of allegiance before the governor, in the presence of the secretary to the government. This officer is to keep a register of the names, &c., of such naturalized immigrants, and the register, or an official extract is, upon proof of the identity of the immigrant, to be evidence of his rights. BAHAMAS.' By the colonial act. No. 11 Vict., cap. 4, passed 22d March, 1848, aliens become natur- alized upon taking the oath of allegiance and obtaining a certificate from the governor in council under the great seal of the colony that the oath has been taken. The cer- ' Colonization Circular, No. 27, 1868, published by the Emigration Commissioners. 88 tificato is (ilitniiialjle ou presentation to the governor in council of a memorial setting liirtli lull inii'liculars resiicotiug tli<' memorialist and the grounds on wliicli the privi- Icfics of natnralizalion are sought, and when obtained the certificate must be recorded in tlu^ oliicc of tlie public secretary and registrar of records. The fees axe to be regu- lated by the governor in council and to be paid into the public troasuiy. BARBADOS, ST. VINCENT, ST. LUCIA, 6EENADA.' In Barbados, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Grenada, and generally in the minor West In- dian colonies, there is no general naturalization law, but special acts are required on each occasion. ■ BEEMTIDA.' In this colony the rights of aliens and the steps to be taken for obtaining naturaliza- tion are prescribed by a colonial act. No. 11 of 1857. They are similar in theu' main features to those in force in New South Wales. The time, however, within which the oath is to be tajken is extended to three calen- dar months from the date of the certificate of naturalization. The oath is to be taken before the governor, and a memorandum of the fact indorsed on the certificate, which document is to be registered in the colonial secretary's office, and then enrolled in the court of the chancery. BRITISH C0LUMBIA.1 In tliis colony the privileges of aliens are at present regulated by a proclamation, dated 14th May, 1859, and issued by the governor, under the authority of the imperial act, 21 and22 Vict., cap. 99, and of his commission. By this'^ proclamation aliens have the same capacity to hold and transmit landed and real estate of every descrixjtion as natural-born British subjects, and after a residence of three years may demand naturalization ou producing a declaration of residence and character from some British subject, on mak- ing himself a declaration of residence, and on taking the oath of allegiance. The latter declaration must be made and oath taken before a justice of the peace, who is to declare that he knows no reason why the applicant should not be naturalized. These condi- tions being fulfilled, the court of British Columbia is to record the proceedings, and the alien is then to be deemed a British subject for all purposes whatsoever while within the colony. The cost of this process is IBs. Aliens, wives of British subjects, are to be deemed to be naturalized. The naturalization may be annulled (in addition to the penalties for pequry) if any party to either of the above declarations is convicted of perjury therein. BRITISH GULANA. In this colony there is no general act for naturalization. A special ordinance is therefore passed on each occasion, authorizing the governor to issue letters-patent, granting to the alien the rights and capacities of naturalization. The letters-patent must be recorded in the registrar's office of the counties of Deme- rara and Essequibo, and within ten days from their date the alien must take and sub- scribe the oath of allegiance before a judge of the supreme court, and a certificate thereof is issued by the registrar of the court, whose certificate is to be received as sufficient evidence of the fact. These ordinances are reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure, and do not take effect until the same has been notified in the official gazette of the colony. CANADA. Naturalization act, 22 Vict., c. 8, 1859 : Section 1. "Every aUen residing in any part of this province before or since 18th January, 1849, with intent to settle therein, and who, after a continued residence of three years or upwards, has taken the oaths or affirmations of residence and allegiance, shall thenceforth enjoy and transmit all the rights and capacities which a natuial-born subject of Her Majesty can enjoy and transmit." OATH OF EBSIDENCE. Section 2. " I, A. B., do swear that I have resided three years in this proviuce with intent to settle therein, without having been, during that time, a stated resident in any foreign country. So help me God." The oath of allegiance is the same as in the English act of 1844. ' Colonization Circular, No. 27, 1868, published by tJie Emigration Commissioners. ^ Parliamentary papers on British Columbia, Part. 3, 1860. 89 Tlieso oaths are toljc takdii lioforo tlie justices of the ponce at (nuirter sesaioiis, ov lie- fore th(-. reeorilcr, and a certificate is to }w at the name time jtrodui-ed, siii-iied, if practi- caljle, liy a nia.uistrate, testilyiiig to the truth of tlie stateiueut as to resideuce. Thereupon tlie clerk of the court is to issue a certificate, statiuf.- that "under iind liy virtue of the said ac^t, the said A. B. hatli obtained all the rights and capacities of a natural horn British subject within this province." Section 7. Any woman married to a natural-horn British subject, or person natural- ized under the authority of this act, to be deemed naturalized.'and have all the rights and privileges of a British subject.' Section 10. The rights to be enjoyed under this act to be subject to the conditions and limited to the province, as provided by the act of the Imperial Parliament. There are no disabling clauses. CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.' By a proclamation issued on the 2d day of May, 1817, by the then governor-general. Lord Charles Henry Somerset, deeds of bnrghership, subject to the approbati(m of the Crown, can be granted to all foreigners and aliens of good charracter and conduct ap- plying for the same, provided they shall have resided for the last five successive years within the settlement, and upon their taking the usual oths of allegiance, and paying the usual fees for the deed of bnrghership in addition to a stamp of IHl. 15s. By an act. No. 8, of 1856, all former laws, customs, or usages inconsistent with the act are repealed, and from its promulgation (4th June, 1856,) aliens may purchase, acquire, and own fixed property in the colony, in like manner as natural-bom subjects. But beyond' this nothing in the act is to be taken as naturalizing any aliens or bestow- ing upon them any of the privileges conferred by deeds of burghership. By an act. No. 37, of 1861, the governor is empowered to grant letters of naturaliza- tion to any alien of fuU age and good character, and able to read and understand some European language, and to write his name, provided he has been resident in the colony five years, or is married to a natural-born British subject, or possesses unencum- bered landed propert.y in the colony of not less value than 300^. This act also provides that naturalization elsewhere witliin British dominion shall hold good at the Cape. The fee for these letters of naturalization is fixed at 201. HONDURAS.^ The naturalization act for this colony, 18 Vict,, cap. 18, was proclaimed 19th July, 1855. It is similar to the New South Wales act. By the 23d section immigration act, 24 Vict., cap. 5, passed in 1861, every immigrant born out of the British dominions who shall have obtained or become entitled to a certificate of industrial residence, shall immediately thereafter become entitled to all such privileges as are conferred by the act 18 Vict., cap. 18, on naturalized aliens, except the capability to become a mem- ber of assembly, which privilege, however, may be allowed by the superintendent. HONG-KONG.' By the colonial ordinance, No. 2, of 1853, passed on the 17th November of that year aliens, though not naturalized, may acquire and dispose of real estate within the colony as effectually as natural-bom subjects. The ordinance confers no other rights on aliens. JAMAICA.^ The governor may by instrument under the broad seal make any alien or foreigner coming to settle and plant in the island, having first taken the oath of allegiance, to be completely naturalized, and the persons named to enjoy the same immunities and rights to the laws of this island as natural-bom subjects. The statute 13 Geo. II, c. 7, naturalizing foreign Protestants and others settling in the colonies, to be in full force and operation. The alien disabled from being a member of the council or assembly. The provisions, &c., as to the rights of aliens, enacted by the English act of 1844, made applicable to Jamaica by 14 Vict., c. 40., 1851. By another act, 32 Vict., cap. 1. (Nov., 1858,)^ every "immigrant" born out of the British dominions, who may obtain or become entitled to a " certificate of industrial > Tills clause, which is the same as the 16th section of the English act, is repeated in all the colonial acts. 2 Colonization Circular, 1868. ^ Digest of laws of Jamaica, by the attorney-general of Jamaica, Ed. 1865, p. 5. 12 SD 90 residence" underthe art, thercl)y boeomos entitled to all the privileges of a natural- lidiu snl>.iuet witliiu the island. An iniinigi-ant is defined to lie any person introdiited •iit the public expense froju certain specified plaeiss. NATAL.' Under the law No. 1, of 1860, the lieutenant-governor is authorized and empowered to grant, under the public seal of the colony, letters of naturalization to any alien who shall have attained the full age of 21 years, and who shall be able to read and understand one or more of the languages of Europe, and to write his name, and shall have presented to the said governor a memorial praying to be naturalized ; and every sneh alien, prior to obtaining such letters of naturalization, shall pay into the treasury of the colony a svim of five pounds sterling. No alien sliall (except as in the next succeeding section is excepted) be capable of receiving letters of naturalization unless he sh.iTl have been a resident within the colony during the five years immediately preceding the presentation of his memorial praying to be naturalized. Any alien who shall be married to a natural-bom subject of Her Majesty the Queen, or wiio, being married to an alien, shall have had by his said wife, during their mar- riage and residence within the colony, not less than three children, and any alien who shall be the owner of landed property within the colony, and registered in his name, of not less a value than 300/., over and above all special conventional mortgages affect- ing the same, shall be capable of obtaining letters of naturalization, although he shall not have resided in the colony for five years. No letters of naturalization shall be granted to any alien who is an uncertificated insolvent, or of unsovmd mind, or has been convicted and sentenced for treason, mur- der, rape, theft, fraud, peijury, forgery, or any other infamous crime. A^Tien such letters of naturalization shall have been obtained by any alien he shall be bound to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Any alien woman already married or who shall be hereafter married to a natural- born subject or person naturalized under this or any other law, shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturalized. All minor children, alien born, of any alien parent, who shall himself or herself be naturalized under this or any other law, and which children shall be within the colony at the time of the naturalization of their parent, shall be themselves naturalized ipso facto by such naturalization. NEW BEUNSWICK.' The colonial act, 24 Vict., c. 24, April 1861, required one year's residence and an oath of allegiance. By the Dominion Consolidation' act, however, (cap. 66, 1868,) the pro- cess of naturalization in New Brunswick has been assimilated to that previously in force in Canada. (See Canada.) NEWFOUNDLAND. By a colonial act, 19 Vict., cap. 20, passed on the 12th May, 1856, the governor may, by letters-patent under the great seal of the colony, naturalize any alien resident therein. Within ten days thereafter the alien must take and subscribe in duplicate, before a judge of the supreme court, the oath of allegiance, one copy of which is to be filed in the registry of the court, and the other in the office of the government secretary. The alien is then entitled to all the privileges and subject to all the liabilities of a natural- born subject. The judge shall, if required, certify on the letters of naturalization that the oath has been taken, which certificate shall be evidence of its contents. NEW SOUTH WALES.3 (11 Vict., No. 39, 1848.) The same as the English act of 1844, mutatis mutandis. The governor to grant the certificates. Section 4 disables from being a member of the executive or legislative councils. The rights and capacities conferred by the certificate limited to "within the said colony." ' I Colonization Circular, 1868. ' Dominion act c. 66, 1868. ^ Callagham's Statutes of U"ew South "Wales, vol. ii, p. 1830. 91 Natiiralizecl alious who sha have resided in the colony for three years, being other- wise qualified, are entitled to vote at elections, and, after five years' residence, to he elected uiomhers of the assembly. NEW ZEALAND.' The colonial act (30 Vict. No. 17, 1866) is the same as the English act, mutatis nmtan- dis, with the following additional iirovisious : Persons resident in the colony who have been naturalized in the TJniti'd Kingdom, or in any British colony on the continents of Australia, (including Tasmania,) Africn., or America, niay, if the governor thinks fit, be naturalized in New Zealand on exhibit- ing the certificate of naturalization and stating in their memoiials that such certificate has been obtained without fraud or intentional false statement, and that the signature and seal, if any, thereto are genuine. The colonial secretary is to enroll all letters of naturalization and a certified copy of every such certificate, and shall be entitled to a fee of 11. from every person to whom the letters are granted, and shall cause indices to be made to such letters and certifi- cates, which shall be open for inspection or copying on payment of a fee of 1.9. for each inspection. The penalty for false statements in the memorial is the avoidance of the letters of naturalization (except against hona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration) in addi- tion to the penalties of perjury. All pre-existing rights are saved, whether of aliens or natural-born subjects. NOVA SC0TIA.2 After one year's residence, and on taking the oath of allegiance, the alien was enti- tled to all the rights and privileges of a British subject witMn the province, under the colonial act of 1858, (Title 8, c. 43.) By the Dominion act, however, (c. 66, 1868,) the Canadian naturalization law was extended to Nova Scotia. (See Canada.) PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.' (Naturalization law, April 17, 1862.) After seven years' residence, and on taking the following oath, the alien is entitled to "all the privileges of a natural-born subject of Her Majesty :" OATH. "I, A. B., of , do swear that I have resided seven years in this island, without having during that time been a stated resident in any foreign country, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland, and of this island as dependent thereon. So help me God." It is somewhat remarkable that the period of seven years required by the act of Geo. 2, and which the Americans complained against as excessive in the Declaration of Independence, should bo purposely retained to this day in Prince Edward Island. QUEENSLAND." A colonial act passed in 1867 contains the same clauses as the English act with re- gard to the i)Ossession of leasehold property by aliens and the rights of aliens descended n-om British mothers, with the following additional provisions : 1. Any alien, native of a friendly European or Noi-th American state, can become naturalized on taking an oath of allegiance. 2. No Asiatic or African alien to be naturalized unless he has resided in the colonies for three years, and is married, and his wife resident in the colonies at the time of his naturalization . Asiatic and African aliens only to be naturalized on obtaining a certificate from the governor, subject to such reservations as he may thing fit to insert in such certificate. Such aliens disqualified from being members of the executive or legislative council, or legislative assembly. ' Colonization Circular, 1868. 'Eevised Statutes of Nova Scotia, Snd series, p. 153. 'Laws of Prince Edward Island, vol. ii. p. 567. * Queensland Act, 31 Vict., December 28 1867. 92 OATH OF ALLEGIANCIC. " I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and hear true alle- giance to her Majesty Queen Victoria as lawful sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the colony of Queinshuid, dependent and belonging to the said United Kingdom, and that I will defend her to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made agaist her person, crown, and dignity; and that I will do my utmost endeavor to make known to her MajcBty, her heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspira- cies and attempts which I shall know to be against lier or any of themN So help me God." The fees under this act are remarkably small, viz: oath. Is.; filing record, Is.; cer- tificate, 2s. 6d.; so that any wliite alien can be naturalized for 4s. 6d. ST. KITTS AND ANGUILA.' By a local act. No. 127, passed on the 3d February, 1857, all domiciled or resident liberated Africans are to be deemed to be natural-bom subjects, and capable of holding and conveying real and personal estate. The children, wherever born, of a mother a natural-born subject are made capable of taking real or personal estate by purchase or descent; and wives of natural-born or naturalized subjects are to be deemed to be naturalized. Aliens, subjects of a friendly state, may acquire and hold eithei real or personal estate as effectually as natural-born subjects, but they are not thereby made capable of becoming members of the council or of the assembly, nor of voting at the election of members of the assembly. SIERRA LEONE. I By the imperial act, 16 and 17 Vict., cap. 86, (20 Aug., 1853,) liberated Africans domi- ciled or resident in Sierra Leone are to be deemed within the colony to be natural-bom subjects as from the date of their arrival, and to be capable of holding and transmit- ting any estate, real or personal, within the colony. Power is given to the local legis- lature to alter or repeal any of the provisions of the act so far as they relate to the right to real property. Liberated Africans are also to be considered as British subjects for the purposes of treaties with native chiefs. SOUTH AUSTRALIA.' By the colonial amending and consolidating act. No. 5, of 1864, every person bom of a mother who is a natural-born or naturalized subject is capable of holding real or personal estate. Friendly aliens may hold every description of property whether real or personal. A certificate of naturalization may be applied for by any alien, and upon receipt of such application, countersigned by a justice of the peace, the governor, if he think fit, shall direct the applicant to take the oath of allegiance before one of the judges of the superior court, and, on such oath being taken, he shall issue letters of naturaliza- tion. The fee for obtaining the certificate in duplicate is 11. Is. The effect of this certificate is to vest all the rights and privileges of a natural-bom British subject in such naturalized alien. A subsequent act, 23 and 24 Vict., No. 20, provides that aliens who obtain certificates of naturalization in any British colony or possession may obtain the privileges of natur- alization in South Australia on lodging with the registrar-general of the colony their original certificates of naturalization together with a true cojiy thereof. The original is then returned with an indorsement that the alien had made the declaration and taken the oath of allegiance prescribed by the act. The fee for this process is fixed at 10s. Gd. TASMANIA.! By a colonial act, 25 Vict., No. 2, passed in November, 1861, repealing 5 Will. 4, No. 4, the governor in council is empowered, on the presentation of a memorial, stating par- ticulars, to issue a certificate granting all the rights and capacities of a natural-bom British subject within the colony, such certificate to be eiu^olled in the supreme court, and an oath of allegiance to be taken before a judge or commissioner of the supreme ' Colonization Circular, 1868. 93 court, (within GO diiys fioiii tlio date of tlie cc'rtiii(.'nte,) wlio will graut a ccrtilicate of tlic taking and subscribing the oath. The cost of the whole process is 6s. TEINIDAD.' In this island a special ordinance of naturalization is required on each occasion, to o-btain which the alien must present a petition to the governor. When the ordinance has been passed, and the aUen has taken the oath of allegiance before the governor, he becomes entitled, within the limits of the colony, lo all the privileges of a natural-born subject. The taking of the oath is to be immediately certified by the governor, and the cer- tificate is to be recorded in the registrar-general's office. These ordinances are reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure, and do not take efiect until it has been signified. TUEK'S ISLAND AND CAICOS ISLAND.' By the colonial act. No. 1, Vict., c. 4, passed 22d March, 1848, aliens become natural- ized upon taking the oath of allegiance and obtaining a certificate from the president in council, under the great seal of the colony, that the oath has been taken. The cer- tificate is obtainable on presentation to the president of a memorial setting forth the grounds on which the privileges of naturalization are sought, and when obtained it must be recorded in the ofiice of the public secretary and registrar of records. The fees are to be regulated by the president in council. By ordinance No. 8, of 1857, (passed 17th October, 1857, and confirmed 13th February, 1858,) aliens may hold lands, salt ponds, &c., (except salt ponds at Turk's Island,) on lease not exceeding 21 years, which lease may be renewed at the end of the term. VICTORIA.! The colonial act, 28 Vict., No. 256, which came into operation on the 1st of Juue, 1865, and is called "The Alien's Statute, 1865," repeals the previous acts, 24 Vict., No. 112, and 26 Vict., No. 166. It provides that alien friends resident in the colony may inherit, acquire, hold, and dispose of every description of property, whether real or personal, in the same manner as natural-born subjects of the Crown ; and all disposi- tions made before the passing of tills act to or by such aliens are declared to be valid. The governor may, if he thinks fit, grant under the seal of the colony letters of natur- alization to resident alien friends, provided they be of good repute and take the oath of allegiance to the British Crown. But they are rendered incapable of being members of the legislative council and the legislative assembly. To obtain naturalization, the alien is to present a memorial to the governor, signed by himself, and verified on oath, stating his name, age, birthplace, occupation, length of his residence in the colony, and his desire to settle therein. The memorial must be accompanied by a certificate, signed by a warden, police magistrate, or justice of the peace, that the applicant is known to him, and is a person of good repute. If the application be favorably entertained, the alien must take the oath of allegiance before a judge of the supreme court, or of a county court, or court of mines, or police magistrate, and, on production of a certificate from the judge or magistrate to that efl:'ect, the governor in council issues the letters of naturalization ; they, and a certified copy of the certificate, are then to be recorded by the chief secretary, for which a fee of 11. is to be paid. The penalty for false statements in the memorial is the avoidaucc of the letters of naturalization (except against juirchasers for valuable considerations) superadded ta the X'cnalties of perjury. The alien wives of natural-born or naturalized subjects are to be deemed naturalized. Persons resident in Victoria who have been naturalized in the United Kingdom, or in any British colony in Australia, (including Tasmania and New Zealand,) Africa, or America, may, if the governor thinks fit, be natuialized in Victoria on exhibiting the certificate of naturalization, and stating in their memorials that such certificate has been obtained without fraud or intentional false statement, and that the signature and seal, if any thereto, are, to the best of their belief, genuine. WESTERN AUSTRALIA.! Aliens can become naturalized by local ordiiiaiioe, which is introduced on their own application, and on payment of 61. for expenses of preparing the bill. The ordinance does not become law until it has received the confirmation of the Crown. 1 Colonization Circular, ISfiS. 94 Naturalized aliens may hold lands and enjoy all the rights within the colony of a natural-bom subject, except the right of holding any place or office of trust in the courts of law or connected with the treasury. PART II.— LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. [For the summaries of the laws and discussions on this subject tvhioh were in the appendix to the Commissioner's Report it has been thought best to substitute the statutes themselves; an explanation of the provisions of the various treaties with other powers ; and a copy of theinstructions to consuls on the subject of protection and passports.] A. — Report of the Examiner of Claims upon the provisions of the statutes and Constitution respecting naturalization and expatriation. BuBEAu OF Claims, November 4, "1873. Sir : In this compilation of the laws on the subject of naturalization and expatriation all acts and parts of acts which have been repealed, or that ha%'e become obsolete either by time or by the circumstances which gave rise to their enactment, having ceased to exist, are omitted. The last two provisos of Section I, act of 14th of April, 1802, are ob- solete, and section II is repealed by the first section of act of May 24, 1828, which latter act is also omitted as obsolete. The act of March 22, 1816, is omitted, the first section being repealed by section I of act of May 24, 1828, and the second section being obsolete. Section XIII of the act of March 3, 1813, providing penalty for forg- ing certificates of naturalization, is omitted, as being repealed by im- plication by the act of July 14, 1870. HENEY O'CONNOE. Hon. Hamilton Pish, Secretary of State. NATURALIZATION LAWS. AN ACT to eatablisli an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject. Be it enacted by the Senate and Mouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress asstmhled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise : First. That he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, supe- rior, district, or circuit court of some one of the States or of the territorial districts of the United States, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, tona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citi- zen or subject. Secondly. That he shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath or affirmation, before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he will support the Consti- tution of the United States, and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof lie was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clert of the court. Thirdly. That the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and withui the State or Territory where 95 such oourt is at. the time held, one ycnr ,it least; ani\ it shall fnrthor appear to their sutisfai'tiou, that iluriiig that time he lias lichaved as a, man of a good iiioval elunaetei-, attached to the principles ot the Oon.stitntion of the (Inited States, antl well-disposed to till' good order and luippiness of the same: I'rorUlcil, 'rhat the oath of the applicant shall in no case he allowed to prove his residence. Fourthly. That in case the alien applying to he admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from -which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to -which his application shall be made; -^vhich renunciation shall be recorded in the said court: Froridecl, That no alien who shall be a native citizen, denizen, or subject of any country, state, or sover- eign with whom the United States shall be at war at the time of his application, shall be then admitted to be a citizen of the United States. Sec. 3. And whereas doubts have arisen whether certain courts of record in some of the States are included within the description of district or circuit courts: Be it fur- ther enacted, That every court of record in any individual State having common law jurisdiction, and a seal and clerk or prothonotary, shall be considered as a district court within the meaning of this act ; and every alien who may have been naturalized in any such court shall enjoy, from and after the passing of the act, the same rights and privi- leges as if he had been naturalized in a district or circuit court of the United States. Sec. 4. And he it farther enacted, That the children fif persons diily naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States ; and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States : Provided, That the light of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States : Prorided kiUo, That no person heretofore proscribed by any State, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legimature of the State in which such person was proscribed. Sec. 5. Jnd be it further enacted, That all acts heretofore passed respecting naturaliza- tion be, and the same are hereby, repealed. Approved April 14, 1802. AN ACT in addition to an act entitled "An act to eatablisli an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject." Sec. 2. And te it further enacted, That when any alien who shall have complied with the first condition specified in the first section of the said original act, and who shall have pursvied the directions prescribed in the second section of the said act, may die before he is actually naturalized, the widow and the children of such alien shall be considered as citizens of the United States, and shall be entitled to all rights and privi- ^.eges as such, upon taking the oaths prescribed by law. Approved March 26, 1804. AN ACT for the regulation of seamen on hoard the public and private vessels of the United States. Sec. 12. And he it further enacted, That no person who shall arrive in the United States from and after the time when this act shall take effect, shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, who shall not for the continued term of live years next pre- ceding his admission as aforesaid have i-esided within the United States, without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the United States. Approved March 3, 1813. AN ACT in further addition to "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject." Be it enacted Try the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, and a minor, under the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in the United States three years next pre- ceding his arriving at the age of twenty-one years, and who shall have continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he shall have resided 96 five yi'iirs witliin the Unitod States, iuehirliiig the three, years of his minority, he ad- mitted 11 citizen of tli(! United .States without having made tlie declaration required in tlie first iMiudition of tlie first seetioii of tlie act to "which this is an addition, three years prc.vie it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly use any certifi- cate of naturalization heretofore granted by any coiirt, or which shall hereafter be granted, which has been, or shall he, procured through fraud or by false evidence ,or 13 SD 98 has been or k1i;i11 be issnerl liy tlio i;itions of other Stiites was assailed. It was contended that the statute in this particular was in conflict with the clause of the Constitution which declares that " the citizens of each State shall bo entitled to all pi-ivileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." But the court answered, that corporations were not ('itizens within the meaning of this clause ; that the term citizens as there used applied only to natural persons, members of the body politic owing allegiance to the State, not to arti- ficial persons created by the legislature and possessing only the attributes which the legislature Jiad prescribed ; that though it had been held that where contracts or rights of property were to be enforced by or against corporations the courts of the United States would, for the purpose of maintaining jurisdiction, consider the corporation as representing citizens of the State, under the laws of which it was created,, and to this extent would treat a corporation as a citizen within the provision of the Constitution extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies between citizens of different States, it had never been held in any case which had come under its observa tion, either in the State or Federal courts, that a corporation was a citizen within the meaning of the clause in question, entitling the citizens of each State to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. And the court observed, that the privileges and immunities secured by that provision were those privileges and immu- nities which were common to the citizens in the latter States, under their constitu- tion and laws, by virtue of their being citizens ; that special privileges enjoyed by citi- zens in their own States were not secured in other States by the provision ; that it was not intended by it to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States ; that they could have no such operation except by the permission, express or implied, of those States ; and that the special privileges which they conferred must, therefore, be enjoyed at home unless the assent of other States to their enjoyment therein were given. And so the court held, that a corporation, being a grant of special privileges to the corporators, had no legal existence beyond the limits of the sovereignty where created, and that the recognition of its existence by other States, and the enforcement of its contracts made therein, depended purely upon the assent of those States, which coiild be granted upon such terms and conditions as those States might think proper to impose. The whole purport of the decision was, that citizens of one State do not carry with them into other States any special privileges or immunities, conferred by the laws of their own State, of a corporate or other character. That decision has no pertinency to the qnestions involved in this case. The common privileges and immunities which of right belong to all citizens stand on a very different footing. These the citizens of each State do carry with them into other States, and axe secured there by the clause in question in the enjoyment of such privileges and immunities upon terms of equality with citizens of the latter States. This equality in one particular was enforced by this court in the i-ecent case of Ward vs. The State of Maryland, reported in the 12th of Wallace. A statute of that State required the payment of a larger sum from a non- resident trader for a license to enable him to sell his merchandise in the State than it did of a resident trader, and the court held that the statute in thu.s discriminating against the non-resident trader contravened the clause securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and imnnmities of citizens of the several States. The pijvilege of disposing of his jjroperty, which was au essential incident to his ownership, possessed by the non-resident, was subjected by the statute of Maryland to a greater burden than was imposed ui)on a like privilege of her own citizens. The privileges of the non-resi- dent were in this iiarticular abridged by that legislation. What the clause in question did for the protection of the citizens of one State against hostile and discriminating legislation of other States the fourteenth amendment does for the protection of every citizen of the United States against hostile and discriminat- ing legislation against him in favor of others, whether they reside in the same or dif- ferent States. If under the fourth article of the Constitution equality of privileges and immunities is secured between citizens of different States, under the fourteenth amend- ment the same equality is secured between citizens of the United States. Mr. Justice Bradley dissenting : Can the Federal courts administer relief to citizens of the United States whose privileges and immunities have been abridged by a State? Of this I entertain no doubt. Prior to the fourteenth amendment this could not be done, except in a few instances, for the want of the requisite authority. As the great mass of citizens of the United States were .also citizens of individual States, many of their general privileges and immunities would be the same in the one capacity as in the other. Having this double citizenship, and the great body of muni- cipal laws intended for the protection of person and property being the laws of the Statis, and no provision being made, and no machinery provided by the Constitution, 105 nxeopt in a few spocitied cases, lor any interference by the General Govcrniiiout lie- tweou u, State and ItM citizens, the protection of tlie citizen in tlic eujoynienf of liiw fiiudameutal prixileges and iunuuuities (except "wliere a citizen of one State went into anotlier State) was largely left to State laws and State coui-ts, where they will still eontiune to be left nnless actually invaded by the unconstitutional acts or dclinqiiency of the State governments themselves. > Admitting, therefore, that formerly the States were not prohibited from infringing any of the fundamental privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, except in a few specified cases, that cannot be said nov,-, since tlie adoption of the fourteenth amendment. In my judgment it was the intention of the people of this country in adojiting that amendment to provide national security against violation by the States of the fundamental rights of the citizen. The first section of this amendment, after declaring that all persons born or natural- ized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, proceeds to declare further, that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi- zens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ; " and that Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Now, here is a clear prohibition on the States against making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If miy view^s are correct with regard to what are the privileges and immunities of citizens, it follows conclusively that any law which establishes a sheer monopoly, de- priving a large claas of citizens of the privilege of pursuing a lawful employment, does abridge the privileges of those citizens. The amendment also prohibits any State from depriving any person ( citizen or other- wise ) of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In my view, a law which ijrohibits a large class of citizens from adopting a lawful employment, or from following a lawful employment previously adopted, does deprive them of libi'rty as well as property, without due j)rocess of law. The right of choice is a portion of their liberty ; their occupation is their property. Such a law also de- prives those citizens of the equal protection of the laws, Kioutrary to the last clause of the section. The constitutional question is distinctly raised in these cases ; the constitutional right is expressly claimed ; it was violated by State law, which was sustained by the State court, and we are called upon in a legitimate and proper way to aSbrd redress. Our jurisdiction and our duty are plain and imperative. It is futile to argue that none but persons of the African race are intended to be benefited by this amendment. They may have been the primary cause of the amend- ment, but its langnageas general, embracing all citizens, and I think it was purposely so expressed. The mischief to be remedied was not merely slavery and its incidents and conse- quences; but that spirit of insubordination and disloyalty to the National Government which hsid troubled the country for so many years in some of the States, and that intol- erance of free speech and free discussion which often rendered life and property inse- cure, and led to much unequal legislation. The amendment was an attempt to give voice to flio strong national yearning for that time, and that condition of things, in which American citizenship should be a sure guarantee of safety, and in which every citizen of the United States might stand erect in every portion of its soil, in the full enjoyment of every right and privilege belonging to a freeman, without fear of vio- lence or molestation. But great fears are expressed that this construction of the amendment will lead to enactments by Congress interfering with the internal aifeirs of the States, and estab- lishing therein civil and criminal codes of law for the government of the citizens, and thus abolishing the State governments in everything but name; or else that it will lead the Federal courts to draw to their cognizance the supervision of State tribunals on every subject of judicial inquiry, on the plea of ascertaining whether the privileges and immunities of citizens have not been abridged. In my judgment no such practical inconveniences would arise. Very little, if any, legislation on the part of Congress would be required to cany the amendment into effect. Like the prohibition against passing a law impairing tlie obligation of a con- tract, it would execute itself. The point ^^'Ould be regularly raised in a suit at law, and settled by final reference to the Federal court. As the privileges and immunities protected are only those fundamental ones which belong to every citizen, they would soon become so far defined as to cause but a slight accumulation of business in the Federal courts. Besides, the recognized existence of the law would prevent its fre- quent violation. But even if the business of the national courts should be increased, Congress could easily supply the remedy by increasing their number and eificienoy. The great question is, what is the true construction of the amendment? When onc^ 14 gp 106 wo liml tliiif, we shall tliid Mic means of giviiifj; it cffoct. The ar^iiiiii'iit from incoii- vciiieiiec (m,i;ht not to havo a very controlling intlneiicc in questions of this sort. The nntional will anil natiomil interest are of far greater imi)ortan(<'. In my opinion the judgment of the supreme court of Louisiana ought to lie i-e- versed. C. — Extract from the analytical index to the " Treaties and Conventions of the United States with other PoiversP Naturalization : citizens of one nationality are to be deemed and taken to have become citizens of the other, who during a continuous residence of five years in the territories of the other have become naturalized there — Austria, Sweden and Norway ; who have resided uninterruptedly there five years, and before, diu-ing, or after that time, have become or shall become naturalized — Baden ; who have become or shall be- come naturalized, and shall have resided there niunterruptedly five years — Bava- lia, Hesse, Mexico, North Germany; as explained in the protocol — Wiirtemberg ; who may or shall have been naturalized there — Belgium, Denmark ; who have be- come or shall become naturalized — Great Britain. the declaration of intention to become a citizen has not the effect of citizenship — Austria, Baden, Bavaria^ Hesse, Mexico, North Germany, Sweden, and Norway, Wiirtemberg. naturalized citizens are liable on return to their original country to be tried and pun- ished for offenses committed before emigration, subject to the limitations estab- lished by law — Austria, Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Hesse, Mexico, North Germany, Sweden and Norway, Wiirtemberg; but not for emigration itself — Bavaria, Sweden and Norway. when a naturalized citizen remains liable to trial and punishment for violation of laws of his old country relative to military duty — ^Austria, Baden, Belgium, Swe- den and Norway. a naturalized citizen may renounce his acquired citizenship- — Austria, Baden, Bava- ria, Hesse, Mexico, North Germany, Sweden and Norway, Wiirtemberg ; but this re- nunciation does not entitle him to recover his former citizenship without the con- sent of the government — Bavaria. a return of the naturalized citizen to his original country is not of itself a renunciation — Austria, Baden. no fixed period of residence in his original country works of itself a renunciation — Austria, Baden. a residence in the old country without intent to return works a renunciation — Ba- varia, Denmark, Hesse, Mexico, North Germany, Sweden and Norway, Wiii'tem- berg. the intent not to return may be held to exist when the residence is for more than two years — Bavaria, Denmark, Hesse, Mexico, North .Germany, Sweden and Nor- way, Wiirtemberg ; but that presumption may be rebutted by evidence — Mexico. naturalized citizens may re-acquire their lost citizenship in the old country in the manner provided by law — Belgium, Denmark ; in the manner and on the condi- tions prescribed by the old government — Great Britain, Sweden and Norway. provisions concerning citizenship of inhabitants of territories annexed to the United States — France, Spain, Mexico, Russia. D. — Extract from the Regulations for the Consular Service. Akticlb XI. — Passports and protection of citizens of the United States. 102. Passports are to be issued only to citizens of the United States. To issue a pass- port to a person not a citizen is a penal offense, punishable, on conviction, by imprison- ment not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding |500, or both. Persons loho liave merely declared their intention to become citizens are not citizens of the United States tvithin the meaning of tile law. 103. Passports can be issued only at this Department, or by the chief diplomatic rep- resentative of the United States at a legation ; or, in the absence of such a representar tive from the country, then by the consul-general, if there be one, or, in the absence of both of the officers last named, by a consul, (Form 9.) 107 104. Passports aro to be verified only by the consular officer of tlie place where it is required, for which, a fee of one dollar in the gold coin of the United States, or its equivalent, will be collected. In the absence of such consular officer the visa may be given by the principal diplomatic representative : in which case there will be no fee. (See Form 10.) 105. At the close of each qviarter, returns are to be made to this Department, in the manner heretofore prescribed, of the names, and all other particulais, of the persons to whom the passports shall be granted, issued, or verified, as embraced in such passports, together with the amount of the taxes or fees collected for the same, which taxes or fees will be charged on the books of the Treasury to the person receiving the same, and will be brought to the credit of the United States in the adjustment of his quarterly accounts. 108. The rules and jiractice on this subject hitherto prevailing in the Department •\rill remain unchanged. In the legations and consulates of the United States the best evidence of the citizenship of the applicant will be the production of a passport from this Department, coupled with proof that the person in whose behalf it is presented is the person named in the passport. In the absence of such evidence the a])plicant wiU make a written declaration stating his name, place of birth, age, and such other facts as shall be required. He shall also furnish such proof of his identity as shall be required by the minister or consul; and if a naturalized citizen, he shall also fumiBli the original, or a certified copy of the decree of the court by which he was declared to be a citizen ; and it shall be the duty of the minister or consul, at the close of each quarter, to trans- mit to the Department a statement of the evidence on which all such'passports were issued or granted. 107. When the applicant is accompanied by his wife, minor child, or servants, it will be .sufficient to state in the passport the names of such persons, and their relationship, to or connection with him. A separate passjjort must be issued for each person of full age, not the wife or servant of another, with whom he or she is traveling. 108. No visa will be attrached to a passport after a year from its date. A new pass- port may, however, bo issued in its jplaoe by the x)roper authority, as hereinbefore pro- vided, if desired by the holder. 109. Applications have sometimes been made to the diplomatic and consular agents of the Government for the issue of certificates of citizenship to persons residing in for- eign lands and claiming to be American citizens. Hereafter no certificates will be issued, except in the form of passports under the regulations herein prescribed, unless a diiferent form be prescribed by the laws of the country in which the agency or consul- ate is situated; in which case the agent or consul will transmit to the Department a copy of the prescribed form. And inasmuch as such evidence of citizenship may be claimed as jivhna facie evidence of the right of the holder to be protected by the power of the Government of the United States, so long as he conducts himself peaceably and obeys the laws of the foreign state in which he resides, therefore, to protect the dignity of such citizenship, and to guard against fraudulent assumption of it, consuls and ministers will be strict in the observance of the rules he'rein laid down, and will exercise due caution in issuing passports to applicants. And when their intervention is invoked on behalf of citizens of the United States residing in foreign countries, they will be careful to remember that it is as incumbent on such persons, as it is upon the citizens or subjects of such foreign counti'ies, to observe the laws of the country in whicli they reside. 110. The official action of the representatives of the United States may also be asked in foreign lands in favor of natives thereof who have been naturalized in the United States. Should passports or other protection be asked for by persons, it will be the duty of the officer to satisfy himself that they have done nothing to forfeit their acquired rights. For a naturalized citizen may, by returning to his native country and residing there with an evident intent to remain, or by accejiting offices Hiere in- consistent with his adopted citizenship, or by concealing for a lengtli of time the fact of his naturalization, and passing himself as a citizen or subject of liis native country until occasion may make it his interest to ask the intervention of the country of his adoption, or in other ways which may show an intent to abandon his acquired rights, sofarresumehisoriginal allegiance as to absolve the government of his adopted country from the obligation to protect him as a citizen while he remains in his native land. 111. Cautious scrutiny is enjoined in such cases, because evidence has been accumu- lating in this Department for some years that many aliens seek naturalization in the United States without any design of subjecting themselves by permanent residence to the duties and burdens of citizenship, and solely for the purpose of retumijig to their native country and fixing their domicile and pursuing business therein, relying on such naturalization to evade the obligations of citizenship to the country of their native allegiance and actual habitation. To allow such pretensions would be to tolerate a fraud upon both the governments, enabling a man to enjoy the advantages of two nationalities and to escape the duties and burdens of each. 112. If the consul is satisfied that an applicant for protection has a right to his in- 108 tervcntiou, he should interest himself in his behalf, examining larofully into his grievances. If he finds that the complaints are well founded, he should interpose firndy, but with courtesy and moderation, in his behalf. 113. If redress cannot be obtained from the local authorities the consul will apply to the legation of the United States, if there be one in the country where he resides, and will, in all cases, transmit to the Department copies of his correspondence, accom- panied by a report. 114. The United States have treaties with several powers regulating the rights of naturalized citizens of the United States ou their return to their native lands. The ])i(itection which the passport gives is regulated in each such case by the terms of the treaty. Copies of those several treaties are given in Appendix 2. 115. It is provided by the laws of 1855 (10 Statutes at Large, p. 604) that persons bom out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and con- sidered to be citizens of the United States, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States. Within the soA'ereignty and jurisdiction of the United States such persons are entitled to all the privileges of citizens ; but, while the United States may by law fix or declare the con- ditions constituting citizens of the country within its own territorial jurisdiction, and may confer the rights of American citizens every where upon persons who are not right- fully subject to the authority of any foreign country or government, it ought not, by undertaking to confer the rights of citizenship upon the subject of a foreign nation who had not come within our territory, to interfere with the just rights of such nation tn the government and control of its own subjects. If, by the laws of the country of their birth, children of American citizens born in such a country are subjects of its government, the legislation of the United States will not be construed so as to inter- fere with the allegiance which they owe to the country of their birth while they con- tinue within its territory. If, therefore, such a person, who remains a resident in the country of his or her birth, applies for a passport as a citizen of the United States, such passport will be issued in the qualified form shown in Form No. 11. 116. The same law of 1855 further provides that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen. The recognition of this citizenship will be subject to the qualification above referred to. 117. Passports should be numbered, commencing with No. 1, and so continuing con- secutively until the end of the incumbent's term of office. PAET III.— LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. FRANCE. [Translation.] The provisions of the Code NapoliSon,' March 8, 1803, are as follo^Ys : Chaptek I. — On the enjoyment of civil rights. 7. The exercise of civil rights is independent of the quality of a citizen, which is ac- quired and retained only in conformity to constitutional law. 8. Every Frenchman shall enjoy civil rights. 9. Every individual bom in France of an alien may, within a year following the time when he shall have attained his majority, claim the quality of a Frenchman, pro- vided that, in case he reside in France, he declares that it is his intention to fix his domicile there, and in case he reside in a foreign country he makes a declaration that he viiU take up his residence in France, and that he wUl establish himself there within a year, counting from the act of this declaration. 10. Every child of a French citizen bom in a foreign country is French. Every child of French parents born abroad, whose father shall have lost his French oitizen- sliip, may recover this citizenship by fulfilling the formalities prescribed in article 9. 11. An alien shall enjoy in France the same civil rights as those accorded to the French by the treaties of the nation to which this alien shall belong. 12. An alien woman who shall have married a Frenchman shall follow the condition of her husband. 13. An aheu who shall have permission by authority of the King to establish his 'Code Napoleon, "Code Civil," liv. i, o. 7. 109 domicile in France sliall enjoy all civil riglits as long as lie sliiill continue to reside thoiein. 14. Analien eVcn not residing in France may be cited before Frencb courts for the execution of obligations contracted by liim in France with a Frenchman ; he may be arraigned before the tribunals of France for obligations contracted by him in a foreign country with Frenchmen. 15. A Frenchman may be axraig-ned before a court of France for obligations con- tracted by him in a foreign country, even with an alien. 16. In all affairs other than those of commerce the alien who shall be the plaintiif' shall be obliged to give bail for the payment of the costs and damages resulting from the process, at least when he does not ijossess real estate in France of a sufficient value to insure this payment. Chapter II. — On ths forfeiture of civil nglits. SECTloisrI. On the forfeiture of civil rights by the loss of French citizenship. 17. French citizenship shall bis lost, first, by naturalization in a foreign country second, by the acceptance, without the authorization of the King, of a public office conferred by a foreign government ; third, and finally, by any cstaldishmcn't in a for- eign country without intent to return. Commercial estalilishments can never be con- sidered as having been made without intent to return. 18. A native of France who shall have lost his citizenshiii may always recover it on re-entering France A\ith the authorization of the King, and on declaring that he wishes to remain there, and that he" renounces all distinction contrary to French law. 19. A French woman who shall marry an alien shall follow the condition of her husband. If she become a widow she shall recover her quality of a French citizen pro- vided that she reside in France, or that she retm-n there with the authorization of the King, and on declaring that she wishes to establish herself there. 20. Individuals who shall regain the quality of French citizens in the cases provided for by articles 10, 18, and 19, shall not profit by it until they shall have fulfilled the conditions" imposed on them by these articles, and only for the exercise of the rights opened for their benefit since this epoque. 21. The French citizen who, without the authorization of the King, shall enter a for- eign military service, or who shall affiliate himself with a foreign military corporation, shall lose his French citizenship. He can re-enter France only by the permission of the King, and recover French citizenship only by fulfilling the conditions imposed on a foreigner about to become a citizen — all without prejudice to the pvmishmeut pro- nounced by criminal law against Frenchmen who have borne or shall bear arms against their country. NATURALIZATION OF FEENCHMBN ABEOAD. An imperial decree of 1811 imposes severe penalties upon Frenchmen naturalized abroad ■without permission from their own government. It is a question whether this decree is still in force, but it appears to have been acted upon in 1834 ; and it is referred to in an official communication from the Ifrench gov- ^•(■rnment in 1859. At all events it has never been formally abrogated, and its existence in the French statute book must be borne in mind when the liberality of the French law in recognizing expatriation is extolled. The other disabilities mentioned in it having been abolished, the only penalty en- - acted by this decree which could now be enforced is that of the seventy-fifth article of the penal code' : " Every Frenchman who shall have borne arms against France shall be punished by death." (Imperial decree of the 26th of August, 1811.) Title I. French citizens naturalized in a foreign country with our autliorization. Article 1. No French citizen can be naturalized in a foreign country without our authorization. Art. 2. Our authorization shall be accorded by letters-patent drawn up by our chief justice, signed by our hand, countersigned by our secretary of state, indorsed by our cousin the Prince Archichancelier, inserted in the bulletin of laws, and registered in the imperial. court of the last domicile of those whom they concern. Art. 3. Frenchmen so naturalized in foreign countries shall enjoy the right of possess- ing, of transmitting property, and of succession thereto, even when the subject of the country where they shall be naturalized shall not enjoy these rights in France. Art. 4. Children of a Frenchman naturalized in a foreign country, and who are born 'les Cinq Codes "Code P6nal," liv. iii, luticle 75. no in that country, are aliens. They recover the quality of French citizens hy fulfilling the formalities presciibed by articles 9 and 10 of the Code Napoldon. Nevertheless they shall collect inheritances, and exercise all rights which shiill be o^en to their profit during their minority, and in the ten years which shall succeed the time when they shall attain their majority. Art. 5. Frenchmen naturalized in a foreign country even with our authorization shall never bear arms against France under penalty of being arraigned before our courts, and condemned to the punishment provided in the penal code, book 3, articles 75 and following. TnXB II. — Fi'ench cilizeiis naturalized in aforeitjn country without our authorization. Article 6. Any Frenchman naturalized in a foreign country without our authori- zation shall suffer the loss of his property, which shall be confiscated. He shall no longer have the right to inherit property, and any legacies which may be left to him shall pass into the hands of the person whose claim is next to his, provided that such person be a French citizen. Art. 7. It shall be proved before the court of the last domicile of the defendant, on the initiative of our " procnreur-general," or on the request of the civil party inter- ested, that the individual, having been naturalized in a foreign country without our authority, has lost his civil rights in France ; and consequently, the succession opened to his profit shall be adjudged to whomsoever hag the right thereto. Art. 8. Individuals whose naturalization in a foreign country without our authori- zation shall have been proved, as provided in ^he preceding ai'ticle, and who shall have received, directly or by transmission, titles instituted by the " senatus consultuni " of the 14th August, 1806, shall forfeit them. Art. 9. These titles, and the property thereto attached, shall devolve upon the next in law, excepting the rights of the wife, which sljall be regulated as in case of widow- hood. Art. 10. If the individuals mentioned in ai-ticle 8 shall have received any of our orders, they shall be stricken ofi from the registers and rolls, and shall be forbidden to wear the decoration. Art. 11. Those who were naturalized in a foreign country, and against whom pro- ceedings shall have taken place as provided in articles 6 and 7 preceding, if found within the territories of the empire, shall, on the first offense, be arrested and con- ducted across the frontier ; on a repetition of the offense, they shall be indicted before our courts and condemned to imprisonment for a period of not less than one year nor more than ten years. Art. 12. And no commutation or release from tjie punishment above mentioned can take place but by letters of relief granted by us in conseil priv^ as letters of pardon. Art. 13. Every individual naturalized in a foreign country without our authoriza- tion, who shall bear arms against France, shall be punished in conformity with article 75 of the penal code. The ninth article of the Code Napoleon was moclitied by a law of 1851 : " January 28-29, and February 7, 1851. (10th series, No. 2,730.) (article 9, C. N.) Law concerning individuals born in France of foreigners who themselves were born there, and the children of naturalized foreigners : "Article I. Every individual bom in France of an alien who himself was born tliere, is himself a French citizen, provided that within a year after attaining his majority, as fixed l)y French law, he does not claim the quality of a foreigner by a declaration made eitlier before the municipal authority of the place of his residence, or before the dijilomatic agents or consuls accredited to France by the foreign government. "2. Article 9 of the civil code is applicable to the children of a naturalized for- eigner, although born in a foreign country, if they were minors at the time of the naturalization. As regards the children born in France or abroad, who were of age at this same period, article 9 of the civil code is applicable in the year following that of the said naturalization." By the law on the army of 1831, (21st March, 1832,) "No one shall be allowed to serve in the French army who is not a French citizen. " This provision has led to much correspondence between France and other powers, more especially the United States, respecting the right to exemption from the con- scription, on their return-to France, of Frenchmen naturalized abroad. In 1859 M. Walewski furnished the American charge d'aflxiires with an authoritative declaration of the views of the French government on this point : "Paris, November 25, 1859.' " Sir : I have the honor to communicate to you the reply of the government of the Emperor to the questions whichtlie deceased Mr. Mason had put to him in his letter of 1 Senate Ex. Doc, 1859-'60, vol. xi, p. 814. Ill the -Jnth of July last, relative to Kvoiicliuicu eniiKraaits to tlic United Slates wlio liave there olitaiiied letters of luitiiralizatioii. "After having set forth the principles of the American law in the matter oT natur- alization, Mr. Mason rodueeil his inquiry to a, fornnila, as follows: "Fii-Kt question. Does the French legislation recognize in individna,ls, French hy birth, the right to cause themselves to he naturalized as subjects or citizens of a foreign country, without preliminary authorization from the government? "French legislation does not confer on a Frenchman the right to renounce his na- tionality, hut he loses it by positive law (article 7, Code Na.pol(5on) through naturali- zation in a foi'eign country. "That naturalization, by the terras of the decree of August 26, 1811, may have gra-ve consequences, ])rovided for by that decree, when it has not been autl^orized by the government. "Even in cases in which such authorization has been accorded, it effectively dis- perses the prejudicial results of an unauthorized naturalization, but expressly main- tains the loss of nationality. " Second question. Are Frenchmen hy birth, but naturalized citizens of the United States, who return to France without having the intention to recover their nationality nor to establish themselves permanently, subject to the law of conscription ? "The law of conscription imposes on every Frenchman the obligation of military service. It attaches to the fulfillment of this obligation a penal sanction. "Therefore, the Frenchman who, before he had lost that quality, shall have emi- grated, thus placing himself out of the way of the obligation of military service, would assuredly be punishable on his return to France, even although he should have ob- tained a foreign naturalization, and he may he prosecuted, whether as refractory (article 230 du nouveau code militaire, loi du Juin, 1859) or as a deserter, (articles 235, 236, 237, of same date.) "This, moreover, is recognized hy the Government of the United States, as it is a sequence from the letter of Mr. Mason, that it refuses its protection to the Frenchman become a stranger, in the two cases following : " 1. If the obligation of military service be anterior to the epoch of emigration. "2. If, before his emigration, the Frenchman had not satisfied the law of conscrip- tion. The question becomes more difiScult when it treats of a man horn abroad of French parents, and who, consequently, by the provisions of article 10 of Code Na- poleon, is himself a Frenchman, and hound to military service, in oonloxmity with article 6 of the law of March 21, 1832. " But if, in France, the quality of citizen is now actually acquii'ed by parentage, yet, for a long time, nativity alone conferred it, and it may still be so in the United States. In such a case it would be hard to subject to French law an individual who should have fidfilled similar obligations toward the country in which he was born. " Third question. Does the French law of conscription render the Frenchman born and resident in a foreign country subject to military service in the same degree as if he had not left the country of his birth, or as if he had not caused himself to be naturalized as a foreigner ? "This question is disposed of by the solution which the Federal Government itself admits to the second. "If, in effect, the Frenchman, before emigrating and causing himself to be natural- ized in a foreign country, has not satisfied the obligation of military service, evidently he may be prosecuted in France, in case of his return, even though the return should be only accidental. Besides, he might, during his absence, have been sentenced for contumacy, and his presence in France would impose, as well on the public authority as liimself , the duty of clearing off this contumacy. " Such are the solutions which the three questions that the legation of the United States has presented to me can receive. It is diflioult, however, to treat them theoreti- cally, without knowledge of the circumstances which may have given birth to them, which often are of a nature to draw out modifications of the application of strict law. "I will add that all the points treated in the present dispatch present veritable questions of state, upon which the government of the Emperor can only express opinions, but the solutions belong exclusively to the courts. "Eeceive, &c., "WALEWSKI. "Mr. Calhoun, " Chargd d' Affaires of the United States at Paris." It will be seen from M. Walewski's note that he considered that a Frenchman nat- uralized abroad was liable to the law of conscription on his return to France ; but a case occurred in 1860 in which it was decided by a civil tribunal that naturalization in a foreign country exempted a Frenchman from the conscription. The case, that of Mr. Zeiter, is frequently referred to in the correspondence, and is of importance as establishing a principle of French law. 112 It h:vi iK'VPV boon imlilislioil, but a copy has now been procured fi'oui Wissembourg, wlipic till' Judgment was dolixercd, and is pi-inted in the addenda (F.) 'riiisc ooiisiription cases arc ordinarily dealt with by the local military tribunals, (coiihcils dc guerre,) and there does not seem to have been any otlier instance of a recent decision on the subject by a civil court, nor does this provincial judgment ap- ])ear to have lieen revised by a superior court. Lord Lyons has been good enough to procure a report from M. Treitt, the counsel to the I'aris <'uil)assy, upon the general question of the status in France of Frenchmen naturalized aliroad, with rcTerence especially to their liability to the conscription. As this report gives full explanation of the French law and of the practice of the French governinent, it is here inserted at lengtli : / " Pakis, Jmuan-y 26, 1868. "His Excellency LonD Lyons, enibassadm' of Her JBritaniiio Majesty at Paris : " My Lobd : Your excellency has requested of me a copy of a judgment rendered by the French coirrt at AVissembourg, in favor of Michel Zeiter, a French citizen by birth. The judgment is quoted by Laurence, in his notes on Wlieaton, (edition of 1863,) as having discharged Michel Zeiter from all the obligations which a Frenchman owes to his country, among others the obligation to perform military service. The reason alleged for this decision is that Zeiter had been natiuralized as a citizen of the United States. " It is added that this judgment seems to be one of the rare decisions (if not the only one) in which a court has acknowledged that the naturalization of a person in a for- eign country is sufficient to annul the sovereign rights of the mother country, and the obligations which he has there contracted by his birth. " lu view of the remarks Avhich I had the honor to address to your excellency, you have referred me to a note which Count Walewski, minister of foreign affairs of France, addressed to Mr. Calhoun, the American minister, under date of November 25, 1859, which note was published in 1860 among the documents communicated to the Congress of the United States. In that note M. Walewski does not admit that a French citizen can, by the mere fact of his naturalization abroad, be exempted from the obligations imposed upon him by the laws of his country, and escape, among other requirements, the military service. In this latter case, says the minister, such refractory Frenchman incurs the penalties provided by the military code (article 230) for failure to perform military duty. M. Walewski, moreover, calls attention to the imperial decree of Au- gust 26, 1811, which x>rovides severe penalties for Frenchmen who have become natu- ralized as foreigners without the authorization of their government. "Finally, your excellency has been pleased to point me to the case of one Alibert, ■ belonging to the class of 1839, who failed to perform military duty, and who was, on the 10th of October, 1852, sentenced to be imprisoned for one month therefor, by a court-martial at Marseilles. ■ He appealed, however, from this sentence, to the court of revision at Toulon, and there, with the assistance of the American consul, he pleaded his naturalization in the United States, and was acquitted. " In sura, your excellency has addressed to me the following question : "What is the law governing a Frenchman who has been naturalized as a foreigner after his return to France ? " The question is simj)le, but the reply will necessarily be complex. " I give, in the first place, a copy of a sentence of the court at Wissembourg, dated June 2, 1860. (Vide Addenda F.) "As is seen, this sentence only shows that Zeiter has lost his French citizenship. The legal consequence of this showing is that he can no longer serve in the French army. It was no part of the duty of the court, however, to concern itself with the penalties and civil incapacities which Zeiter might have incurred, as we shall subsequently see. This decision is based upon law, as are several others rendered by different courts in similar cases, especially since the war between the North and South, on account of which many Frenchmen, naturalized as American citizens, returned to France. " The naturalization of a Frenchman abroad, whatever may be his new countr5'', in- volves the loss of his French citizenship, and this involves ipso facto incapacity for the military sei-vice. This is the case of Alibert ; he doubtless proved his American citizenship, and was exempted from the penalty attached to the offense of willfully avoiding military duty, said penalty being imprisonment for from one month to one year, according to article 38 of the army law of 1832. " The above two cases are not rejiorted in any work on jurisprudence ; they are not, however, the only ones ; there are half a score of them in the bureau of military jus- tice at the ministry of war. " The military authorities in France observe with regret the disposition which has been manifested during the past three years, by the young men of .the oountiy, to avoid the performance of military duty. " The ministry of war now proceeds in such cases as follows : " When the case of a person who has sought to avoid the due performance of mili- 113 liir>- duty is broiifjlit licCoro il, it liiis the party cliiu'^od with tlie oft('iis(i taken before i\ emii't-iiiartial, ior sueh a person is a. soldier who has not rejoined his regiment. "If the person seeUini;- to avoid tlie jierformancc^ of military dnty pleads natnrali zation in a forei.n'n eonntry, tlie eimrt-mai-tial defers the enl'oreenient of the penalty and grants tlu' aeensed a delay, tluit lie may be enabled to prove his foreign eitizen- ship in the courts. " If he obtains a jndgment declaring that he has lost Ids French oltizenshi]), the cnurt- martial aequits him, bnt only when his naturalization took place three years before. If this is not the ease, the judges enforce the penalty provided for the offense. In fact, the avoidance of military service is an offense which no )nei-e lapse of time can cancel ; it lasts until the military service is rendered. Now, the jurisprudence of courts-mar- tial says that the offense no longer exists wlien the offender has become naturalized in ■ a foreign country ; thenceforward the offender who has been naturalized more than three years incurs no penalty. If, on the other hand, the naturalization did not take Ijlace mure than three years previously, the ex-Frenclnnan is treated as a person will- fully avoiding military service, and is punished, even though he be a citizen of some other country, no matter which. " Thus, in order to escape such a penalty, the ex-Frenchman must ]iass at least three years abroad. If he returns before the expiration of such time, he ijicurs the risk of suffering imprisonment for from one mouth to one year, by sentence of court-martial, for he is still avoiding the performance of military dnty. " We must not forgi^t to say that when, in this case, the person s(^(^king to a \'oid military service has suffered his punishment, ho is free, and his foreign citizenship pre- vents him from being compelled to serve in the French army. " Such are the rules observed by the bureau of military justice at the ministry of war. " Things are managed in about the same way for the national guard. There there are boards of verification. " It is the duty of these boards to decide concerning the grounds of exemption claimed by persons who refuse to do military duty. "Now, it often happens (this I say of my own knowledge) that natives of France, when called to serve in the national guard, present American or other naturalization papere. In presence of such documents these persons have been declared exempt from the service by reason of their foreign citizenship. Moreover, an opinion of the council of state of November 18, 1842, has sanctioned this system of jurisprudence. " From all the foregoing observations what are we to conclude ? It is that a French- man may, by getting naturalized abroad, escape the obligations which are imposed upon him by^ the comitry of his hirth. " This consequence is derived from the common law and from the exceptional law. "Article XVII of the civil code expressly says that French citizenship is lost by nat- uralization acquired in a foreigTi country. It appears from the debates of the legisla- ture of 1803 that the word ' acquired' was applied to an act of express will, performed according to the legal forms of the new country, and having for its object the renun- ciation, ^coprio motu, of French citizenship. (Locr6, linpyitdu Code Ch'il, vol. 1, p. 333.) "The civil code, tlien, permits Frenchmen to acquire a foreign nationality. It is, in fact, a principle inherent in human liberty, a principle of natural right, that a person may leave the soil on which hi.s birth may by chance have thrown him. This principle is admitted by all publicists from Cicero' dovpn to those of our time. The French laws contain frequent enunciations of it. Naturalization in Prussia, however, is subject, it is said, to the previous authorization of the government. (Prussian code, article 2, book 17, § 127.) " In France, however, according to the civil code, which is the common law, the right of being natirralized abroad is absolute. " On the 26th of August, 1811, the Emperor Napoleon I promulgated a decree relative to the naturalization of Frenchmen abroad. "Article I of this decree is as follows : "'No Frenchman can be naturalized in a foreigncountry without our authorization.' " The following articles mention the civil rights which Frenchmen naturalized in a foreign country shall continue to enjoy in France : "Article VI is as follows : " ' Article VI. Any Frenchman naturalized in a foreign country, without our author- ization, shall suffer the loss of his property, which shall be confiscated; he shall no longer have the right to inherit property, and any legacies which may be left to him shall pass into the hands of the xjerson whose claim is next to his ; provided that such person be a French citizen.' "Finally, Article XI gives the government the power to expel from France any ' Ciceron, " Oratio pro Comelio Balbo," c. 13 ; Grotius, lib. ii and v, § 24 ; Puffendorf, lib. viii, c. 11, so- 2; Merlin, "Eepertoire G6n6ral," verbo "Sonverainet^," §4; Wolf, 76tli part, p. 187 ; "lYench Consti- tution of Frimaire, year VIII," in its 4th article i Toullier, "Code Civil," vol. i, No. 266; &c. 15 S D 114 Frcndiman naturalized in a I'oveiun ((imitiy witliont aiitlion/.atioii ; and, iu case of liis return to the territory ot tlie empire a second time, lie may be sentenced to lie im- prisoned for a term of not liss tluin one year nor more than ten years. '•Napoleon I, it is said, was induced to iiromulgate this decico by seeing French- men who wercill-disposed toward the empire anionghostilenationsiiiidiiifoi'oign armies. Thus is explained the severity of this decree, which has been the object of the most Ijitter attacks. In the tirst' place, it has been said that it was nnconstitntional, because it was prepared and promulgated without the concurrence of the Corps L^gis- hitif, contrary to the (viislitidwiis mipirialm. Moreover, since the fall of the first em- pire, some writers have maintained that this decree^ has become obsolete. There are even decisions of the }'0\-ernment of the Eestoration which have annulled judgments rendered in virtue of this decree. (Decisions of the council of state of June 19, in- serted in the Bulletin des lois.) " A greater numher of authors, however, have contended that this decree still had the force of a law, for the reason that it had never been attacked and annulled by the Corps Legislatif. Moreover, numerous decisions have declared that the imperial de- crees promulgated and executed as laws in the time of the empire have remained in force in all their provisions which have not been abrogated hy subsequent laws. In fact, the decree of 1811 has been enforced in cases of legacies left by Frenchmen who hacl heen naturalized abroad without authorization.' " This decree, however, is none the less a violation of the natural law, as it provides severe penalties for naturalization abroad, while all publicists proclaim the right which every man has to change his country. " This decree is, at the present day, paralyzed in its application ; in fact, the confisca- tion of property was abolished by the charter of 1814. Then came the law of July 14, 1819, which gives all foreigners the same rights as Frenchmen, as regards property and inheritance, without distinction between foreigners by birth and foreigners by naturalization. A solemn decision of the court of Paris has decided that this decree is not applicable to the right of inheriting property.^ " The annals of jurisprudence have not, for more than twenty years, furnished a single case in which either the Kevernment or parties interested have caused the en- forcement of the decree of 1811. I think that, if the case should be presented, the courts would hesitate a long time before enforcing the rigorous provisions of this ex- ceptional legislation. " But how many uncertainties are there in this matter, so important, since it affects the pL^rsonal status of the parties. " Let us observe, however, that the decree of April 26, 1811, (whether it is still in force or has become obsolete,) does not annul naturalizations acquired abroad without authorization ; it inflicts penalties therefor, but allows them to exist. The Frenchman has therefore a new country, to which he has been obliged to take the oath of alle- giance. No one can have two countries.^ The general interest requires that no one should have two countries.'' " The country of adoption supplants the mother country. In my opinion the ex- Frenchman is released from his obligations toward the latter. The English govern- ment, in giving letters of naturalization to foreigners, notifies them, at the same time, that it does not intend to release them from their obligations toward their mother country. " This is an act of prudence. But the French law is silent upon the rights which it retains over individuals who obtain naturalization abroad without authority. She places them on a similar footing to strangers so far as relates to civil rights. Thus the French law itself breaks the ties w^hich unite an ex-Frenchman to his mother country. Aside from the confiscation of projierty and the loss of right of succession — ^penalties of 1811, to-day inapijlicable and unapplied — the law imposes on the ex-Frenchman the sole obligation never to bear arms against France on pain of death.^ " The Frenchman who gives up his nationality knows the rights of which he will be deprived in France. The courts can refuse to give him their judgments in his disputes with foreigners. If he is plaintiff or defendant, he can be subjected to the category of judicatum solri. He no longer enjoys any political or municipal rights. He is disquali- fied for public offices and the practice of certain professions ; in short, to curtail the list, he can be expelled from French territory, like all other strangers, by a simple act of the police.^ " Frenchmen must have calculated inconveniences and the advantages of foreign nat- uralization. He is released from the burdens imposed by the mother country. *See, among others, a decision of tlie court of Pan, of MarcTi 19, 1834. (Collection of Decisions, of Dalloz, year 1835, 2d part. p. 33.) "Decision of February 1, 1836. Dalloz's Collection of Decisions, 1836, 2d part, p. 71. ^ "Statement of reasons for tlie first title of the Civil Code," 1803. "General Eopertory of Merlin, verbo "Loi," § 6. 'Artcle 75 of the Penal Code; and article 11 of the Decree of August 26, 1811; articles 21 and 22 of the Civil Code. ^Article 13, Loi du 3 Decembre 1849, sur les etrangers. 115 "This state of things is to ha regretted. For iiistiiuce, to become uaturalized a Swiss, one year's residence and the payment oi: a few francs are sufficient. It is a great fa- cility given to young Frenchmen who wish to escape tlie military law. This point merits the attention of French legislators, hut at this morneut the law must be taken as it is, and it must be conceded that naturalization abroad releases a Frenchman from his obligations toward France. The decisions of the courts only confirm the expatria- tion ; the consequences of expatriation emanate from the laws themselves; one of these consequences is the exemption from military service. "I believe that I have answered in every particular the question which your excel- lency has put to me. I have freed it from all collateral questions which the loss of French nationality suggests, but which would have rendered the subject obscure. In sum, I am led to the conclusion that France does not impose any other obligation on the ex-Frenchman than not to bear arms against her. "I take leave to add that this conclusion shdcks my inward feelings. I regret to see a simple naturalization abroad cancel all the obligations which are d.ue to the mother country. But questions of law are not solved by the feelings alone ; it is a matter of law as it is and not as it ought to be. "Accept, &c., "TREITT, ^'Adfomte of ilia Imperial Court, Counsel to the liuf/liuli JSmTiassy.'' NATURALIZA.T10N OF ALIENS IN FRANCE. Under tlie old law of France, the Dutch and Swiss and other nations had, by virtue of treaties, the rights of natives, (iucUgenatAs,) and bj' the Bourbon Family Compact of 1761 a similar privilege was conceded to Spanish subjects. The law of May 2, 1790, provided— "All those who, born out of the kingdom, of foreign parents, are established in France, shall be regarded as French and admitted, upon taking the civic oath, to the exercise of the rights of active citizens after five years' continuous domicile in the kingdom, if they have, besides, acquired real estate or married a French woman, or established a, commercial house, or received in any city letters of citizen shix^." The constitution of the 3d of September, 1791,' "allows the legislative power to issue to a foreigner, for important considerations, an act of naturalization, on condition only of his residence and oath." Thus was established the system of "grande et petM naturalisation," which, with va- rious modifications, has continued in force up to the accession of the present Emperor. The constitution of 1793 did away with the oath and declared French citizens all aliens aged 21 who had been domiciled in France for one year, and who lived by labor. The constitution of 1795 abrogated that of 1793, and made it a condition of naturali- zation that an alien should have previously declared his intention to domicile himself in France. By the terms of the third article of the cgnstitntion of 1801 "a foreigner becomes a French citizen when, after having attained the age of twenty-one years and declared the intention of settling in France, he has resided there ten consecutive years." By a decree of the senate of 1804, confirmed by a decree of the 17th of February, 180H, the government was authoiized to confer the quality of French citizen, after one year's residence, on any alien who had rendered important services to France, thus reviving the "grande naturalisation" of 1790, but without requiring an oath. By an ordinance of the 4th of June, 1814, article 1, " in conformity to the ancient French constitutions, no foreigner can, from this day forth, sit, neither in the chambei- of peers nor in that of the deiraties, unless by important services rendered to the state he has obtained from us (the king) naturalization papers approved by the two cham- bers." The privilege of "grande naturalisation" has been conferred on Benjamin Cojistant and other distinguished foreigners. These laws were consolidated by the law of the 3d of December, 1849 : "Article 1. The President of the republic shall decide upon applications for natu- ralization.' "Naturalization cannot be granted until after inquiry made by the government respecting the morality of the foreigner, and upon the favorable opinion of the coun- sel of state. "The foreigner shall be obliged, besides, to fulfill the following conditions: "1. To have, after the age of twenty-one years, obtained authority to establish his domicile in France in conformity to article 13 of the Civil Code. "2. To have resided t<'n years in France since this authorization. "A naturalized foreignef shall enjoy the rightof eligibility for the Natioiuil Assembly only by virtue of a law. 'Bulletin des Lois, vol. cixvii, p. 545. 116 "2. Notwithstanding, tlic delay of ten yeaivs can be redne(>d to one year in favor of foreigners who shall have rendered important ,ser\ices to France, or who shall ha^e introduced into France an industrial euteriirise, or useful iuventions, or distinguished talents, or who shall have founded great institutions. "3. So long as the naturalization shall not have been issued, the authority granted to a foreigner to establish his domicile in France can always be revoked by decision of the government, which must take the advice of the council of state. "4. The provisions of the law of the 14th October, 1814/respecting the inhabitants of the departments annexed to France, cannot be applied in the futnre. "The preceding provisions do not aifect, in any respect, the rights of eligibility to the National Assembly acquired by naturalized foreigners before the promiilgation of the present, law. "6. The foreigner who shall have made, before the promulgation of the present law, the declaration prescribed by the third article of the constitution of the year A^III, Ciin, after a residence of ten years, obtain naturalization according to the form indicated in article 1. "7. The minister of the interior can, through police, order all foreigners traveling or residing in France to immediately leave French territory and cause them to be con- ducted to the frontier. "He shall have the same right regarding the foreigner who shall have obtained authority to establish his domicile in Franco ; but after the lapse of two months- the measure shall cease to be in force, if the authority shall not have been revoked as indicated in article 3. "In the departments on the frontier the prefect shall have the same right in regard to a non-resident foreigner, subject to immediate reference to the minister of the interior. "8. Every stranger who shall have evaded the execution of the measures specified in the preceding article, or in article 272 of the Penal Code, or who, after having left France in consequence of those measures, shall have returned without the permission of the government, shall he hrought before the courts and condemned to an imprison- ment of from one to six months. "After the exioiration of his term of punishment he shall be led to the frontier. " The" penalties prescribed by the present law cau be reduced in confonnity to the provisions of article 463 of the Penal Code." On the 29th of June, 1867, a law was passed reducing the term of residence required from ten to three years : "Art. 1. The articles 1 and 2 of the law of 3d December, 1849, are supplanted by the following provisions : "Art. 1. A foreigner who, after the age of twenty-one years, has, in conformity to article 13 of the Code NapoMon, ohtained authority to establish his domicile in France and has resided there three years, can be admitted to enjoy all the rights of a French citizen. "The three years shall count from the day when the application for authority shall have been registered at the ministry of justice. "The domicile in a foreign country to fill an office conferred by the French govern- ment is equivalent to residence in France. " It is granted upon an application for naturalization, after inquiry into the moral character of the foreigner, by a decree of the Em]jeror, issued upon the repoil; of the minister of justice, subject to the council of state. " Art. 2. The delay of three years fixed by the ijreceding article, can be reduced to a single year in faAor of foreigners who shall have rendered important services to France, who shall have introduced into France an industrial enteri)rise or useful in- ventions, or who shall have brought to it distinguished talents, or founded great insti- tutions, or instituted great agricultural improvements. " Art. 2. The fifth article of the law of December 3, 1849, is re])ealed." It will he seen, therefore, that there are two forms of naturalization in France : " La grande naturalisation," ' which confers the privilege of sitting in the chambers, a]id which corresponds, m sonic measure, to the former English form of special natu- ralization by act of Parliament, repealing the disabilities of previous acts in favor of a particular person, as was done in the case of Prince Albert, and to the present natu- ralization liy act of Parliament, as iu the Bischoff-sheim case. " La petite naturalisation " corresponds with our naturalization by certificate from the secretary of state, and is granted by lettres de (Induration de natiiyaliU to aliens who have complied with the conditions of the law. The alien is supposed to have resided in France with the permission of the government, from the fact of his name and dom- ^M. D^imangeat, in Ms note to M. Fcelix's Droit Intemational Priv6, doubts whether "la grando natn- ralisation" still exists, as by the decree of February 2, 1852, all electors are eligible to seats in the Coijis Leglalatit, and the senate is composed of such citizens as the Emperor may please to select ; and he cites Prince Poniatowski as an instance of a citizen naturalized by imperial decree and promoted to the senate without any special law. 117 icilc haying lieou rogistored with tho ministry of the interior, as required by the police regulations from all residents. Debate iit Corps Leglslatif on the amy Mil, December, 1867. In the recent discussion on the law for the reorganization of the army, M. des Eo- tours proposed the following amendment to the first clause of the bill : "Persons born in France of foreign parents, and having had their residence there, will be subjected to the recruiting law in the year following that of their majority. " Those among them who wish to preserve their character of foreigners will make declaration thereof, and shall be admitted into the foreign legion." JIardchal Niel, the minister of war, spoke in favor of the principle of this amend- ment, and stated that the conscription ought at all events to be extended to tlic sous horn in France of aliens themsehcs born in France, and who, by the law of 1851, were declared to he Frenchmen, unless they selected the nationality of their fathers on at- taining their majority. Objection was, however, taken to making such an alteration in the laws affecting the natioiuility of aliens liy means of a clause introduced into an army bill ; and, on M. Baroche, minister of justice, undertaking that the matter should receive the care- ful attention of the govefnment, M. des Eotours witlidrew his amendment. Xamher of English snijcvts iclio,from 1851 to 1861, ohtained authority to establish their dom- icile in France, and of those who, during the same 2>eriod, were naturalized as Frenchmen. Annies. Admission h domicile. Naturalizations. 1851 - 8 6 6 6 5 3 9 24 13 9 3 1852 1853 1 1854 1855 1 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 2 92 4 (For further information res))ecting French naturalization, sec Fcelix, " Droit Inter- national Privd," already cited, and "Revue de Droit Franjais et Etrangcrs," par MM. Fa-lix Duvergier, &.c., vol. xii., p. 321 ; Article, "De la Naturalisation collective et de la perte. collective de la quality de Franjais," par M. Fcelix, and vol. x, p. 446 ; " Des Effets de la Naturalisation," jiar M. Fcelix; and " Dictiomuiire de Droit," par M. Dalloz, " Naturalisation.") PRUSSIA. NATUKALIZATION OP ALIENS IN PRUSSIA. [Translation.] In Prussia the foreigner acquires the right of citizenship by his nomination to a pub- lic office. Thus the law of the 31st of December, 1842, gives to the superior adminis- trative authorities {ricjences) the power to accord naturalization to a foreigner who justifies it by good conduct and the means of livelihood. The law excepts only Jews, the subject of a state forming part of the Germanic Confederation, minors and other persons incapable of acting for themselves ; with respect to the latter it contains special provisions. An alien woman acquires the right of a Prussian subject by her marriage with a Prussian. Provision was made by the constitution of the Germanic Confederation for 'the recip- rocal admission of the subjects of one state to the privileges of citizenship in the other states. 118 EXPATHIATION. Extract f rem the laws of Prussia, of December 31, lf<4'2, eoncerning the loss of the qualitii of a Prussian subject. ^ 15. The quality of a Prussian subject is lost — 1. By discharge upon the subject's request. 2. By senteuco of the competent authority. 3. By living ten years in a foreign country. 4. By the marriage of a female Prussian subject with a foreigner. $ 16. The discharge has to be asked for from the police authority of the province in which the subject's domicOe is situated, and is effected by a document made out by the same authority. § 17. The discharge cannot be granted — 1. To male subjects who are between seventeen and twenty-five years of age, until they have got a certificate of the military commission of recruitment of their district, proving that their application for discharge is not made merely to avoid the fulfilli n g of their military dutjf in the standing arrny. '2. To actual soldiers, belonging either to the standing army or to the reserve ; to officers of the militia and to public functionaries, before their being discharged from service. 3. To subjects having formerly served as officers in the standing army or the militia, or having been appointed military employ<58, with the rank of officers, or civil func- tionaries, before they have got the consent of their former chief. 4. To the persons belonging to the militia, not being officers, after their having been convoked for actual service. § 18. To subjects wishing to emigrate into a state of the German Confederacy, the discharge may be refused if they cannot prove that the said state is willing to receive them. (See act of the German Confederation, art. 18, No. 2, lit. A.) § 19. For other reasons than those specified in 55 17 and 18, the discharge cannot be refused in time of peace. For the time of war, special regulations will be made. § 20. The document of discharge effects, at the moment of its delivery, the loss of the quality as Prussian subject. § 21.' If there is no special exception, the discharge comprehends also the wife and the minor children that are still under their father's authority. § 22. Subjects living in a foreign country may lose their quality as Prussians by a declaration of the police authority of Prussia, if they do not obey, within the time fixed to them, the express summons for returning to their country. § 23. Subjects who either — 1. Leave our states without permission, and do not return within ten years, or — 2. Leave our states with permission, but do not return within ten years after the expiration of the term granted by the said permission, lose their quality as Prussian subjects. § 24. Eiiteriiif! into public service in a foreign state. The entering of a subject into public service in a foreign state is allowed only after his discharge (see J 20) has been granted to him. Anybody who has obtained it is permitted to do so without restriction. ij 25. A subject who — 1. Either takes public service in a foreign state with our immediate ijei-mission — 2. Or is appointed iu our states by a foreign power, in an office established with our .permission, as, for instance, that of consul, commercial agent, &e., remaining in his quality as a Prussian. § 26. General disposition. Subjects who emigrate without having obtained their discharge, or violate, by their entering into public service in a foreign state, the disposition of § 24, are to be pun- ished according to the laws existing in that respect. Given under our hand and seal, Berlin, this 31st of December, 1842. [L. s.] FKEDEEICK WILLIAM. Extract from the Constitution of Prussia, 1850. Tit. I. Eights of the Prussians. Art. 1. The right to ©migrate cannot be restricted by the statu, except with respect to the duty of military service. See also a memorandum furnished to the United States minister at Berlin by the Prussian goveinnien I in 1859. (Appendix G.) 119 AUSTRIA. NATURALI»A'L'r< >N OF ALIENS. In Austriii an alii-ii atMiiiircs the rights of citizenship liy being named a public fniic- tionary.i The government can also confer those rights upon an alien who has been previously authorized to exercise a profcKsion after ten years' residence. No one can exercise anv profession in Austria without the permission of the authori- ties. Jlere admission into the military service does not give the rigljt of naturalization. The wife of an Austrian becomes an Austrian subject by her maiTJage. EXPATRIATION. Emigration is not permitted without the consent of the proper authorities ; but the emigrant who has obtained permission and who quits the empire sine animo rcveiieneU forfeits his privileges as an Austrian subject. For a fuller account of the Austrian laws, see the report by the counsel of the Vienna embassy. (Addenda H.) BAVARIA > NATURALIZATION OP ALIENS Naturalization is acquired — 1. By the marriage of a foreign woman with a Bavarian f 2. By domicile, on affording proof of having been liberated from personal allegiance to a foreign state ;' 3. By royal decree, under the supervision of the council of state. EXPATRIATION. By natirralization in a foreign country without having previously obtained authori- zation from the King ; By emigration ; By the marriage of a Bavarian woman with an alien. WURTEMBERG. NATURALIZATION. An alien must belong to a commune in order to have the rights of citizenship, unless he has been named to some public emiiloyment.'' EXPATRIATION. The rights of citizenship are lost by emigration under the authority of government and by accej)ting foreign service. NETHERLANDS. The power of conferring naturalization rests with the King. (Articles 9 and 10 of he constitution of 1815.^) Tcelix, vol. i, p. 98. ' Fcelix, vol. i, p. 99. ' Sir E. Phillimore, vol. 1, p. 352. '•Fcclix, vol. 1, p. 99. « Ibia., p. 100. 120 RUSSIA. All iilicii licioiiirH iiaturiilizoil liy taking an oath of fidelity to the Enippioi- ; hut he can, if hf wislics it, lenouncc his uatiu'alization and retnrn to Iiis native eonntiy.' Naturaliznlioii law of the Gth of March, 1864.^ A. — 1. A fnreijiiKT must he doniieiled in the onipirc hefore he can he admitted as a Russian subject.' 2. A foreigner wislving to become domiciled in Russia must inform the governor of the province in wjiicli he wishes to reside of his desire to do so, explaining the nature of his occupation in his own country, and the pursuits he purposes to follow in Ru.ssia. On the receipt of such declaration the petitioner is considered to he domiciled in Rus- sia, but will nevertheless be accounted a foreigner until he shall have taken the oath of allegiance. S. Foreigners already resident in Russia, distinguished in art, trade, commerce, or in any other pursuit, may prove their domiciliation by other means than those specified in § 2. 4. A forein;npr, after being domiciled five years in Russia, may apply to be admitted to Russian allegiance. 5. Foreign married women cannot become Russian subjects without their husbands. 6. The allegiance, when sworn to, is merely personal, and does not afi'ect children, whether of age or minors, previously horn. Those horn after the adoption of Russian nationality are acknowledged as Russians. 7. Specifies rule to be observed in petitioning the minister of the interior to he ad- mitted to Russian allegiance, (documents and declaration required, &.c.) 8. It is optional witli the muiister to grant the above petition or not. 9. An oath to be taken. 10. Mode of taking oath. 11. In special cases, the period requisite to constitute a domicile may be shortened. 12. Children of foreigners not Russian subjects, born and educated in Russia, or, if born abroad, yet who have completed their education in a Russian upper or middle school, will be admitted to Russian allegiance, should they desire to do so, a year after they shall have attained their majority. 13. The children of foreigners wishing to become Russian subjects will be admitted on the same terms as their parents. 14. Foreigners in the Russian military or civil service, or ecclesiastics of foreign per- suasions, will be admitted to Russian allegiance without period of domicile. 15. A Russian subject marrying a foreign husband, and therefore considered a for- eigner, may, on the death of her husband, or in case of her divorce, return to her for- mer allegiance. 16. The children in the above case are treated as in § 12. 17. Foreign women marrying Russian subjects, and the wives of foreigners who have become Russian subjects, are admitted as Russian subjects without taking oath of "illegiaiice. Widows and divorced wives retain the nationality of their husbands. 18. Special enactments relative to colonists, foreign agricultural laborers, Bulgarians, &c., remain in full force. 19. Foreigners admitted to RussiaiT nationality are placed, in respect to their rights and obligations, on a perfect equality with born Russians. 20. Provides for the speedy transaction of business in connection with the adoption if Russian nationality. B. — Transitional measures. 1. Foreigners who shall have already adopted Russian nationality may return at any time to their former nationality, on payment of all claims against them, whether government or private. 2. Those who throw oif their Russian allegiance may either quit the country or re- main in Russia, enjoying equal rights with other foreigners. They must provide them- selves with national passports within a year, if resident in European Russia or belong- ing to a country in Europe, or within tw o years, if residing in Siberia, or having to obtain such passports in any other quarter of the globe. On the lapse of those dates, without production of passport, the foreigner must either leave the country or resume his Russian nationality. 3. Exceptions in cases of deserters and Asiatics. ' Fco ix, vol. 1, p. 100. ^For a full translation of this law, see the " Journal de St.0P§ter8hourg," in ■ clf>sea in Lord llapier's Ko. 207, April 13, 1864. ^'Loid. Napier, No. 186; March 30, 1864. 121 4. Annuls all enactments compoUiun- Russian women marviod to foreigners to sell tlieiv immovable proiierty in Russia, with the exception of certain kinds of property which, as foreigners, they still have no right to possess. With respect to the enact- ment concerning the payment of three years' dues and export duties by foreigners wishing to leave their Russian nationality, that law is abrogated in respect to those countries which shall adopt a reciprocity in such matters. C. Abrogating law by which a foreigner was obliged to take an oath of allegiance prior to his marriage with a Russian woman, and by which he was required to ask permission of the Emperor to contract marriage with a Russian woman of the orthodox faith. HAMBURG. Aliens can become naturalized after six months' residence on payment of a small fee. The law of Hamburg is said to recognize a double allegiance in persons thus naturalized, and does not require any renunciation of native allegiance.' BELGIUM. The law of Belgium is the same as that of France, except that the "grande natural- isation" can only be conferred by act of the legislature.' SWITZERLAND. According to a paper quoted before the Aliens Committee "in some cantons the acts of naturalization are granted by the legislature, in others by the executive govern- ment. In most cantons, among others in Berne, Zurich, Vaud, and Geneva, the privileges are complete and without any restriction from the date of the act. In Tessin a naturalized foreigner can only exercise the rights of citizenship after a lapse of five years from the date of his naturalization. In Thurgo\'ie no one can hold any office in or under the government unless he has been a burgess of the canton at least five years. In St. Gall, Thurgovie, and Tessin a foreigner, in order to obtain his naturalization, must renounce his foreign rights of citizenship or allegiance." (See also what Mr. Treitt says respecting the facility with which Swiss citizenship is acquired.) ITALY. LAWS OF THE TWO SICILIES. By the civil code of the Two Sicilies provision was made both for naturalization and expatriation. A royal decree of the 17th December, 1817, provided that special naturalization may be granted after one year's residence to any one who has rendered important service to the state, and ordinary naturalization after ten years' consecutive residence, on giving proof of means of subsistence and declaring intention to become domiciled in the kingdom.'* Expatriation followed on entry into a foreign military service, but the person expa- triated still remained subject to the penallaw if here-entered the kingdom after having taken up arms against it.'' Permission was given to enter a foreign service on condition that the person to whom it was granted should not take any oath on accepting such service, except with a reservation that he should not be called ni^on to take arms against the Two Sicilies, and with the understanding that he should not be accredited to that country as embas- sador or minister. ■Aliens Committee, p. 59. ^Ibid. p. 53. Letter from Mr. Prevost, Swiaa consul. Codice delle Due Sicilie, Art. 11. "Ibid. Article 25. 16 SD 122 LAWS OF SARDINIA.! Tlic civil (ddc of Sardinia of 1837, known as the "Codico All)ortin<>," contains the following among otlier provisions respecting aliens: " 19. A cliild liorii abroar(l Palniorsi on replied, " that if there is a, Hiinoveriiiii minister or consul nt Rnoiios Ayrew he should, of course, tiike ehnrge of Haiioveriiui subjects; but if there is uo sucli (itlieer, then Haiioveriiiii suhjects may still continue to remain under British pro- tection, but it does not a])[>oar to me to be necessary that fresh certiticates of British nationality should be granted to such Hanoverians. " I have fiu'ther to state to yon that a subject of Her Majesty cannot divest himself of his allegiance by submitting to any local enactment compelling liiin to wear any parlicular uniform or badge in a foreign country in which he may think proper to re- side, and that he does not thereby forfeit his right to be protected by his own gov- ernment." In October, 18.'>7, Mr. Christie reported that the Argentine national Congress had passed a law enabling the sons of aliens born within Argentine territory to cnoose be- tween Argentine citizenship and that of their fathers.' Mr. Christie added that he had advised the Buenos A;>Tean government, who were forcing the sons of aliens into service, to make a similar law. At the close of 1857 a large number of British residents at Buenos Ayres having addressed a memorial to the British government complaining of the forced enlistment of the sons of f(m>igners in the local militia. Lord Palmerston wrote a dispatch to Mr. Christie acknowledging that Her Majesty's government could not claim such per- sons as British subjects; but, pointing out the various reasons which could be urged, both on grounds of policy and comity, against siich a rigid exercise of military law.'' This dispatch is too long for insertion here, but it well deserves attention in case of an occasion arising in which similar arguments might be called for. The result of this representation was that the government of Buenos Ayres issued a decree on the 12th of April, 1858.' " The government has resolved to admit substitutes for all the acts of the service of the national guard on the part of the sons of foreigners born in the country, (and who, by our laws, are citizens of it,) who may wist to have them, subject to the regnlations which may be necessary and conducive to the good service of the same, it being understood that the substitutes must be foreigners and that their principals will remain subject to all responsibility consequent on all culpa- ble default in the service." Some communications took place from 1854 to 1857 between the English and French governments as to the rights of the sons of aliens bom in Buenos Ayres to the pro- tection of the country of their fathers' birth. In November, 1857, Count Walewski informed Lord Cowley that the French consuls had been instructed to contend that the sons of Frenchmen so situated were entitled to French protection, but that he had carefully considered the whole subject, and " that he must confess he considered the claim untenable.* The claim had been origi- nally put forward under the tenth article of the first book of the Code Napol6on, which declares 'que tout enfant n^ d'un Franpais en pays stranger est Franf ais,' and had always been insislfod on until now. On the other hand, his excellency found that by the seventeenth article of the same book and code it is declared, 'que la quality de Franpais se perdra par tout iStablissement fait en pays (Stranger sans esprit de retour.' There was therefore an apparent contradiction in the code itself, to remedy which the interference of the legislature would probably be required." At a siTbsequent interview Lord Cowley urged Count Walewski to send to the French consuls the same instructions as had been sent to Mr. Christie.^ The count replied, "that at this moment he was- not in a position to send any instructions whatever upon the subject, for that he was still under the pressure of the interpretation put by former governments on the law of France. In stating to me, as he had done some time back, that he considered the position until now taken by France on this question to be un- tenable, he had only given his own private opinion — an ox^inion, indeed, which he had expressed officially in council ; and he had asked me for the English practice in cases of this nature with the intention of employing it as a further argument with the min- ister of justice for the necessity of changing the terms of the French law. Until this, however, should be accomplished, he had no choice but to insist, as had his predeces- sors, that all children boru of French subjects abroad are, to all intents and purposes, French subjects also. " Count "Walewski, however, said that as the law would without doubt be altered, he had recommended the Buenos Ayres government to let the matter rest for the present." The French law never has been altered. On the 3d of March, 1860, Mr. Thornton forwarded a copy of a treaty concluded be- tween Spain and the Argentine Confederation, containing among other provisions an article stipulating that the sons of Argentines and Spaniards, born in those respective countries, should be allowed to choose the nationality they may prefer, and suggested that England might claim for the sons of her subjects any exemption from military duty which this treaty might confer on the sons of Spaniards.^ ■Mr. Christie, Ifo. 125 ; Octoloer 28, 1857. 2 To Mr. Christie, Ifo. 1 ; OTanuary 4, 1858. ^Mr. Christie, No. 13 i April 15, 1858. ' Lord Cowley, No. 625 ; November 28, 1857. =Lord Cowley, No. 1, 745 ; Decem- l)er29, 1857. » Mr. Thornton, No. 25; March, 1860. 169 Lord John Russell vepliod tliat it (lid not .ii)i)i'ar tliat any special privilege was se- cuivd to Spain by tins treaty, wliieli merely adojjted, as between tlie contracting par- ties, the existing law of each country as to naiionality ; and that even if any privileges had been given by this treaty to .Spaniards, there wasnonioro niost-favored-nation clause on this particular point in the British treaty of 1825, vfhich entitled British subjects to claim the benefit of them.' On the '27th of November, 1801, Lord Russell instructed Mr. Thornton that, if the sous of British subjects wished exemption from military service, they should exercise the option given to them by Argentine law, between Argentine and British nationality.^ In 1862 Mr. Thornton raised the question whether, as the Argentine Provinces and the state of Buenos Ayres were recognized as separate belligerents, the sons of Britisli subjects born within the provinces might not claim exemption from service in Buenos Ayres, and vice versa. Mr. Thornton was informed that, in the absence of any treaty stipulation, even aliens may under certain ciicumstances be rendered liable to military service in the country of their domicile, without any violation of international law, and that it must be re- membered that the persons in question were not aliens in the Argentine Confederation.' Moreover, the law of September 29, 1857, seemed to extend to the sons of aliens, wheresoever born, and the provinces might therefore contend that those who had omitted to take advantage of its provisions had thereby constituted themselves Argen- tines by default. In August, 1863, Mr. Doria reported that it was/proposed to pass anowlaw by which all persons born within the Argentine Confederation should be declared to be Argen- tine citizens irrespective of the nationality of their parents.' Mr. Doria was approved for having protested against a retrospective application being given to this law, in regard to the children of British parents ; as, although it appeared that there were no adult persons of this class who had availed themselves of the option given by the law of 1857, to elect to be deemed British subjects, yet there might be others still in their minority Avhose time for making their election had not yet arrived. At the same time such a law would not be ultra vires of the Argentine Confederation. It was quite competent to the Confederation to pass such a new law, though, as an act of comity, it would be preferable to retain the previous one. AUSTRIA. During the Venetian insurrection in 1848 the provisional government claimed a right to exact payment to a forced loan from certain British and Ionian subjects, on the ground that, by an Austrian decree of the 15tli of May, 1833, they had acquired Aus- trian (and therefore Venetian) citizenship.^ (See Laws of Austria, and addenda H.) This decree provided that all foreigners who, at the date of its publication in those provinces, shoiild have completed an uninterrupted residence of ten years were al- lowed to free themselves from the Austrian citizenship acquired by such residence, on giving proof that they never had an intention of becoming Austrian citizens. Such proof was to be given within six months from the date of the decree, in default of which it would no longer be admitted. The Venetians maintained that under this law British subjects who had resided un- interruptedly for ten years in Venice became Venetian citizens, unless they expressly renounced that citizenship. Mr. Consul-General Dawkins remonstrated against the interpretation put upon this law, and his having done so was approved by Her Majesty's government. It appeared, however, that some of the persons thus pleading their quality of British subjects as exempting them from the forced loan had taken office under the Venetian government. Lord Palmerston instructed Mr. Dawkins that such persons were, by the twenty-ninth article of the Austrian civil code, liable to be considered as subjects of the Venetian government, and consequently not entitled to exemption. Lord Palmerston did not, however, disapprove of Mr. Dawkins having endeavored to preserve them from the severe effect of the forced contribution imposed by the provisional government. BELGIUM. In December, 1860, a case occurred at Brussels, (that of M. Ignatius T^leki,) in which various questions were put to Her Majesty's government by Lord Howard de Walden, as to the status of naturalized British subjects.s >ToMr Thoi-nton No 42- July 1, 1860. "To Mr. Thornton, Ifo. 54; ITovember 27, 1861. 'tq Mr. Thornton' No. 22 : May 28, 1862. ■• Mr. Doria, No. 84 ; August 28, 1863. To Mr. Doria No. 38 ; Novem- her 4, 1863. 'Consul-General Dawkins, No. 117 ; August 26, 1848. To Consul-General Dawkms^o. 36 ; November 28 1848. " Lord Howard de Walden, No. 151 ; December 3, 1860. Lord Howard de Waldeji, No. 152; December 3,1860. To Lord Howard de Walden, January, 1861. 22 SI) 170 ITiulrr tlll^ ;iil\icc nl' the law-offlcor.i the following instnutioiis wore fnniished for his ffuidaiirii : "Thcliistr (|ui'stiiin is, wlifthev a person who was natnralizoil as a British snhject previously to the 24th of August, 1850, is ("iititlcd io a ])cniianent passport ; and the allHw^^r to it is, that as the rule iu regard to the limitation of time in passports griMted to naturaliz(^d British sulvjeets applies only to those natni'alized subsequently to the aliove-mcntioned date, there can he no question as to the right of a person natui'alized previously to that date to receive, like any natm-al-born British subject, a passport not limited in regard to time. "The second question is, whether -i woman, either by birth a British subject, or a naturalized British subject, or an alien, is entitled, on being married abroad to a natu- ralized suhjeet, to receive a passport in her new character of a married woman. The answer is, that if the ■woman is a natural-born British subject, she does not lose that character hy marrying a naturalized British subject, and that consequently she is entitled to a fresh passport as a British subject in her married name ; but if the woman is a natu- ralized British siibjeet, or an alien, then, as the woman cannot, in her married state travel under her maiden name, and as whatever may have been her nationality before marriage, she acquires upon marriage the nationality of lier husband, she is entitled to be placed in regard to a passport on the same footing as her husband ; and, conse- quently, in such a case. Her Majesty's ministers or consuls would he authorized to act exceptionally, and to grant to the woman an original passport, subject to the same con- ditions as the passport held by her husband, that is to say, to a passport not limited in point of time, if her husband's passport is not limited, or limited so as to correspond with the limit of time at which her husband's passport will expire, if her husband's passport is limited. But in no case must the wife's name be inserted in the passport held by the husband previously to the marriage ; for no minister or consul is authorized under any circumstances to insert an additional name in a passport, whatever number of names such passport, when originally granted, was stated to include." Your lordship asks tlrree further questions : " 1st. As regards the character of the children of a British naturalized suhjeet born abroad, the answer is, that such children share the character of their father, and are to he considered as naturalized British suhjects, so long at least as they are under age and living with their father. " But this is, of course, subject to the local law which may rightly deal with children born in the country, whatever may he the circumstances of their father, as natural- born subjects of the country in which they were horn. " 2d. Whether naturalized subjects are entitled to be married at Her Majesty's lega- tions or consulates. The answer is that they are so entitled. " 3d. Whether naturalized subjects are to be presented at court by Her Majesty's diplomatic servants ; and to this I reply that X see no ground on which a general rule excluding them from such presentations should be laid down; and I consider that Her Majesty's representative may j)roperly use iu regard to the presentation of naturalized British subjects the same discretion as they are in the habit of using in regard to nat- ural-born." BRAZIL. In March, 1845, Mr. Hesketh, Her Majesty's consul at Rio de Janeiro, forwarded to Lord Aberdeen a copy of a representation which he, in conjunction with the French and other consuls, had addressed to the Brazilian government, remonstrating against the interpretation given to the sixth article of the constitution of Brazil, namely : that excepting those foreigners who may he in Brazil in the service of their own states, the offspring of all other foreigners horn in Brazil must necessarilv be Brazilians.' Lord Aberdeen replied that " inasmuch as by the law of the United Kingdom all persons born within the allegiance of the British Crown are deemed to be British sub- jects, you would have acted more prudently if you had refrained from signing the rep- resentation made to the Brazilian government respecting the nationality of the chil- dren of foreigners born in Brazil."^ In 1849 Her Majesty's consul at Peru asked whether the children of British subjects born in Portugal were to be considered as British subjects iu Brazil, and was informed that children of British subjects born elsewhere than in Brazil, and whether in a Brit- ish territory or in a foreign country, are to be regarded in the light of British subjects, and to be entitled to protection as such.^ On the 2d of April, 1853, Mr. Jerningham reported that he had heen in communica- tion with the Brazilian government respecting the forced conscription of the sons of > Consnl Hesketh, No. 16; March 37, 1845. ^To Consul Hesketh, No. "; August 30, 1845. ^ Consul Eyan ; January 17, 1849. 171 British suljjects Ijorn in Brazil, unci that tlie Brazilian minister had stated to him that it was proposed to bring forward a law in the Brazilian chambers providing that np to the age of 21 years, sons bom in Brazil of British residents ahonld remain nnder the control of their parents, and that on attaining their majority they should be allowed to choose between British and Brazilian nationality.' Mr. Jerningham remai'ks iu this dispatch that the French claimed complete exemp- tion for the sons of French subjects thus situated, and that though the Brazilian gov- ernment did not acknowledge the claim, they did not attempt to force such Frenchmen into theii army. Lord Chirend(m instructed Mr. Jerningham to say that Her Majesty's government agreed to the proposed clause, but that they hoped that "either liy legislative enact- ments, or by the course hitherto adopted by the Brazilian government, no British sub- ject wiU be called upon to perform military service."-' It appeared subsequently that there had been some misunderstanding between Mr. Jerningham and the Brazilian minister, and that the ju-oposed clause was intended to apply reciprocally to the subjects of those States, the Liws of which acknowledged the children of Brazilians born within their territories to be Brazilians, and would not, therefore, affect British subjects.' Lord Clarendon then directed Her Majesty's minister to inquire whether the Brazil- ian government really intended to carry out the principle of reciprocity, and to place children born of British subjects in Brazil on exactly the same footing with regard to military service as that in which the children of IJrazilian subjects were placed in England ; as the imposition on them of forced miUtary service would be plainly incon- sistent with such a principle, " for, although a power does exist in this country in certain contingencies, very unlikely to occur, of resorting to the ballot for raising mili- tia, (in which ease, hovever, substitutes would be allowed,) yet, iu point of fact, both the regular army and the militia are recruited entirely by volunteers, and there is there- fore, practically, no forced military service in England."-" At the close ot 1853, there was a change of ministry iu Brazil, and in Ajiril, 1854, Mr. Howard (who had succeeded Mr. Jerningham) called the attention of the new govern- ment to this subject, but without receiving any reply.'' He again pressed it on their attention in August, when the foreign secretary, Senhor Limpo de Abreo, promised to look into the matter, but " gave no hope of an alteration in the laws of nationality, saying that he thought they could not constitutionally be interpreted in the manner in which the late minister for foreign affairs, Senhor Paulino, had in view ; that such an alteration would meet ^^-ith considerable opposition in the chambers, and that he himself doubted its expediency.'"' Being urged to take some steps to bring the question to a conclusion in October, 1854, Senhor de Abreo repeated that it presented great constitutional difficulties, and could not be solved without the concurrence of the legislature.' This closed the correspondence. It is to be observed that neither in 1852 nor 1854 do there appear to have been any particular cases reported in which the sons of British subjects were forced into the Brazilian service, and it may, therefore, be presumed that the Brazilian authorities continued to act upon an unofficial arrangement ccmie to with Mr. Jerningham in 1853, by which such persons were practically exempted from the conscription.* In December, 1885, Mr. .Spe.nce, a member of the English bar, who had been born in Brazil, applied for the appointment of law adviser and translator to Her Majesty's mission at Eio de Janeiro. Mr. Spence (in reply to an observation respecting the inconvenience which might be occasioned by a person whom the Brazilian government could claim as their subject being employed in such a capacity,) stated "that although there can be no question, according to article 6 of the Brazilian coilstitution, that from having been born in Brazil, though of British parents, I became a Brazilian subject, I respectfully submit that from having (when called to the bar in 1858) sworn allegiance to Hei- Majesty, I lost my Brazilian nationality, according to article 7 of the same constitution. It is true that the words of article 7 are 'naturalization,' but the taking of the oath of allegiance would, no donbt, be held equivalent to naturalization. But even if that were not so, the acceptance by a Brazilian subject (without the license of the Emperor) of any office from a foreign government would cause the loss of Brazilian nationality, as may be seeft on reference to clause 2 of article 7 of the same constitution."" Mr. Spence forwarded translations of the articles of the constitution referred to : > Mr. .Jemingliam, No. 20 ; April 2, 1853. ' To Mr. Jeminghain, Ko. 22 ; July 8, 1853. ^ To Mr. Jern- ingham, No. 30; Augusts, 1853. Mr. Jemingliam, No. 85 ; September 13, 1853. To Mr. Ho-ward, No. 14 • October 31, 1853. ' To Mr. Howard, No. 14 ; October 31, 1853. = Mr. Howard, No. 82 ; Aj)ril 25, 1854. «Mr. Howard, No. 162; August 11, 1854. 'Mr. Howard, No. 199; October 13, 1854. 'Mr. Jeminf;liam, No. 20; April 2, 1853. "To Mr. Spence; December 20, 1865. Mr. Spence; December 26, 1805. 172 WHO AEE BRAZILIAN CITIZENS ? "Article 6. — 1. Those born iu Brazil, either jEree or freedmen, although the father be a foreigner, if not resident in the service of his nation. " 2. Children of a Brazilian father, and the natural children of a Brazilian mother, born in a foreign country, who may come to have a domicile in this country. " 3. The children of a Brazilian father who may be in a foreign country in the serv- ice of the Emperor, although they do not require a domicile in Brazil. " 4. All those who, born in Portugal and her possessions, were resident in Brazil at the time when the independence was proclaimed in the provinces where they lived, and shall have expressly adhered to the said independence, or impliedly by continuing their residence in Brazil. " 5. Foreigners naturalized, whatever may be theii' religion. , THOSE WHO ARE DEPRIVED OF SUCH RIGHTS. "Article 7 — 1. Those who have become naturalized iu a foreign country. ^ " 2. Those who, without the Emperor's license, accept any employment, pension, or decoration, from any foreign government. " 3. Those sentenced to banishment." CHINA: Difficulties having arisen with regard to the claims to British protection to British- bom subjects of Chinese origin within the Chinese Empire, it has been arranged that they should wear a distinctive dress, and a government notification to that effect has accordingly been published at Hong-Kong. " The following circular from liis excellency Sir Rutherford Alcock, K. C. B., with its inclosure, relative to British subjects of Chinese descent residing or being in Chinese territory, is published for general information. " J. GARDINER AUSTIN, " Colonial Secretary Administenng the Government. " Government Offices, " Hong-Kong, November 2, 1868." "Circular No. 10. "Pekin, Octoher 7, 1868. " Sir : Pursuant to instructions from Her Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, I have issued the inclosed notification regulating the conditions under which persons of Chinese descent, who are British subjects, may reside or travel in China un- der British protection. " You will observe that it is left entirely optional to such'persons to claim the status of British subjects within the Chinese territories or not, as they may see fit. But in the event of their electing to sink their British nationality, and reside or travel as Chi- nese among Chinese, they caimot claim any exemption from the jurisdiction and laws of the country they adopt of their own free will, and after due notice of the conse- quences. " Yovi will give all due publicity and eifect within your jurisdiction to the inclosed, in conformity with the provisions of the Queen's order in council of 1865. " Your obedient servant, "RUTHERFORD ALCOCK. "To Her Majesty's Consul, &o., &c., &c., STiangkai." " Notification. " Whereas many persons of Chinese descent, who are or claim to be British subjects, go to reside or travel in the dominions of the Emperor of China, and whereas serious difficulty exists in distinguishing such British subjects from natives amenable to Chi- 173 nesc laws only, aud accordingly great practical inconvenience frequently results to tlie parties themselves, and to the authorities of both countries ; and whereas it is desirable, with a view to the maintenance of order and good government of British subjects of Chinese descent resorting to China, and for the maintenance of friendly relations be- tween British subjects and Chinese subjects and authorities, that a remedy should be provided for such inconvenience : Therefore, by the authority and power vested in me by the eighty-fifth section of the China and Japan order in council, 1865, I do declare and order that all British subjects of Chinese descent shall, while residing or being in Chinese territory, discard the Chinese costume and adopt some other dress or costume whereby they may readily be distinguished from the native population. And I do fur- therwaru all British subjects of Chinese descent so residuig or being in the Chinese dominions as aforesaid, that in the event of their infringing or not observing this order and regulation, they shall not be entitled to claim British protection or inter- ference on their behalf in any court of justice or elsewhere in the Chinese dominions. "And I do further order that every British subject of Chinese descent who shall sue in any Chinese court of justice, or appear in public before the authorities of the empire, shall be and is hereby required to pay all due respect to the Chinese authorities according to the custom and usage of the country, save and except that such British subject shall not be bound or required to observe any custom or ceremony wherebj' he would admit that he is a subject of His Imperial Majesty. "Given under my hand at Pekin this sixth day of October, one thousand eight hun- dred and sixty-eight. "EUTHEEFOED ALCOCK, " He)- Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary, Minister Flenipotentlary, and Chief Superintendent of Trade." COLOMBIA— NEW GEANADA. A correspondence took place in 1847-'48-'49 respecting the lawsaffecting aliens in New Granada.' This was renewed in 1855. The principal subjects treated of were the law as to intestate estates and a decree which had been issued respecting claims for losses sufl'ered during the civil war. In 1861 Mr. Griffith requested to be informed whether Mr. Bransby, a British subject, residing in New Granada, and who had accepted an appointment as interpreter in the New Granadian civil service, was to be considered a British subject. Mr. Griffith was instructed that Mr. Bransby had not, by accepting such employment, forfeited his allegiance, or ceased to be a British subject ; aud it was not suggested that he had formally renounced his British allegiance, or taken any oath of allegiance to the republic of New Granada.' His rights, therefore, to protection as a British subject, in all matters not immedi- ately connected with his employment as interpreter, were unimpaired, and, excepting as to such matters, he was as much entitled to British protection as he was before he accepted that employment. In May, 1862, Mr. Griffith reported that the United States minister had communi- cated to him confidentially the instructions which he had received from Mr. Seward respecting the protection to be afforded to United States citizens domiciled in New Granada.^ These instructions were to the following effect : Citizens temporarily visiting New Granada, but retaining their domicile in the United States, were to be afforded protection against any impositions of the government there for its support and maintenance. Citizens of the United States, no matter how they acquired that title, who have gone to New Granada, become domiciliated there, and are pursuing business, or otherwise living there, without definite and manifest intentions of returning to the United States, are subject to all the laws of New Granada affecting property or material rights, exactly the same as citizens of New Granada. Mr. Griffith adds that he has been informed that the New York commission for the liquidation of United States claims arising out of the collision at Panama in 1856, acting upon those principles, had ignored all the claims brought forward by United States citizens who were domiciled on the Isthmus at the time of the collision. In June, 1862, Mr. Griffith forwarded a copy of an official decree declaring that for- ' Mr. O'Leary, ISTo, 11 ; March 31, 1847. To. Mr. O'Leary, M"o. 17 ; July 16, 1847. * Mr. O'Leary, Ko. 25 i 1848 To Mr. O'Leary, No, 13 ; 1848. * Mr. O'Leary, No. 49 ; 1848. To Mr. O'Leary, No. 3 ; 1849. "Mr. O'Leary, No. 36; 1855. *Mr. O'Leary, No. 36i'l«55. *To Mr. O'Leary, No. 15; 1855. f* These papers are missing from the volumes.] Mr. Griffith, No. 80 ; September a, 1861. = To Mr. Griffith, No. 68 ; November 16, 1861. ^Mr. Griffith, No. 38 ; May 15, 1862. 174 eigners domiciled " iu tlie republic are to be allowed to acquire real property in the same maimer as natives." ' This decree further provided that foreigners or " immigrants " should be naturalized from the moment they enter the republic, and vrere to be entitled to all the rights and he subjected to all the obligations of native citizens. For the space of 20 years, however, they were to be exempted from military service, except in the case of foreign war, fi'om all direct or extraordinary contributions, and from all public employment, save that which might be imposed on them in the municipal district where they hap- pened to reside. Mr. Griffith was instructed that "although such a law was unusual, it was compe- tent for a country to make and enforce it, without furnishing any ground of complaint to foreign states. The distinction drawn by it between commorant and resident for- eigners seemed, on the whole, reasonable and just. The foreigner who, by the rela- tions of property, marriage, profession, or business, and length of residence, had in- corporated himself into a state, certainly owed a qualified allegiance to it, and it would he entitled to extend its protection to him with reference to all other states but that of his origin or birth. Such foreigners are truly and practically citizens of the state which they have adopted, and cannot cemplain that they are liable to the obligations of native citizens, with whom thfey are placed on an equality in every other respect.'"* On the 19th of April, 1865, a law was passed defining the condition of foreigners iu the United States of Colombia.' Article 2 classifies foreigners into domiciled and transient residents. 3. Domiciled foreigners are those who establish themselves permanently, or publicly declare their intention of so establishing themselves, or have resided two years. Temporary residents are exempted from military service or office. Domiciled aliens are exempted from military service, forced loans, and all personal employment or office of a permanent character. 5. Eepudiates any responsibility for damages suffered by aliens in time of war, they in such cases being placed on the same footing as natives. 6. Aliens interfering in civil or international contests to become subject to all the penalties and duties of Colombians. 7. This law not to interfere with treaty stipulations. Mr. O'Leary, on this law being communicated to him, immediately remonstrated against article 5, the practical inutility of which had indeed been remarked on by the Colombian President, who had opposed its being passed. Mr. O'Leary's remonstrance was framed on the instructions forwarded to Her Maj- esty's charge d'affaires when a similar law was enacted in 1847, and was approved by Her Majesty's government.'' Iu October, 1865, Mr. O'Leary^ requested to be informed whether the children, horn in England, of Mr. Montoya, a native Colombian naturalized in England, were entitled to exemption from the Colombian military service as British subjects. Mr. O'Leary'' added that, by the Colombian constitution, the offspring of Colombian parents born abroad were to be considered as citizens " when domiciled in Colombia." Mr. O'Leary' was instructed that " This is a question of Colombian municipal law ; but upon the statement contained in your dispatch, it appears that the children of Se- nor Montoya, who is a native Colombian, are domiciled in Colombia, and that they are subject to the obligations of Colombian citizenship. The fact that Senor Montoya is a naturalized British-Subject does not exemxJt him from the operation of the law of the State of his birth and natural allegiance while he resides iu that State." DENMARK. The case of Mr. Eainals, Briiish vice-consul at Copenhagen, which led to a long cor- respondence in 1863, illustrates the operation of the Danish laws with regard to the claim of the Danish Crown to the allegiance of aliens domiciled in Denmark. *The correspondence commenced with a demand made upon Mr. Eainals for the pay- ment of a dog-tax in 1860. Mr. Eainals pleaded exemption as an alien. The Danish government declared that he was a Danish subject, but offered to remit the tax as an act of comity ; but Mr. Eainals refused such a compromise, and insisted upon being acknowledged to be a British subject. Upon this the Danish government declared that their view of his nationality was borne out — 1. By the fact of his having sworn allegiance to the King of Denmark on obtaining a " borgerbrev" in 1848. ■Mr. Griffith, No. 40; June 20, 1803. ^To Mi'. Griffith, ISTo. 29; Septemhcr 30.-1862. 3 Mi-. O'Leary, No. 37 ; May 10, 1865. "To Mr. O'Leary, No. 11 ; March 31, 1847. ^To Mr. O'Leary, No. 38 ; July 28, 1865. "Mr. O'Leaiy, No. 65 ; Ootoher 30, 1S65. ' To Mr. O'Leary, No. 6 ; December 31, 1865. sgir A. Paget, No. 132 ; June 2, 1863. 175 2. By his having- hoeii horn iu Denmark. AVith rcg-ard t^> the "horgcrbrov," it iiiipoinvd that in 1848 Mr. Eainals had sotth-d a.s a broken- at- Elsmoro, and in order to obtain permission to carry on his protcssion had apphod to the mayor of that town for a " 1 lorgerbi-e-i- " or freedom of tlie city. When this was issued to him, the Elsiiiore authorities alleged that ho had signed the following paper : "In the year 184S, on the 11th of May, appearet to get tlio sentence oJ! imiirisonmen t paused on him re^'el•sed. ' Sir A. Miilt't WHS instructod that if the conntry of Mr. Grimm's hirth was the same as the one whose convt had tried and condemned him, Her Majesty's minister onght not to interfere on his hehalf, on the ground, of the alleged act of' denization ; but if Mr. Grimm had been tried in tlie court of a third couptry, ;. e., not the country of his origi- nal allegiance, then Sir A. Malet shouhl use his gooil oflices in whatever mtimier miglit be expedient and discreet. It turned out that Mr. Grimm was a Prussian by birth, and Sir A. jNIalet accordingly entered into an ofticial communication with the authorities, and Mr. Grimm's sentence appears to have been eventually commuted for a fine on his ]5etitioniug the Grand Duke. HANSE TOWNS. James Terry having applied to Colonel Hodges for exemption from servici! in the civil guard, in 1851, Lord Pahnerston furnished Colonel Hodges with the folloAviug instructions: ^"It appears that James Terry, the person whose case you quote, was born in Ham- burg, and must therefore be considei-ed, while within the State of Hamburg, a« n, Hambirrg subject: and it api)ears, nuncover, that his father was admitted a citizen before the son attained his twelfth year, and that by the law of Hamburg the son would, on that account, also be deemed a Hamburg subject. Under those circum- stances there can be no reason to question the liability of James Terry to serve in the civic guard, or in the federal contingent, precisely the same as any other native of Hamburg. "With respect to the general liability of British subjects resident in Hamburg to perform either oi' both of these kinds of service, I have to authorize you to give way to the liability of British subjects to serve in the civic guard for the protection of the city in which they reside, if you should find it necessary to do so ; but yon should strenuously resist any pretension to rec^uire British-6oriJ subjects, whether admitted or not to the rights of citizenship, to serve in the Hamburg contingent, because that contingent is not a force raised and embodied for the maintenance of order within the city and state of Hamburg, nor even solely for the defense of the Hambnrg state, but is a portion of the army of Germany, and is organized for the purj)Oses of foreign war, beyond and out of the Hamburg territory, to be waged not merely for the Hambnrg inten sts, but pos- sibly for the interests of any one of the other states of Germany; and the making of such a war would not depend npon the will and decision of the government of Ham- burg, but npon the will and decision of the central diet. "It thus might hai>pen not only that British subjects might be brought without, and even against their will, into conflict with the troops of states in amity or alliance with England, but that tlu^y might actually be compelled to take the field against the troops of their own conntry and sovereign." A similar case! occurred in 1863. 3 Mr. Charles James Bosdet claimed exemption from military service as a British sub- ject. ■'He was the eldest son of a Mr. Bosdet, a British subject, who caused himself to be nuide a citizen of Hamburg in 1843, who had ever since resided there and was then residing there with all his family but his eldest son. Mr. C. J. Bosdet was born in Hambnrg and resided there till he was twenty-two years of age. Mr. C. J. Bosdet having quitted Hamburg, the senate published his name in the list of deserters, thereby subjecting him to certain penal consequences should he return within the Hamburg territory. It was decided that the enforcement of the decree of the senate within their juris- diction, should Mr. Bosdet place himself within it, would not constitute any ground for the official interference of Her Majesty's government, and instructions in this sense were accordinglv furnished to Her Majesty's charg6 d'affaires. ■'Another case occurred in 18i56, in which Mr. C. Dodgshun, born in Hamburg, of a British father, who had become a burgher of that city, claimed exemption from the conscription as a British subject. It was decided "that Her Majesty's government cannot gainsay the right of the Hamburg authorities to treat him, so far as their jurisdiction is concerned, as a citi- zen, or to sequestrate his property in Hamburg, though they can have no right to touch the property of his brother and sister." In August, 18S6, another of the Bosdet family appeared as a claimant to British pro- tection. ■ To Sir A Malet No. 36 : May 9, 1864. ^ To Colonel Hodgos ; March 7, 1851. ^ Mr. "Ward, No. 54 ; September 4, 1863. ' To Mr. Ward, No. 14; September 30, 1863. 'Mr. S. WilUams ; January 15, 1866. IHO 111 this instanco, the applicant, A. Bosdet, had been horn in Jersey, and was resident m Scotland. 1 Mr. Ward was instrncted "that Alfred Bosdet seems to he the son of a native citizen of Hamhurg, now a domiciled merchant in that town. The municipal laws of Hani- hurg treat the son of such a citizen as a subject, and place him, so far their jiirisdiction extends, under the obligations of a citizen, one of which is to serve in the Hamburg mili- tary force. The fact that Alfred Bosdet was bom in England confers on him, accord- ing to the law of this country, the character of an English subject;- and there arises, or may arise, in these cases a couilict of jurisdiction; but as the law of England also con- siders the son of a native subject, wherever he is born, as an English citizen, the En- glish government cannot fairly complain of the law of Hamburg, which in this respect is the same ; nor can it interfere with the execution of that law within the town of Hamburg. You. may accordingly represent to the Hamburg authorities that Alfred Bosdet has become an English subject, and ask, as a matter of comUi/, that his name may therefore be taken off the military list. Mr. Ward cannot be properly instructed to insist, ffs a matter of right, upon this being done." SAXONY. 2 In 1865 Mr. Murray asked what was the nationality of a child of foreign parents born on board a British vessel, and of a child born without the British dominions, of foreigners naturalized as British subjects. 3 Lord Russell replied, "I am of opinion that a child of foreign parents born on board one of Her Majesty's ships of war would be a British subject, wherever the ship might be ; and that a child born on board a British merchant or private unprivileged vessel on the high seas would also be entitled to be considered a British subject. It is more doubtful whether such a child born on board such a vessel in the port or waters of a foreign state would be entitled to be considered as a British subject. "A child bom without the British dominion of foreign parents, naturalized, as British subjects, would be entitled to be considered as a British subject with reference to all other States but that to which his parents owed an original allegiance, unless indeed that State had, by its own law, allowed its subject to divest himself of his allegiance." GREECE. A question arose at Corfu in 1866, relative to the liability of British subjects domi- ciled as Ionian citizens in that island to be drawn for the conscriptions, and whether they could evade it by renouncing the Ionian naturalization acquired by themselves or their fathers during the British protectorate ot the island. * Her Majesty's government thought it would be a reasonable and just concession on the part of the Greek government to allow British subjects, naturalized dm'ing the protectorate of Great Britain, to have the option now of renouncing their Ionian and resuming their British nationality, provided this option be exercised without delay, and put on formal record as soon as possible. But inasmuch asno stipulation to this effect was made in the treaty by which Great Britain renounced the iirotectorate, they did not think that Her Majesty's government could properly demand, as a matter of right, that such an option should be conceded to them by the government of Greece. As it has been stated in the house of representatives that Don Paoiflco, the hero of the 1847-48 claims, was a naturalized British subject, it may be as well to mention here that he was a native British subject, having been born at Gibraltar. (State Papers, vol. xxxix, p. 356.) GUATEMALA. In 1859 the attention of the Guatemala government having been called to the arrangement which had been come to in Buenos Ayres for the exemption of the children of British residents from military service. Sir Charles Wyke ^ entered into ' To Mr. "Ward ; Ko. 6, Aiigust, 1866. = To Mr. Murray, ISTo. 7 ; April 26, 1865. » To Mr. Murray, ITo . 7; April 26, 1865. ' To Mr. Erskine, No. 31 ; NoTejnber 15, 1866. = Sir C. W-yke, No. 1 ; January 30, 1859. 181 oommiuiicatioiia witli tlioui with the view of Becuriug a similar exemption for the tlulflren of British residents in Guatemala. In a note dated the 17th of January, 1859, the Guatemala minister stated, " This government acknowledges that the children of British subjects born in this republic, aud as such subject by our laws to fulfill the duty of Guatemalans, have also obliga- tions that bind them by the origin of their parents to the country where said parents were born. It acknowledges, likewise, that the discharge of these duties in a new country, and where the government and laws are also new, and not sufficiently firm, must be grievous in cases of civil war, and on account of the military service might bring with it some insecurity that might extend itself to the fathers of families and to the affairs of foreigners settled in the country, and might give rise to complications, or at aU events to discussions that ought to be avoided. » * » Therefore, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the govermnent judges it very expedient to obviate by a resolution and a friendly imderstandiug, all the dilHculties caused by this inequality of conditions, and to remove for any future occurrence all motives of discussion ; and taking into consideration that no serious difficulty presents itself for the reasons already expressed in the making some concession as regards the military service in favor of the sous of British subjects born in the republic, aud who as Guatemalans are liable to perform their duties the same as the natives, acceding to the wishes of Her Majesty, in wiUhi;/ to consider them exempt from said miUlary service niitil they reach the age of 21 years, ami to arjrec that in all cases %ehen they may M required ioperfonn this service they can find a substitute." Sir Charles Wyke in forwarding a copy of this note to Lord Malmeshui-y remarked that this arrangement was more favorable than the one awived at with Buenos Ayres, as it did not require that the substitutes should be foreigners. ' '^ Costa Kica, Honduras, Salvador, and Nicaragua, also acceded to this luider- stauding. ITALY. 3 The following extract from a dispatch addressed by Sir W. Temple to Mr. Vice-con- sul Barker in 1837, explains the views of the Neapolitan government in a case of dis- puted nationality which occurred at that date : "I have represented to Prince Cassaro the ca«e of Mr. John and Mr. Benedict Stuart, and he is decidedly of opinion, as well as myseK, that they are British subjects, aud therefore not liable by treaty to be called upon to serve in the sanitary cordon. Their father. Lieutenant Stuart, having been born in England, was a British subject, and his marrying a Messinese made no difference in the nationality of his sons, for, accord- ing to law, the wife follows the condition of the husband. Unless, therefore, the sons in coming of age had declared their intention of being naturalized, and had gone through the formalities prescribed by the law for that purpose, they remain British subjects. Prince Cassaro informed me that this question had been ah-eady decided in the case of a French subject, and he has promised me that, if it is necessary, he will apply to the minister for the affairs of Sicily for an order to secure these gentlemen from further molestation." * A. question was raised by the Sardinian government in 1851 respecting the nation- ality of John Paul Baptiste Vertu, bom at Halifax, Yorkshire, of Sardinian parents. The Turin government contended that he was a Sardinian subject. *Lord Palmerston's instructions to Mr. Hudson were: "I have now to state to you that, as a general principle, children of alien friends, born in the British dominions, become de facto subjects of Great Britain, although not absolutely, and in all cases, to the entire cessation of all the bonds, privileges, and duties which might attach to them as children of the State to which their parents might belong, particularly when they themselves return to, and abide in, their parents' country, and claim to be, and act as, subjects thereof. "The right to be considered as British subjects, if fully and completely acquired, and not abandoned or forfeited, may be lawfully extended to them in the foreign state of which their parents were subjects; and it is not necessary, in order to render his children British subjects, that an alien friend transferring his domioil to Great Britain should previously have obtained his legal liberation from his duties and obli- gations to the state to which he had originally belonged." 8 In 1843 M. Salteri requested to be informed whether his son, who was born and then resident in England, was liable to the conscription in Tuscany. Lord Aberdeen replied that his son, having been born and being resident within the iMr. Hall, Ko. 37; Jiiue 35, 1859. ^Mr.Hall, 'So. 48; August 19, 1859. sSirW.Temple to Mr. Barker, September 16, 1837. (Inclosure hi Vice-consul Eiokard's ifo. 14, March 1, 1865.) ■* Sir E. Abercromby, No. 152; December 3, 1851, « Xo Mr. Hudson, No. 9 ; March 23, 1852. ^ To M. Salteri ; July 3, 1843. 182 (loiiiiiiioiis of the British Crown, cannot bo liable to the eoiiscriptiou law of Italy, or of any ot.ln'r fonign lonntry. 'In No\ ember, 1864, the Marquis d'Azeglio recinesteil information as to the natioii- ality of Mr. E. E. Solio, who had claimed exemption from the conscription at Messina as a British subject, although his brother was counsel to the municipality, and as such undoubtedly an Italian. ' After some inquiry, it proved that Mr. Sofio had been born at Massina, and the Marquis d'Azeglio was accordingly told that Her Majesty's government could not pro- tect him as a British subject. ■'Mr. So1io, who was a merchant at New York, in the meanwhile returned to the United States, having been only a shoi-t time in Sicily on commercial business. •' In Febuary, 1865, the Marquis d'Azeglio made a similar in(|uiry respecting MM. Carlo Hammet and Mariano Stuart, (son of the gentleman whose case has been previ- ously referred to,) and Lord Eussell then urged the Italian government to abide by the doctrine laid down by the Neopolitan government in 1837.'' * It seems unnecessary to enter into a detailed account of this corresiiondeuoe, as the Sicilian law upon which this claim was founded, and which was then in force, has been superseded by the new Italian code. {See "Laws of Italy.") In January, 1866, Mr. Elliot reported the case of Philip Smith, who had been drawn, for the ((mscription at Bologna. General La Marmora refused to except him, on the grcrand that he came within the provisions of the Sardinian code, his father having resided for twenty years in Italy, and the profession of coachmao which the father exercised not being considered "comme un commerce ou une industrie." The papers were refen'ed to the counsel to the Florence legation, who pointed out that under the new code Smith could declare himself a British subject on attaining his majority, and thias procure his discharge; but that in the meanwhile (he being twenty years of age) he must be considered as an Italian subject, and liable to military service. This opinion is worth notice, as the age for conscription is generally eighteen ; and in countries where a law similar to thjft of Italy prevails, it follows that the son of a British subject may be called upon to serve in the army from eighteen to twenty-one, when he can become a British subject and discharge himself. It would certainly seem fairer that the youth should have the option of choosing his nationality when he is called upon to perform the duties of a native. It is ob- viously an anomaly that a man should be considered old enough to be a soldier, but not old enough to decide whether he would be a citizen. This anomaly is obviated by the French law. ' In April, 1866, M. Eosario Messina claimed British protection in Sicily as a natural- ized Maltese. The Italian authorities denied his British nationality, asserting that his naturalization applied only to the island of Malta. H^ was informed that his naturalization could not protect him against the law of his native country; the exception of this rule being found in cases in which the country of the original allegiance allows her subjects to put off their allegiance and become the subjects of another country, which was not alleged to be the law of Italy. In May, 1867, Mr. Elliot requested instmctions as to the liability of Messrs. Hall and Hoare, and other British subjects, to contribute to a forced loan levied on mines, and other undertakings in which they were associated with Italians. * Mr. Elliot was instructed that under the fifteenth article of the treaty of commerce, British subjects could claim exemption fx-om such loans being levied on dividends payable to them personally, but they could not claim exemption fi-om loans assessed ou the value of the ndne or other concern in which they were collectively engaged with Italian subjects who were legally liable to it. MEXICO. Earl Eussell to Mi- Scavleit. Foreign Office, June 1, 1865. ' "Sir: I have received your dispatch No. 29, of the 23d of March, requesting to be f urnLshed with instructions as to the nature and amount of protection which you should afford to naturalized British subjects in Mexico, and I have now to state to you, for your information and guidance, that the rule laid down in'" Lord Palmerston's cii-cular of January 8, 1851, is only apiilicable to persons holding certificates of naturalization ' Marquis d'Azpftlio ; Novemljer 98, 1864. ^ To Marquis d'Azeglio ; February 6, 18G5. ^ jjr, ijii^iiards, No. 15 ; March 1, 1865. ■• Marquis d'Azeglio ; February 16, 1865. . = To Count jlaffei ; Febi-uary 26, 1865. ' Marquis d'Azeglio ; April 4, 1865. ' Messrs. Walton and Bubb ; April 28, 1866. s To Sir A. tagct, No. 3 ; September 5, 1867. » To Mr. Scarlett, No. 43. "> Home Office, May 17, 1865. 183 ;?raiitiMl iittiT that date, and tluii. iiovsoiis holding sufli (■crtiiica+es ai'o not to l)e held entitled to tlio same vij^lits and eapacitics in Mexico as a natural-lioni British subject. "'Hie pi-oteetion to lie aeciirded in virtue ot Lord Clarendon's circular of May 1,1854, apiJlies merely to the right of sojourn and of locomotion, but not to ijrotection generally in regard to business itursuits in which naturalized British subjects may be engaged. ' " I am, ttc, (Signed) "RUSSELL." A question Tvas raised in 18fir> as to the liability of British subjects in Mexico to serve in the police and national guard. ' Under the advice of the law officers, Mr. Scarlett was instructed that they could properly = be called upon to serve in the police, or to pajr a tax for exemption, but not in the national guard, whi<'h might be used for active military service.-' ** In May, 1865, Mr. Scarlett forwarded a copy of a decree recently published iu Mexico, by which the illegitimate children born of foreigners and Mexican women, as well as those foreigners who may acquire landed property in Mexico, are to be con- sidered as Mexican subjects.^ He was instructed that "the decree respecting illegitimate children seemed to furnish no reason for remonstrance from foreign governments, except, perhaps, so far as it extended to the illegitimate children born of Mexican women in foreign States (' dentro 6 fuera del territorio del Impero,') a matter, however, of little practical importance." " The decree as to foreigners acquiring landed property should be protested against in so far as it was made retrospective, and tliat time should be allowed to such aliens to determine whether they would retain their property, and to enable them to dispose of it without injury or loss accruing from this ex post facto law. "With regard to' its prospective operation, though it would be severe on foreigners, especially if the words ' jii-opicclcd taritoria' extend to shares in mines aud leases of land and houses, yet It was within the competence of the Mexican government to pass such a law." '' Jlr. Benjamin Crowther, a British suhject who had served in the army of the so- called Confederate States, having applied to Mr. Scarlett for jarotection. Lord Russell instructed Mr. Scarlett in November, 1865, that " a British subject who has neither been enrolled as a citizen nor naturalized in America, ought not, on the ground of his hav- ing served on either side during the civil war, to be deprived in a third country like Mexico of all British protection." ' M. Savinon, a Mexican hy hirth, having claimed British protection as a British naturalized subject, Mr. Scarlett's conduct in refusing it to him in Mexico was approved November, 1865.^ MONTE VIDEO. See dispatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Vice-consul Dale, Decemher 20, 1842, previously cited. NETHERLANDS. 3 In 18S1 a case arose in which the Dutch government claimed the military service of Daniel Swan, a British suhject horn in Scotland of British parents and subsecjuently domiciled in the Netherlands. It appeared that the existing Dutch law was in favor of the claim of the Dutch government ; but a clause was proposed to he added to a militia hill then before the States General which, if liberally construed, would suffice to provide for the exemption thereafter of British subjects similarly situated. '" The clause introduced into the militia bill by the Second Chamber of the States General was as follows : "A foreigner shall not be considered an inhabitant if he he- longs to a State where a Dutch subject is not liable to compulsory military service, or where the principle of reciprocity is received wdth respect to liability for service," ' I Some doubt having heen expressed whether, under this clause, British suhjects were exempt, the Dutch Government addressed a note to Sir A. Buchanan on the 26th of April, 1861 : " II a 6t6 d6cid6 qu'aussi longtemps que les sujets Nforlaudais establis dans la Grande Bretagne, qui ne sont pas naturalises sujets Britanniques, y seront ef- feotivement exempts du service miUtaire, soit en vertu de la cotltume ou des disposi- tions administratives, soit en vertu d'actes liSgislatifs spdciaux, les sujets deSa Majesty ' Law officers May 22, 1865. 'Law officers, June 20, 1865. " To Mr. Scarlett, No. 50 ; June 26, 1865- ■• Queen's Advocate • June 9, 1865. « To Mr. Scarlett, Ko. 51 ; June 26, 1865. « To Mr. Scarlett, No. 83 ; Kovember 1 1865. 'Queen's Advocate; November 7, 1865. «To Mr. Scarlett, No. 2; Novemlier, 1865- 9 Sir A. Buchanan, Nos. 19, 23, 31, 32, and 33. >» To Sir A. Buchanan, No. 34 ; July 13, 1861. " Sir A. Buchanan, No. 77 ; August 28, 1861. 184 Hi'itaniiiquc jonii-ont, i5giil('iiioi)ti dans Jo Koyiiuino dcs Pays Ba.s a imrfiv de la misc en \ij(ueiii' (Ic. la dito iiiMivclld loi, dii iDf'ndfioc. dclii disposition del' Article l.'i, qnicxcuiptc, a titrc de ivciiiniciti''., Ics (',t.vauj;ers dtablis dans lo Royaumodi^l'oltligatioii de satisl'aire il la iiiilitaiic." A olaiisc AN its at tlie same time introduced into the militia bill, exempting from the (•onscvi|iti()ii the ahsent sons of residents who were not N(itUerlands' subjects, thercOiy preventing the recurrence of a case like that of Swan. ' In the instructions addi-essed to Sir A. Buchanau, Lord John Eussell observed : " There is no practical liability imposed on aliens in England to serve in the militia, inasmuch as the militia ballot is not iu fact resorted to ; even their theoretical liability thereto is a matter uot free from legal doubt ; and they are under uo liability at all to compulsory military service in the army."^ NOEWAY. By the Norwegian military law of 1857 "foreigners who have acquired a fast domi- cilium in the country " are rendered liable to military duty.'' A case occiu-red in 1861 in which Mr. Walter Foreman claimed British protection against the conscription, and he was advised to try the question before the Supreme Court as provided by the laAV of 1857. If a convention existed British subjects would be exempt by the express terms of the law ; but in the absence of such a convention they could only appeal to the princi- liles of equity, and ask for exemption on the ground that Norwegians were not sub- jected to any such military service in England. ^-EESIA. Lord Palmerston to Mr. Sheil. " September 4, 1850. " The principles upon which, as stated in your dispatch No. 87, of the 22d of July, you are in the habit of acting, in regard to granting passports and affording protection to natives of India, appear to me to be correct. The only question would be whether children born in British India of parents subjects of the Shah, can properly be placed under British protection while resident in Persia. " In Europe the international law would be against such an arrangement. Children born in England of parents of subjects of a foreign state would be entitled to be con- sidered as British^ subjects everywhere but in the country to which their parents be- long, always assuming that the law of that country considers children born to native subjects while out of the country to be as much native subjects as if they had been born in the country. " But though that would be the international rule in Europe, yet, considering the different and peculiar habits and practices of Asia, it seems to me that, considering that all persons born in British India, of whatever jiarents, are entitled to be regarded as British subjects, so far as concerns any privileges and advantages which attach to that character within the British dominions, it would be fair and right to extend to such persons, even in Persia, the benefits of being placed under British protection ; and es])ecially if they had resided in British India for any time, so as to have been practi- cally domiciled therein."* Lord J. BnsseU to Mr. Alison. "Foreign Office, August 25, 1860. " Sir : I have had under my consideration Sir Henry Eawlinson's dispatches No. 50, of the 29th of March, and No. 57, of the 11th of April last, inclosing a register of persons enjoying, and claiming to enjoy, British protection in Persia, and requesting definite instructions for his guidance in regard to what constitutes the right of a person to he considered a British subject, and to claim British protection in Persia. " It does not appear that the Persian government has actually raised any objections, or that any case has arisen urgently calling for a decision as to the nationality or right to protection of any individual or class of ^persons; but as Sir Henry Eawlinson ap- peared to apprehend that difficulties would arise, and desired to be instructed before- hand what course he was to adopt in each case, as and when it might occur, I have to observe — " First, that I am ignorant as to what is the course adopted on the points in question ' Sir A. Buchanan, No. 34 ; July 13, 1861. 2 To Sir A. Buchanan, No. IS ; July 29, 1861. ' Mr. Crowe, Nos. 48 and 49 ; November 2, 1861. Mr. Crowe, No. 2 ; March 15, 1862. '' To Colouel Sheil, No. 82 : Sep tember4, 1850. 185 by the other European govornmeuts ha\'iiig diphnnatio relations with Porsiii, more par- th-uhirly France and Knssia; and having regard to Articles IX, XI, and XII of the treaty of Marcli 4, ]S.-)7, as well as to the neeessity of not eoneeding in practice to Persia more than is conceded to her liy these powers on the subject in questiou, it is iuipossible for me to furnish you with deliuite instructions on this liead. '■ Secondly, I ha\e to point out to yon tlu'. iuipracficaibility of following ont strictly, in relation to Persia, or any other Mahometan power, the princiides of iuternatioiuil law prevailing between Christian powers, so far as regards nationality and the right to protectipn. This impracticability is abundantly apparent from Sir Henry EawUn- sou's dispatch No. 57 of the 11th of April, in which, whilst insisting upon the propriety of conceding, as it were, a reciprocity in point of principle to Persia in the matter of national slaiiis, he nevertheless suggests, in particular instances, doubtless on strong grounds of policy, the propriety of entirely disregarding or departing from any such principle in actual practice, as, for instaiuce, in the case of the Masulipatan Newal re- ferred to at No. 10, Class VI, in the list inclosed in his before-mentioned dispatch. "Thirdly, I have to state to you that no new rule or practice, as to the extending or limiting the application of the existing system as to British protection, ought to be adopted, unless it be made common to other powers, especially France and Russia ; no such new rule or practice should be retrospective ; and no person now enjoying British protection should be deprived thereof by the aiiplication or operation of any such new rule or ijractice. "With respect, moreover, to the class of cases particularly adverted to by Sir Henry Eawlinson, namely, the children of Persian fathers born in the Queen's dominions and afterward returning to Persia, I have reason to believe that in Turkey such persims habitually enjoy British protection, unless, indeed, they act in such a manner as to forfeit the right thereto, and to show that they have 'elected' the Tiu-kish nationality of their fathers ; and I have to state to you, that I see no reason to depart from the instructions laid down on this head by Viscount Palmerston in his dispatch No. 82, of the 14th of September, 1850, to Lieutenant-Colonel Shell. " Subject to the above remarks, and considering the question apart from all consid- erations of usage, policy, or expediency, but exclusively and strictly with reference to the principles of international law prevailing amongst Christian nations, I have to state to you that a child of a Persian father, born in the Queen's dominions and re- turning to Persia, will not, whilst in Persia, be entitled to British protection, if (as stated) the law of Persia considers him a Persian subject by reason of his Persian de- scent ; and on this principle Syud Abdullah could not, whilst he remained in Persia, be claimed, or claim to be treated there, as a British subject. Although, therefore, this would be the correct rule of international law, yet, as it has not been hitherto acted on in Persia, I think it very inexpedient that it should now be made a rule of English pro- cedure there, unless it is also made common to all other European nations, and espe- cially France and Russia. " You will be guided by what I have stated above, when called upon to interfere on behalf of persons having a claim to British protection. " I am, &c., "J. RUSSELL."' A correspondence took place in 1862 respecting the right of the British consul-gen- eral at Bagdad to afford protection to the children of a person named Ali Agha, who was born in India, but was of Persian descent, the Persian government having assert- ed that the children ought to be placed under the protection of the Persian consul at Bagdad.^ Mr. Alison was instructed that the British consul-general was authorized upon the principle of the law, and warranted by the usage applicable to the subject, to take un- der Ms protection the sons of Ali Agha while they continued resident at Bagdad.' In 1867, the British resident at Bushire raised a question as to the nationality of the grandson of a British Indian subject born in Persia. Mr. Alison was instructed that such a person was a British subject by the British statute law, and as such entitled to the good offices of British authorities ; but in the case where the father had been domiciled, and the son resident in Persia, it was not reasonable to claim the latter as a British subject, so as to withdraw him from the operation of the laws of his parent state.* PERU. In 1851, Mr. Vice-Consul Nugent requested to be informed whether he was to register as British subjects the children of British residents liorn in Peru, and whether children so registered, born of a Peruvian mother, were exempt from conscription.'' Mr. Alison, N"o. 64. ' Mr. Alison, No. 184 ,■ Octotier 26, 1862. ^ xo Mr. Thomson, No. 4 ; December 31,1862. ■> To Mr. Alison, No. 15 ; November 12, 1867. 'ITrom Mr. Nugent; February 1, 1851. To Mr. Adams, No. 6 ; August 23, 1851. 24 s D 186 Her Mnjcsty's charge d'affaires was directed to fiirnisli Mr. Nugent ^vith instructions on tlie latter point founded upon tliose addressed to liim on the 17tli of Folaruavy, 1848. These instructions were substantially tlie same as tliose given to Mr. Viee-Consul Dale, {fide ants.) PORTUGAL. " Tlis Earl of Aberdeen to Lord Howard de Walden. "FoKEiGN Office, June 10, 1843. " My Lokd : I have received your lordship's dispatch No. Ill, of the 25th of May, stating that you had informed the Portuguese minister for foreign affairs that Her Majesty's government cannot for an instant admit the right claimed hy the Portuguese government to consider as Portuguese subjects all persons born in Portugal, notwith- standing that they may be the issue of foreigners residing in that country. " I think it necessary for your information to put you in possession of the opinion of the Queen's advocate-general upon several cases which have arisen in foreign coun- tries, and in which the right referred to in your dispatch has been questioned. " The substance of that opinion is, that although by the statute law of this country all children born out of the allegiance of the King, whose fathers, or grandfathers by the father's side, were natural-born subjects, are themselves entitled to enjoy British rights and privileges while they are within British territory, yet the eifect of British statute law cannot extend so far as to take away from the government of the country in which those persons may have been born, the right to claim them as natural-bom subjects, at least so long as they remain in that country. " By the common law of England, all persons born within the King's allegiance, _ whether the children of British subjects or of foreigners, are deemed to be natural- born subjects of the Crown of England ; and if the law of any foreign state upon this point be the same as the English law, and if such foreign state places persons bom within its territory upon the same footing as its own subjects or citizens, the govern- ment of that state has the right to exact the service of a subject from such persons, even if they may have been the children of foreigners, at least whilst such children remain in the country of their birth. "It may be necessary that I should add that the children or grandchildren by the father's side, of natural born-British subjects, born in any other country than Portu- gal, are entitled to be protected by you, in Portugal, as natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain; but the children of British fathers bom in Portugal cannot be protected by you against the operation of the laws affecting the subjects of Portu- gal, unless the laws of that country withhold from the child of a foreigner the rights of a Portuguese subject." PKUSSIA. In reply to inquiries from Lord Bloomfleld,' Lord Clarendon furnished him with the following instructions in 1855 : "1st. That a woman, a British-born subject, who has married a foreigner, puts on the status of her husband, and during the continuance of that coverture is not entitled to claim the protection of Her Majesty's legations abroad. "2d. The same woman, on becoming a widow, is entitled to re-assume the character of a natural-born British subject; but her children by her alien husband, if born abroad, follow the nationality of their father, except that by virtue of the 3d section of the 7 »fc 8 Vict., cap. 66, they are made capable of taking any estate, real or personal, by devise or purchase or inheritance in England. 3d. As already stated, the mother, whilst under coverture, follows the condition of her husband, and is an alien; but the children, as well during as after the coverture, are entitled to the privileges conferred by the 3d section of the 7 & 8 Vict., cap. 66. "4th. During coverture by an alien husband the mother cannot demand a British passport. When 'discouverte' she may demand, one. The children, however, are aliens and cannot demand passports as British subjects either during pr after cover- ture." In 1862, Mr. Crossthwaite,^ Her Majesty's consul at Cologne, requested to be in- formed whether, he having been naturalized as a Prussian subject, his sons were liable to the Prussian conscription. It was decided that the sons of a naturalized Prussian subject ( owing allegiance to 'To Lord Bloomfleld, No. 249, August 11, 1865. ''Law officers: November 5, 1862. 187 Her Majesty) who are between the ages of 17 and 25, and are resident in Prussia would he conipellablo to serve in the Prussian army. In 1865 it was decided that a M. Eeukewitz, ' a person horn in the British colony of Tobago, of a Saxon father and n Danish mother, and who had not resided in British territory since he was seven years of age, might properly receive a British passport from the Berlin embassy. In October, 1867, the Prussian charge d'affaires, with a view to the controversy be- tween the Prussian and United States Governments, made an inquiry as to the liability to serve in Her JIajesty's army and ua\'y of British subjects who, having emigrated to a foreign country and become naturalized citizens of that country, subsequently re- turn to their native land. Count Berustorffi^ was informed "that no practice has prevailed in England since the peace of 1815, which has any bearing on the question of the treatment in Priissia of these subjects of the King of Prussia, liable to military service, who, after they have emigrated to a foreign country, and been naturalized there, come back again to Prus- sia, inasmuch as the practice in England has always been, both before and since the peace of 1815, to recruit the royal army by voluntary enlistment. " On the other hand, the militia of the counties which used to be called out by ballot has ceased to be so called out since 1829, and on the last occasion when the militia was embodied, during the Russian war in 1854, the quota of each regiment was furnished by volunteers. There has thus been no opportunity for a tacit practice to grow up either in regard to the army or the militia, under which any jirivilege of exemption from the liability to military service should become established in Great Britain in favor of those subjects of the Queen who, after they have emigrated and been natural- ized abroad, have returned to Great Britain. "With regard to the royal navy, the same observations apply, as the practice of im- pressment has been allowed to fall into desnetude, and the royal navy has been for some time recruited by voluntary enrollment." RUSSIA. In 1857 Madame von Essen applied to Lord Wodehousc,' at St. Petersburgh, for a British passport, to enable her to be recognized as a British subject by the Russian au- thorities, she being the widow of a Prussian who had been naturalized in Russia. Lord Wodehouse was instructed "to grant her a passpra-t if she can show that she was a natural-born Englishwoman, and that she forfeited upon the death of her hus- band thejights she acquired in Russia as the wife of a naturalized Prussian subject; but if she did not forfeit those Russian rights, you will inform Madame von Essen that she cannot under such circumstances be provided with a British passport, more es- pecially as she appears to have no intention of leaving Russia." The Queen's advocate remarked, in regard to this case, that there was no law as to the right of a British-born subject to a passport, and that it would be very inexpedient to lay down any inflexible rule in such matters. The primary intention and use of a passport was for traveling purposes, and it was for the secretary of state to give such directions fi'om time to time as he might think fit as to the grant of passports in special cases, having regard to the conditions as to domicile and residence in a foreign country, under which such applications were made. Shortly afterwards Consul-General Mansfield* inquired whether a Polish lady mar- ried to an Englishman could legally be entered in her husband's passeport cle nejour as a British subject. He was told that during marriage she became entitled to the status and civil lights of her husband, and consequently to the protection of the British gov- ernment as a British subject. In 1862 a question arose as to the status of Briti.sh Jews in Russia. Her Majesty's embassador'* was instructed that, having regard to the language of the treaty between Great Britain and Russia of 1859, and to the facts stated with ref- erence to the legal status of Russian Jews in their own country, Her Majesty's govern- ment would not be justified in claiming exemption for British Jews in Russia from the disabilities to which Russian Jews are there liable by law. The effect of the first and eleventh articles of the treaty was to place British subjects on the footing of E^T8sian subjects before the law, each class being alike, and one not more than the other amen- able to all general laws applicable in like oases. Russian subjects, being Jews, in- curred certain disabilities, and the equality intended and provided by the treaty was not infringed by British subjects who are Jews, whilst residing there, also sharing the same disabilities. In 1865 the British factory at St. Petersburg wished to obtain a re- •Df^cemlier 4. 1865. 'To Connt Bernstorff; November 15, 18C7. ^Lorcl "Wodeliouso, Ko. 12; Jannary 3 1857. Queen's Advocate; January 15 and 21, 1857. To Lord "Wodelionse, No. C9; January 21, 1857 «Oonsul-General Mansfield, No. 16; February 24, 1857. «To Lord Napier, No. 105; May 15, 1862. 188 vision of the sixth section of the Russian naturalization law relating to children horn after their parents had adopted Russian allegiance, with reference especially to tlio fact that previously to 1862 no alien could carry on business in Russia without being naturalized, and that the new law of 1864 made no provision for the denaturalization of persons who had assumed Russian nationality before it was passed. Sir A. Buchanan' was instructed to assist the factory as far as he could. At the same time he was warned that it was impossible to press upon the Russian government the law of England as a complete reason for the desired concession. "The present law'^ of England would allow a Russian merchant to carry on his busi- ness in Great Britain without being naturalized, and so far the doctrine of reciprocity might be made available: but, on the other hand, the law of England considered that allegiance, whether acquired by birth or by naturalization, is indelible, except, perhaps, in Hie case of a conflict of duty between the obligations of the naturalized foreigner to the state to which he origiualiy belonged and Great Britain. "A Russian could exercise wholesale and retail trade in England on the same footing as a British subject, with the exception that he could not lease land or house for a longer term than t\\"enty-one years without being naturalized. A Russian could not,'' according to the theory of the law, put off the allegiance acquired by naturalization, though practically he would do so if he returned to his own country, except, perhaps, in a case of war between Russia and England." In March, 1867, Mr. George Wolff'' applied to Sir A. Buchanan for a British passport. Mr. Wolff was born in England of a Hanoverian father and English mother, had re- sided in England until he was eleven years of age, and had never claimed Hanoverian nationality. Under these circumstances, Sir- A. Buchanan was told that he might give notice to the Russian authorities of Mr. Wolff's name being withdrawn from the family pass- port, and give him a separate passport as a British subject. SPAIN. Her Majesty's Consul at Cadiz^ having requested instructions in 1841 as to the claims of the sons of British subjects born in Spain to exemption from the conscription, he was informed that as British law considered all persons born in Great Britain to be British subjects, Her Majesty's government could not urge the claims of persons born in Spain to British protection as against the laws of that country. Lord Aberdeen, however, pointed out that by the Spanish constitution of 1837 it was declared that all persons born in Spain were Spaniards, but when that law was passed it was interpreted by the Spanish government to mean that such persons have the right of being admitted to the privileges of Spanish subjects at their option, and that if it was thereby meant that the children of aliens born in Spain were aliens unless they declared their option of becoming Spaniards, it might be contended that the sons of British parents so situated, who had not made such a declaration, remained British sub- jects, and, as such, exempt from conscription. By article 24 of the Royal Decree^ of 17th November, 1852, it was provided that per- sons domiciled or traveling in Spain, as well as their sons, who had not chosen Spanish nationality, should be exempt from military service, with the excejition of those whose liarents were born in Spanish territory. In 1856 a question arose as to the interpretation of this law, and certain persons, grandsons of native British subjects, claimed exemption in the face of it. The case was referred to Lord Clarendon, who decided that the claim was inad- missible. In 1861, however, it appeared that Her Majesty's consuls in Spain still continued to claim to protect the grandsons of British subjects from military service, and Lord Rus- sell' then gave instructions that they should desist from doing so. Further correspondence passed between Sir J. Crampton and Lord RusseU^ on this subject in 1862, and the following dispatch was addressed to Sir J. Crampton (July 9, 1862 ): "I have to state to you that with regard to the general question I have nothing to add to the instrnctions conveyed to you in my dispatch No. 164, of the 17th December last, to which her Majesty's government adhere. "With respect to the particular cases of Lieutenant Arguimban and his son Mr. Joseph Arguimban, and to any other cases which may come under the same category, 'Sir A. Buchanan, N"o. 21. ^ Queen's Advocate; January 31, 1865. '^Sce, however, previously as to Britisli naturalization, the certificates of which, as at^present granted, are canceled by absence from England without license beyond a certain specified time. ^Sir A. Buchanan, No. 80; March 12, 1867. '' Consul Brackenbury, Nos. 6, 9, 9, 11, 1841. To Consul Braclienhury, No. 4 ; November 5, 1841. *Ii0rd Howden, No. 96; March 25, 1856. 'To Sir S. Crampton; Deo. 11, 1861. 'Sir J. Crampton, No. 197; May 2, 1862. To Sir J. Crampton, No. 139; July 9, 1862. Law officers; July 7, 1862. 189 I am advised that they should be determined by the domicile of the parents at the time of the birth of the children within the territories of the Crown of Spain. If at the time of the birth of Lieutenant Arguimhan, his father was not only a natural-born British subject, but legally domiciled in the British domiidons, I am of opinion that Lieutenant Arguimhan himself was at the time of his birth a British subject, owiug permanent allegiance to the British Crown, aud entitled to British protection. If, on the contrary, his father was then domiciled in the dominions of the Spanish Crown, he became a Spanish subject, and is not entitled to claim British protection against any obligations resulting ftom his Spanish allegiance, although by an English statute he may be also entitled to the privileges of a natural-born British su.bject in Great Britain. "The same observations apply to the case of Mr. Joseph Arguimban, whose position is likewise dependent on the allegiance and domicile of his father at the time of his birth. "The fact of Lieutenant Arguimhan aud one of his sons being officer? in the royal navy tends jjrima/ocic to show that the domicileof Lieutenant Arguimban, if originally in England, did not afterwards cease to be so; but even this point would not be con- clusive if that gentleman has resided for a long time in the Spanish dominions, and I am advised that no length of service in the army or nayy of Great Britain would be material for the purpose of the present question if the allegiance and domicile of the person engaged in such service were originally Spanish. " I should add that, even in the case of persons owing permanent allegiance to the British Crown, but domiciled and resident in Spain, the claim to exemption from mili- tary service in Spain cannot justly be extended on their behalf to any services re- quired for the legitimate purposes of internal defense only, and which do not involve any act at variance with the duties of their British allegiance.'" SWITZERLAND. Lord Palmerston to M. Droneij, pi'esident of the Siviss Confederation. "October 16, 1859. "The undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note addressed' to him in the name of the Federal Council in Switzerland by M. Drouey, president of the Confederation, requesting to be made acquainted with the provisions of the Eng- lish law as regards the eases in which foreigners lose their rights of nationality. " In reply, the undersigned has the honor to inform M. Drouey that he is not aware of any case in which a British-born subject can lose his right of nationality unless he should be deprived of it by an act of Parliament. "It is well established that a natural-born British subject cannot put off his allegi- ance to the British Crown by any act of his own, not even by swearing allegiance to a foreign power; and though it is not illegal for a British subject to contract engage- ments with a foreign power with the license of the British Crown, yet such engage- ments do not affect his national status according to the English law, and the license so given may be revoked at any moment. " But though a British subject cannot get rid of his n.ntional character, he may so misconduct himself, either by committing piracy, or in other ways, as to forfeit all claim to the jirotection of the British government." In 1863 the Swiss government claimed to include in the conscription, at Geneva, two brothers, named rournier, born in England, but whose father had been naturalized subsequently to their birth as a citizen of Geneva. As the young men were both of full age, and had done nothing to forfeit their British character, Her Majesty's minister at Berne was informed that they came with- in the meaning of the term "British subjects" in the sixth article of the treaty of 1855, and, as such, were exempt from Swiss military service.'^ In 1865 a question arose whether an English company, (the European Central Rail- way Company,) whose direction and agent was located in the canton of Tessin, was entitled to the support of the British legation. ^ Admiral Harris was instructed " that this English company has not forfeited its right to the protection of the British legation, because in the act of concession the technical domicile of the company ('la direction technique du chemin de fer') is to he considered as being in the canton where the board of adndnistration of the company is situated. The distinction between different lands of domicile is familiar to all jurists. The domicile which incorporates a foreign citizen into the state in which he is ' The tenor of this rtlspatch seems inconsistent with the doctrine previously held by the British gov- ernment, as it makes the nationality of the son to depend on the domicile o± his father instead of the the place of hie own birth. It is to be presumed that the instruction was framed with refeirnco to the peculiar law and usage of Spain, and was not intended to lay down any general principle applicable to other countries. ' To Admiral Harris, No. 16, April 22, 1863. ' To Admiral Hams, No. 2, November 20, 1865. 190 resident is wliolly tliKtiuct in its character iiud consequences from the domicile which is assigned hy the state to a foreign subject with relation to eortaiu legal acts or lia- bilities. .Such a domicile is for thepm-pose of founding jurisdiction iu the event of legal proceedings being taken, cither liy him or against him in the country in which he is resident. The domicile specified iu the concessionfor the company is of this na- ture, and falls under this category; but it does not attect the right of the company to the intervention of its government for the purpose of preventing an act of injustice being done to it by the foreign government. The interA'ention, however, of the British legation in (Switzerland should be strictly confined to such a case, and should not attempt to interfere with the ordinary course of the municipal law in its operation upon the rights and liabilities of the company." In 1866 Mr. J. G. Eoch protested against being called upon for military service in Switzerland as a^Gene vese. ' Mr. Eoch's grandfather was a Genevese by birth, having been born in a territory ceded by Sardmia to Geneva in 1816 by a treaty, one of the conditions of which was that those so born should, being Christians, be considered as Genevese. By the law of that canton the national character is inalienable, and extends to the grandchild. As Mr. Eoch lived and was dondciled at Geneva, Admiral Harris was informed that the claim to exemption could not be put — the English law on the same subject being duly borne in mind — ^upon the high ground of strict right. The claim could only be preferred upon the lower ground of usage and convenience.^ TUNIS. Lord Palmerston to Sir T. Bead. "January 16, 1840. "Sir: Mr. Ancram, in his dispatch No. 14, of the 2d of June, 1838, reported the case of a young Maltese girl, Grazia Abela, the wife of a Maltese, who had been per- suaded to embrace the Mahomedan religion, but who af tei-ward desired to recant. Mr. Ancram, it appears, made thereupon an application to the bey that the girl should be restored to her husband, but the bey refused to restore her. Since that time I have heard nothing further from Mr. Ancram or from yourself on this subject ; and I would hope that the bey, on further reflection, may have been induced to give up the gill. But if that should not have been the case, I have to instruct you to state, by a writ- ten note to the bey, that all the subjects of Her Majesty are free to change their re ligion, if they think fit to do so, and the British government never interferes with the conscience of British subjects ; but that every person who is born a subject of the British Crown must, by the law of England, continue, during life, to owe allegiance to the sovereign of Great Britain ; and, on the other hand, every such person is en- titled, dvrring life, to the protection of the British Crown. "The woman in question, having been bom in Malta, is a British subject; and, though she is at liberty to embrace the Mahomedan religion if she shall think fit to do 80, she cannot thereby cease to be a British subject, and she is as much entitled to British protection as if she had remained a Christian. The law of Tunis may be dif- ferent ; but the British government has nothing to do with that law, and Great Britain never can permit the laws of any foreign state to interfere with the indissoluble con- nection which binds a British-born subject to the British Crown. "Moreover, marriage is, by the law of England, a tie which can only be dissolved by an act of the British legislature, and Her Majesty's government never can permit any foreign government to assume that a marriage legally contracted between two British subjects can be dissolved by the circumstance that one of these parties has changed their religion. . "Hex Majesty's government, therefore, expect that this Maltese woman shall be placed vmder yom- protection, in order that she may have an opportunity of freely choosing whether she will return to her husband and her country, or remain where she is. "I am, &c., "PAEMERSTON." In 1865 Mr. Wood reported that he had sent to Malta a Maltese family consisting of a widow and minor children, who had been induced by distress to embrace the Ma- homedan religion. As the children of a Maltese father, during their minority, remained British sub- jects, and it was assumed that the application made for their removal to Malta had been at the instance of their next relation or friend, Mr. Wood's proceedings were ap- proved. ^ 'Mr. J. G. Eoch, March 16, 1860. ^'po Admiral Harris, Ko. 21, March 29, 1866; Queen's ailvocatc, April 14, 1866; Queen's advocate. May 8, 1866; Queen's advocate. May 21, 1866. ^Queen's advocate, January 13, 1865. 191 TURKEY. The question as to tlio protoction of Britisli subjects in the East does not come with- in the scope of tliis uiemorvmdnni, but it wouhl reijuiro ciireful attention in case any nlteiatiou of tlie present law of allegiance were contemi)lated. The following instrnction was addressed, in 1849, to Mr. Murray respecting th(! amount of protection to he granted, in Egypt, to aliens who had obtained letters of naturalization in England : i "Your inquiry arises out of three questions which have been put to you by Mr. Walne, Her Maje.sty's consul at Cairo ; and I will give answers to those questions. "The first question is, whether Greek houses in Egypt, beilig branches of establish- ments belonging to Greeks who have been natirralized in England, are entitled to pro- tection ? "Upon this point I have to answer that those members of such houses who are not naturalized British subjects cannot claim for themselves nor for their branch house British privileges, merely because another member of the house residing elsewhere has been naturalized in England. "The second question is, whether British protection is to be extended in Egypt to subjects of the kingdom of Greece who have obtained letters of naturalization in England and have returned to the Levant 1 "The answer to this is, that, it these persons have been legally naturalized in England, they are entitled everywhere but in the kingdom of Greece to the privileges of British subjects. "The third question is, whether Greek rayahs, resuming their residence in the Otto- man territory, after having obtained naturalization in England, are to be protected ? "The answer is, that these persons cannot, within the country of their natural al- legiance, that is to say, within the Ottoman Empire, claim to be considered British subjects, because natural allegiance in the country of a man's birth overrides privi- leges obtained liy naturalization elsewhere." In 1851 this instruction was modified as regards Mr. Cassavetti, a Greek naturalized British subject resident in London, and Her Majesty's consul-general in Egypt was in- stracted to aiford to his branch establishments at Cairo and Alexandria the same pro- tection as would have been afforded to the branch establishments of an English firm. ^ A similar instruction was sent to Mr. Consul Brant in the case of Mr. Calimaohi, a Greek, the agent, at Trebizond, of Mr. Mathew Schilizzi, a resident in London. » In 1855 like protection was extended to Messrs. Bogni and Kotti, Greek agents, at Galatz, for M. Theologo.< In 1856 Mr. P. Theologo was informed that his naturalization would not entitle him to protection in Turkey, he having been bom in Broussa in Asia Minor.* In 1858 protection in Egypt was refused to Mr. Giro, a native of Lemnos ; but, in the following year, it was decided that, bearing in mind the peculiar relations between Egypt and the Porte, he might properly receive British protection in Egypt, unless the Egyptian authorities objected.'' In October, 1859, a question was raised as to the nationality of Mr. John Asian, born at Cerigo, but who had not complied with the provisions of the Ionian law in order to constitute himself an Ionian citizen. Eventually it was arranged that protection should be afforded to him until he had an opportunity of returning to the Ionian Islands and completing his naturalization there.'' In 1861 Mr. Sophocles Theologo was informed that his agent at Galatz was not en- titled to personal protection for himself or his concerns ; but that the interests he rep- resented, as the agent of a naturalized British subject resident in London, woiTld be entitled to such protection."* In April, 1861, an application was made for British protection on behalf of the estate of a bankrupt, Mr. Eodocanachi, a native of Soio, who had been naturalized as a British subject in 1855.' As his certificate of naturalization contained an express exception of "any rights and capacities of a natural-bom British subject out of or beyond the dominions of the British Crown and the limits thereof," (the usual clause at that date,) and Mr. Eodo- canachi was at Constantinople in no danger of molestation, Her Majesty's government refused to interfere. In the case of Themistocles George Asian, who claimed to have his declaration of part-ownership in a British vessel registered at the Cairo consulate in 1861, it was dcT cided that the question of Mr. Asian's right to have his declaration of part-ownership in a British vessel attested at the British consulate at Cairo depended not upon the terms of his letters of naturalization, nor upon the circumstance of his having or not having a 'To Mr C. Mnrray consular, No. 13, November 17, 1849. ^To Mr. D. Cassavetti, February 22, 1851. sTo Mr. Brant, consular, No. 4, August 26, 1852. '•To Mr. Theologo, January 12, 1855. ^To Mr. P. Theologo Pebrnarv 8 1856. « To Mr. Giro, September 7, 1858 ; to Mr. MuUer, No. 2, February 14, 1859. ' To i&.' Colquhoun, consular. No. 36, December 9, 1850. « To Mr. Theologo, Noyeraber 11, 1861. ^Messrs. Wilson, Dodgshun, and Papayanni, April 2, 1861. 192 foreign pasHjiort, bnt upon tlic provisions of " tlie Merehant Sliiiiping Act, 17 and 18 Vic, cnp. 104, Hcc. IS." ]5y thut act persons who arc naturalized by or pursuant to statute lire rendered e:ipablc of being owners or part-owners of a Biitisli shiiJ only if th(^y " are and contiune to be, during the wliole period of their so being owners, first, resideni in some- place within Her Majesty's dominions, or second, if not so resident, mendiers of a British factory or partners in a house actually carrying on business in the United Kingdom, or in some other place within Her Majesty's domiidons." Mr. Asian, it apjieared, was not a person fulfilling the first of these conditions, but it did not appear whetlier he was or was not a member of a British factory, or a partner in h house actually carrying on business within Her Majesty's domimous. If he was, the application made by him to the British consul at Cairo ought to be complied witii ; if not, he was by law incapable of being owner or part-owner of a British ship, and the ship of which he was owner or xiart-owner could not be deemed to be Britisli ; in which case the consul ought not to attest his declaration.' The clause in Mr. Asian's letters of naturalization excepting from the grant " any rights and capacities of a natural-born British subject out of and beyond the domin- ions of the British Crown and the limits thereof," was intended only to prevent the person thereby naturalized from claiming, by virtue of Ms naturalization, as against foreign governments while within their teiTitories, the benefit of the status of a British subject. It was not intended to be applicable to the right and capacity of the person naturalized, -(ijrovided he fulfills the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act,) to be and continue, while locally resident beyond the limits of Her Majesty's dominions, an owner or part-owner of a British ship, aud to do, while there, all acts proper to be done by him in that character. Such a right is not one of which any foreign locality can be predicated, merely because the person entitled to it may happen to be residing abroad ; it is in its nature essentially a British right, its subject beiug a British ship having its i)ort of registry within the dominions of the British Crown, aud, if locality was to be ascribed to it at all, it must follow the port or domicile of the ship, aud not the residence of the owner. In December, 1862, Mr. Sophocles Theologo was informed " that a foreign house, having foreign interests, although connected with the English house, and being con- ducted by foreigners and in a foreign country, cannot claim the protection of a British consul, except in so far as the direct interests of British subjects, apart from those of foreigners, are involved."-' In 1864 Sir E. Hornby was authorized to register Messrs. Cuppa as British subjects, reserving any rights of allegiance which might be preferred against them by the country of their birth. These gentlemen were lonians by birth, sons of an Ionian who had commanded, as a British naval officer, a scamparia or gunboat, in the war with France, and they claimed, accordingly, to be British subjects, under the act 13 Geo. II., cap. 3.'* In the case of M. Mavrogodato,'' in 1866, it was decided that " although in strictness a foreigner who is merely naturalized in Great Britain has no title to British protec- tion abroad, the good offices of Her Majesty's representatives may as a general rule be properly extended to such persons elsewhere than in the dominions of the state to which they owe natural allegiance ;" and that such claim as M. Mavrogodato might have to those good offices in the Ottoman dominions must be " subject to the determi- nation of any question which may be raised by the Turkish government, arising out of his place of birth, and that if that question is raised M. Mavrogodato must be pre- liarod to establish to his excellency's satisfaction that he forms one of a class of per- sons over whom the Porte has renounced its right of regarding them as its subjects, notwithstanding their birth in its territory." VENEZUELA. A question arose in 1851 whether the illegitimate children of British parents, born in Venezuela, were entitled to be registered as British subjects at Her Majesty's con- sulates.^ Sir John Dodson, then Queen's advocate, considered that such persons might be taken to be British subjects /or the purposes of registration only, but that their claim to British nationality could not be asserted against an actual adverse claim of the Venezuelan government to treat them as natural-born citizens. It having been pointed out to Sir John Dodson that this opinion seemed to be at vari- ance with a report which he had previously made in the case of a Mr. Stratford, when he had stated that the illegitimate childi'en of British parents born abroad were not en- 1 Acting consul at Cairo, TSo. 25, May 30, 1861. Law officers, August 9, 1861. ^ To Mr. Theoloso De- cember 24. 1862. 3 Sir B. Homby, No. 42; June 22, 1864. Law offloers; July 23, 1864. " May 14, 1866. «Mr. Eiddel, consular, No. 42; August 12, 1851. Queen's Advocate; January 19, 1852. Law officers; February 3, 1852. 193 titled to bo considoi-cd iis British snlijects in foreign conntrips, Sir Jolm Dodson replied tliat the question was one of much difficulty, in \vhicli the other law officers should he consulted. This was accordingly done, and on the 3d of February, 1852, the law ofiflccrs advised that illegitimate cbildi-en born abroad, of English parents, are not British subjects, and therefore not entitled to British protection. By the common law children born abroad of English ])arcnt8 were not, except in certain special cases, English subjects. Acts of Parliament have .been passed to remedy this inconvenience, but these acts, from their pai-ticnlar purposes and wording, can only be held to apply to legitimate children. During the discussion of the British claims on Venezuela, in 1865, the Venezuelan government objected to the insertion of certain claims in the British schedule, on the gronud that the claimants were citizens of Venezuela. In support of the principle on which this objection was based, they quoted at con- siderable length passages from Wheaton, Blackstone, Sir E. Phillimore, and other jurists, showing the doctrine of uatiye nationality held by England.' AVith regard to the particular case of Venezuela, the foreign secretary stated, (July 27, 1865:) "Now, in this country it has been judged suitable, for many reasons, to establish tliat all that are born in its territory are Venezuelans. It has been thus de- clared in the constitutions that have ruled the country since 1821. In the long pro- cess of time which has elapsed, it has been understood that the fact of being born in Venezuela carries with it the obligation of naturalization. A controversy which origi- nated with the Spa.nish legation in 1847 for i^retending to include in the matriculation of subjects of Her Catholic Majesty persons born in Venezuela, although of Spanish parents, might be cited. " During the war of five years, on au occasion which created difficulties, and to avoid others, the executive power deviated, in one single instance, from the common prac- tice, that of the young man Alexander d'Empaire, and declared him exempt from mili- tary service, as a minor, being under the protection of his father, and not having sig- nified his wish to become a citizen of Venezuela. But that resolution cannot be con- sidered definite, for it is not given to the executive power to point out the sense of the constitution. The President understood it to be so, and mentioned it in his message to Congress in 1831, asking that a law should interpret the constitutional rule. Nothing was then resolved. The question was still undecided when the constituent assembly met in 1863 ; the government insisting for a termination, it pronounced itself in this manner in article 6 of the federal constitution : " ' Venezuelans are : 1. All persons born, or who may be born, in the territory of Venezuela, whatever may be the nationality of their parents. " ' 2. The children of a Venezuelan father, or of a Venezuelan mother, bom in other territories, who may fix their residence in this country, and shall express their desire to be considered as such.' " It therefore appears that there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the legisla- tors, and if a more explicit declaration has been asked for, it is owing to its being con- sidered that it should come directly from them." On the 23d of October, 1865, Mr. Edwardes,* under instructions from Lord Eussell, replied : " Her Majesty's government are of opinion that the general principles on which his excellency founds his particular position are sound ; though it is to be ob- served that by treaty stipulation, and by long usage, one state may concede to the subjects of another privileges which are not accorded to its own subjects. Many cir- cumstances may make such a usage not impolitic or unreasonable."^ " Her Britannic Majesty's government are, moreover, of opinion that when such usage is abrogated by the municipal law, ample time should certainly be given to the subjects of the state from whom the privilege is withdrawn to make up their minds whether they wiU remain in, or leave, the country in which this change in their for- iper relation to it has been effected. " M. Seijas will perceive, from the foregoing opinions, that although her Britannic Majesty's government offer no opposition to the change which the Venezuelan govern- ment desire to make-in the position of children born to British subjects in Venezuela, they are far from admitting its power of retroaction. "The undersigned, therefore, being unable to see how the solution of the question at issue can possibly affect the settlement of claims already pending, avails him- self &c."' The Venezuelan government rejoined, on the 22d of November, 1865, that it was not a question of passing a new law, but of interpreting a principle which had been (with the exception of the French case previously referred to) maintained since the foundation of the republic. ,,■,.-.,■ -r^-, , In January, 1866, Lord Clarendon* instructed Mr. Fagan, "that Mr. Edwardes ap- pears to have stated the matter very properly to the Venezuelan government. It seems clear that the new law ought not to affect the position of British claimants iMr Edwardes, No. 66; August 23, 1865. '^Mr. Edwardes, No. 89; October 25, 1865. ^Mr. Harrison, No. 5;' December 9, 1865. "To Mr. Fagan, No. 3, January 16, 1866. 25 S D 194 whoso claims hart acciiiort pioviously to the iiassiiig of this law; aiirtt he argument tliat tlic hiw is not retroactive, but exphiuatory, is iuailmissible. " Previously to the passing of it, practice anrt usage had interpreted the law as treating the children of foreign subjects, though born in the A^enezu^ehm tenitory, as foreigners. To ])ass a hiw now, explaining that the law had never meant to consider such persons as foreigners, is substantially to pass a retroactive law to the injury of foreigners." In November, 1865, Mr. Edwardes ' forwarded a list of claims admitted by the Vene- zuelan government. This list includes the claims of persons alleged! to be British sub- jects, although born in Venezuela, and a note is appended to their names showing that these claims were admitted subject to their nationality being proved.' Negotiations are uow pending for the settlement of these admitted claims, together with any other claims not yet investigated, by a mixed commission, when the right of these Venezuelan natives to British nationality will again come under discussion.-'' CHAS. S. A. ABBOTT. FOKEIGN Office, March ,'5, 1868. ADDENDA. (A.) OPINION OF ME. CALEB GUSHING. EIGHT OF EXPATRIATION. Cilizcns of the UiiUcd States possess tlte riglit of voluntary expatriation, suhjeot to such- lim- italioiis, in the interest of the state, as the laiv of nations or acts of Congress may im- ])ose. Attokstey-Geneeal's Office, Oetoher 31, 1856. Sir : I have to apologize to you for having omitted to reply at an earlier day to your communication, inclosing extract from a letter addressed to Mr. Vroom, minister of the United States in Prussia, by the Count de Montgelas, minister of Bavaria at the same court, and requesting me to consider the question of law propounded by the Count de Montgelas. The question is, "Whether, according to the laws of the United States of America, a citizen thereof, when he desires to expatriate himself, needs to ask either from the Government of the United States, or of the State of which he is the immediate citizen, permission to emigrate; and, if so, what are the penalties of contravention of the law?" It might suffice, perhaps, for me to say that there is no provision of law on the sub- je<'t in the Constitution of the United States, or in any act of Congress ; and that, therefore, a citizen of the United States, desiring to emigrate, is free to do so, without express consent of the Government of the Union ; and that no law of any one of the States forbids the citizen thereof to emigrate, or imposes any penalties on him if he do so without the consent of such State. This naked statement, however, though a substantial response to the inquiry, leaves out of view some relations of the subject, which, in deference to the possible wishes of the Count de Montgelas, it may be desirable to expose. In the pbpxrlar discussions of the United States, it is common to assume that the theory of their political organization requires, and that their laws admit, unlimited right of emigration. This impression is partly derived from the fact that the United States, having so re- cently by force made themselves independent of Great Britain, ideas of right, which belong to revolutionary epochs, still predominate over those of duty, which belong to the' regular action of all political society, and the importance of which grows more and more ajoparent with every year's duration of the Union. To justify the supposition of unlimited right of emigration, it is common to appeal to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of its laws regulating the naturalization of foreigners. These provisions do, indeed, show that the encour- agement of foreign emigration is a feature of the public policy of the United States, and suggest implication that, in the spirit of international equity, we shall concede to our own citizens a reciprocal faculty of emigration, and of foreign naturalization, in- volving abjuration of allegiance to the Union. >Mr. Edwardes, No. 93; Noveniber 9, 1865. Mr. Edwardee, No. 97; Novemljer 33, 1865. ^Mr. living's memorandum; February 2, 1867. ^To Mx. Eagan, No. 4; January 30, 1868. i9r. Aotiiug oil those impreasiona, attempts have beeu made from time to time in the Con- gress of the United States to legalize the right of emigration ; bnt, on all such occa- sions, careful scrutiny has made evident the fallacy of the popular assumption, and has caused the whole gubieot to he left, as it now stands, as a question of our public law, unsolved in its completa ganerality— but with elements of solution, which have not failed to strike the observation of many jurists and statesmen of the United States. To begin : it is true, as the tenor of the question of the Count de Montgelas implies he presumed might be the case, that the conditions of citizenship of the United States and of any one of the States are not identical ; that is to say, it may happen that by the laws of a given State a person shall he a citizen thereof, and still not be a citizeiu of the United States. Nor does it follow, because he is a citizen of a given State by tlie very letter of its laws, that therefore he is of every or any other State. Persons may be, and in fact are, citizens of the State of Massachusetts, that is, invested with all the rights, political and municipal, which its institutions can bestow, without being citizens of the State of Virginia, or of the United States. But the distinctions which exist in this respect are not very important in international relations ; and so far as they are anywise material they will come Tip incidentally in considering the duties and the rights of citizens of the United States. Neither in the Constitution nor in the laws of the United States is there any defini- tion of citizenship. The Constitution, which is the organic law of the Union, confines the exercise of all the great functions of state to citizens, and some of these functions to natural citizens ; and it empowers Congress to enact laws of naturalization. Such laws have been enacted, and provide in cft'ect that any free white alien, after five years' residence in the country, and two years' intermediate declaration of intention to become a citizen, may become such on his making proof of good character, and abjur- ing, in certain prescribed forms, all foreign allegiance, and taking oath of allegiance to the United States. And many ordinary municipal rights are, by other laws, capable of being enjoyed by citizens alone : such as the ownership of merchant-shi]5s, the com- mand and in part the mamiing of such ships, aud the purchase of public lands by pre- emption. To this may be added, that in many of the States the right to own land within the same is by their laws restricted to citizens of the United States. But I repeat, citizen- ship, whether acquired by birth or by naturalization, is not a thing specifically defined in its elements, either by the Constitution or by the laws of the Union. Nor is there in the Constitution or laws of the United States any general pro- vision to define how the rights of citizenship may be lost, or its duties be made to cease, whether by one's own act or by that of the Government. And in the codes of the States there is occasional confusion of thought, arising from the want of proper attention to the difference between the enjoyment of mere civil rights, the right of suffrage, and the right of citizenship as a political status of persons, independent of their sex, age, or condition. Thus women, minors, and some other per- sons, do not possess the right of suffrage in any of the States, although citizens of the United States, and it is possessed in some of the States by persons who are not citizens of the United States. As to citizenship and its termination, though we do not find them defined by any law of the Union, still we may gather the prevailing thought .of the nation on the sub- ject, by inspecting the legislation of some of the States. In truth, -sN-e must divide the people of the United States into two classes : those in the full enjoyment of all the rights of citizenship, aud those deprived of some or all of those rights ; and then we must distinguish between such of the inhabitants of the country as are citizens, and such as are subjects only, and whether oapal)lo or not of becoming citizens, yet not so at the present time. I allude, in the latter case, to the Indians who, in some of the States, are the subjects of the State in which they exist, bnt who are in general subjects of the United States ; and to the Africans, or jiersons of African descent, who, being mostly of servile condition, are of eonrso not citizens, hut subjects, in reference as well to the respective States in which they reside as to tlie United States. In the sequel of these remarks it will be seen that the distinction between citizens and subjects in the United States is material to the just appreciation of the question of the right of emigration in its domestic relations, and still more in its foreign rela- tions, and especially as admonitory of candid consideration of the laws regulating emigration, which exist in some of the countries of Eiu'ope. These are prefatory considerations. I proceed now to state how far limitations of the right of emigration are imposed in fact by the laws either of the Union or of indi- vidual States. „ ,. 1 The Union, as already explained, has not as yet undertaken to formalize any general law, either of citizenship or of emigration. One of the States, Virginia, has doujs this; and its express legislation on the subject, though imperfect, is quite suggestive, and leads directly to important reflections. 196 The code of Virginia contains the following provisions : "All free white persons born in this State, all free white persons born in any other State of this Uniou,'who may be or become residents of this State, all aliens benig free white persons naturalized under the laws of the United States, who may bo or become residents of the State ; all persons who have obtai«ed a right to citizenship under former laws, and all children, wherever born, whose father, or if he be dead, whose mother shall be a citizen of this State at the time of the bu-th of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this State. " 2. Whensoever any citizen of this State, by deed in writing, executed in the pres- ence of and subscribed by two witnesses, and by them proved in the court of the county or corporation where he resides, or by open verbal declaration made in such court and entered of record, shall declare that he relinquishes the character of a citizen of this State, and shall depart out of the same ; such person shall, from the time of such departure, be considered as having exercised his right of expatriation, so far as regards this State, and shall thenceforth be deemed no citizen thereof. "' 3. When any citizen of this State, being twenty-one years of age, shall reside else- where, and in good faith become the citizen of some other State of this Union, or the citizen or subject of a foreign state or sovereign, he shall not, while the citizen of another State, or the citizen or subject of a foreign state or sovereign, be deemed a citizen of this State. " 4. >fo such act of becoming the citizen or subject of a foreign state or sovereign, and no act under the second section shall have any eifect if done while this State or the United States shall be at war with any other foreign power." (Eevised Code, tit. ii.) Without stopping to comment on the conditions of citizenship here laid down, let us attend to the conditions of its relinquishment. These are two, namely : 1. Solemn declaration of intention to emigrate, with actual emigration. 2. Residence elsewhere, that is, actual emigration from the State, and the assumption in good faith of citizen- ship in some other State of the Union, or of allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign. But the lights thus definefd are of the change of citizenship, wliich involves emigra- tion ; not of pure emigration. The law does not comprehend the case of subjects of the State. And the rights accorded are with signiiicant restriction : they cannot be exercised in time of war. That is, the legislator, while nominally admitting the general rights of citizens to emigrate, reflected that it would not answer to leave the right without such limitation, at least, as to deprive the citizen of the power to abstract himself from the public service in certain emergencies by emigration, or under the same emer- gencies to shelter acts of treason under pretenses of emigration. Thus, in the very act of legalizing emigration, the State of Virginia declares expressly that the right is, in its judgment, subject to the paramount rights of the State. How could it be otherwise? If the state owes protection to the citizen, does not the citizen owe service to the state ? Above all, in a republican country, in which the state is but the congi'egation of the citi-zens, are not the interests of all bound up together into a unity of common interest, so that rights are but correlative to obliga- tions? The assumption of the unlimited right of emigration would make of the inhabitants of a country a mere collection of individuals each pursuing blindly his own passionate or narrow view of his apparent personal interests, instead of an orgaii- ized political society combining individual right with pubUo power, and maintaining the true rights of individuals as well against individual wrong-doers as foreign foes, by means of the aggregate force of the state. But of this more hereafter. To return to tlie actual laws of Virginia. These, in formaliziaig the right of emi- gration, impose restrictions upon it, and thus recognize the public right of restriction. But other restrictions of the right are found in the laws of the same State. A citizen of Virginia, it is clear, does not effectually cast off any private obligations of his, whether relating to person or property, by pretense of emigration. He may, it is true, be sheltered by the foreign jurisdiction, and thus enabled to evade legal obli^ gations existing in the State of Virginia ; but those obligations do not the less continue in force within that State until discharged by its laws. This doctrine comprehends citizens of that State afwtion its subject. But the more material question is of the obligations of citizens to the State itself. And here, the proposition is a general one ; thus, a citizen of the State of Virginia cannot, by emigration, discharge himself of any obligation to the State, the non- performance of which involves by its laws any penal consequence. If he leave the State under any such circumstances, though imder pretense of expatriation, he is a fugitive from justice, not a lawful emigrant ; the State will demand his extradition from the State to which he assumes to emigrate, and obtain it, in vii-tue of an express jirovision of the Constitution of the United States ; and the State will itself deliver up, on demand, any such person undertaking to emigrate to it from any other State. (Code, tit. X, eh. 17, § 8-16.) The State of Kentuojky imitated the State of Virginia in this respect, repeating in 197 substance, and almost in the same words, tlie enactment of the latter as well as to citizenship as expatriation. No other State of the Union has, so far as my observation extends, attempted to solve these interesting qnestions hy express legislation. The constitution of the State of Pennsylvania declares that " emigration from the State shall not he prohibited," (art. ix, § 25.) The same provision is contaiaed in the constitution of the State of Indiana, and, it may be, of some other States. But this declaration is to be taken subject to all the qualifications which have been exhibited in- discussing the institutions of the States of Virginia and Kentucky. The nature of these qualifications may be illustrated further, by su^iposing the mili- tia of the State of Pennsylvania or of Indiana to be in the iield. If a discontented soldier in the ranks undertakes to escape his duties by professed emigration, will that profession be admitted by the State ? Undoubtedly not. It will reply that desertion cannot be covered up under the cloak of emigration ; in a word, that emigration or expatriation cannot shelter a criminal act, and is of necessity subject to conditions of the service of the State. If we pass now to the legislation of the United States we shall encounter a series of provisions which coniirm the conclusions already drawn from the legislation of the States, involving the general doctrine that a citizen of the United States cannot, of right, discharge himself by emigration from subsisting obligations, either private oues or to tlio Union. In the first place, the Federal Government recognizes the general doctrine that a citizen or subject cannot, by pretense of expatriation, relieve himself from any exist- ing penal liability to the Union, or to any oue of its States. It provides by the Constitution and by laws for the extradition of fugitives from service or crime as between the States respectively ; and it provides, by numerous treaties and by laws for the extradition of fugitives from justice as between the United States and foreign governments. Nor, in the second place, can it be doubted that the same doctrine may be applied iii the United States to some cases in which the act of expatriation is itself, in motive as in fact, an evasion of duties to the state. Thus, we should not be prepared to admit that a soldier in the Army, or a seaman in the Navy, can, by ijreteuse of expatriation, relieve himself from the charge of desertion ; or an officer of the Army or Navy on the same pretense anticipate and escape a charge of treason involved in the very act of expatriation. To the contrary of this, we have the case reported of one Elijah Clark, who was tried and sentenced as a spy during the last war between the United States and Great Britain, although he had professedly emigrated to Canada. (Breckenridge's Miscel- lanies, p. 409.) For there is unanimity of opinion among jurists and statesmen alike, that expatria- tion, even if admitted of general right, must not involve any collateral violation of law or of duty to the State or to fellow-citizens. " The laws do not admit," says Mr. Jefferson, " that the bare commission of crime amounts, of itself, to a divestment of the character of citizen, and withdraws the criminal from their coercion." (Letter to Mr. Morris, August 16. 1793. American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 1, p. 169.) This remark of Mr. Jefferson's is the more significant, inasmuch as he applied it to the very case of alleged emigration as the cover of acts in violation of the neutrality of the United States. But here debate opens. The Government of the United States commenced with successful revolution ; it was organized on the hypothesis of allowing the largest range to individual volition compatible with public safety ; the people of the United States are composed of emigrants from Europe, most of whom expatriated themselves in order to escape from oppression, or, if you please, legal impediments to personal action, in the countries of their birth — and many of whom were the actors and the victims of revolutions or of civil wars. Thus it happens that the sympathies of the people of the United States, and to a certain degree their laws, tend to admit full freedom of expatriation, under all circumstances, where the inducement is political opinion or action. Accordingly, the United States, while readily entering into treaty stipulations with foreign governments for the reciprocal extradition of persons accused of mere municir pal offenses, have never conceded, and, of course, never asked the extradition of persons accused of political offenses, or other acts in derogation of mere allegiance. Meanwhile, in matters akin to this in principle, though apparently distinct, the legislators and the courts of the United States have exhibited much uncertainty of opinion, consequent on the popvilar assumption of a theory of unlimited right of emi- gration, and the undeniable difficulty of reconciling that theory to some of the exi- gencies of public security and peace. For the preservation of the neutrality of the United States, we have enacted laws which forbid foreign recruitments' in the country, or the equipment of expeditions 198 therein, by limd or sea, for tlic purpose of hostilities agaiust any government with which the United States are at peace. These enactments proceed on the sound hypotli- osis that the right of war belongs only to states, not to iu(lividuals. These enactments also recognize the fact that no country can permit its inhabitants to make war on the inhabitants of another country, without giving just umbrage to the latter, violating the principles of natural justice and of international law, and thus in the end super- inducing war between the two governments. Nothing can be plainer than the position that the body-politic should determine the question of peace or war through its ap- pointed agents, legislative or executive. And no government, which respects its own dignity, or desires to maintain its independence and sovereignty, will sutler unauthor- ized individuals to wield at will this the highest of all the political functions of a stilt 0. The remarks of Mr. Jefferson are pertinent and conclusive on this point. In a dis- patch of his already quoted, be says : * * * "If one citizen has a right to go to war of his own authority, every citizen has the same. If every citizen has that right, then the nation (which is composed of all its citizens) has a right to go to war by the authority of its individual citizens. But this is not true, either on the general principles of society or by our Constitution, which gives that power to Congress alone, and not to the citizens individually. Then the first position was not true, and no citizen has a right to go to war of his own au- thority ; and for what he does without right he ought to be punished. " Indeed nothing can be more obviously absurd than to say all the citizens may be a* war, and yet the nation at peace." ( tlM supra, p. 161.) Of course, laws of this, description are just in themselves and conformable to reason ; anid, as such, have been constantly maintained by the United States. lu this condition of the la^^', a case of prize, in which one of the questions was wTiether the capture was iuvalidated by reason of the cruiser having been fitted out in the United States, in violation of law, came up for adjudication in the Supreme Coiu't of the United States ; and, as incidental to this question, there was elaborate discussiou at the bar, of the right of expatriation, induced by the fact that the couuuander of the cruiser assumed, as preparation for that conunaud, to have renounced his allegiance to the United States. (Talbot vs. Janson, iii Dallas's Eep., p. 383.) It clearly appeared in the case that the cruiser was armed and fitted out in fraud of the law ; and for that reason the prize was restored to her owners. Two of the judges, Chief Justice Eutledge and Justice Wilson, rested on this point, with but brief allusion to the question of expatriation ; but the other three spoke of this in terms not to be mistaken. Justice Patterson made the significant remark, " It is an obvious principle, that an act of illegality can never be construed into an act of emigration or expatriation. At that rate treason and emigration, or treason and expatriation would, in certain cases, be synonymous terms." To which he added the query, " Can that emigration be legal and justifiable which commits or endangers the neutrality, peace, or safety of the nation of which the emi- grant is a member ?" Justice Cashing calls attention totheneoessity of proving the bona fides of an alleged act of expatriation ; which is the more essential in the case of persons who engage in illegal military enterprises under the guise of emigration, and who do not, in purpose or fact, renounce their allegiance to their native government, and do not hesitate to claim its protection when they become involved in difficulties by reason of their illegal undertaking. But Justice Iredell entered fully into the general merits of the subject, as follows : " That a man ought not to be a slave ; that he should not be confined, against his will, to a particular spot, because he happened to draw his first breath upon it ; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one coiuitry, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recog- nize. " The only difference of opinion is as to the proper manner of executing this right. " Some hold that it is a natural, unalienable right in each individiial ; that it is a right upon which no act of legislation can lawfully be exercised, inasmuch as a legis- lature might impose dangerous restraints upon it ; and, of course, it must be left to every man's will and pleasure to go off, when, and in what manner, he pleases. " This opinion is deserving of more deference, because it appears to have the sanc- tion of the constitution of the State, (Pennsylvania,) if not of some other States in the Union. " I must, however, presume to differ from it, for the following reasons : " 1. It is not the exercise of a natural right in which the individual is to be consid- I'led as alone concerned. As every man is entitled to claim rights in society, which it i.s the duty of the society to protect, he in hi^ tiu-nls under a solenm obligation to discharge all those duties faithfully which he owes as a citizen to the society of which he is a member, and, as a man, to the several members of the society, individually 199 ^7ith whom lie is associated. Thorofore, if he has been in the exorcise of any pnhlic trust, for which lie lias not fnlly accounted, he ought not to leave tlio society until lie has iicconnted for it. If he owes money he ought not to (luit the country and carry all his property with him, without leaxe of his creditors. Many other cases might he put, showing the imjiortance of the public having some hold of' him until he has fairly l>6rformed all those duties which remain unperformed, before he can honestly aband(«i the society forever. But, it is said, his ceasing to be a citizen does not deprive the public, or any individual of it, of remedies in these respects. Yet, the right of emigra^ tion is said to carry with it the right of removing his family and effects. What hold have they of him afterward ? " 2. Some writers on the subject of expatriation say a man shall not expatriate in a time of war, so as to do a prejudice to his country. But, if it be a natural unalienable right, upon the footing of mere private will, Avho can say this shall not be exercised in time of war as well as in time of peace, since the individual upon that principle is to think of himself only ? I therefore think, with one of the gentlemen for the defend- ant, that the principle goes to a state of war as well as peace, and it must involve a time of the greatest public calamity as well as the profoundest tranquillity. " 3. The very statement of an exception in time of war shows that the writers on the law of nations, upon the subject in general, plainly mean, not that it is a right to lie always exercised without the least restraint of his own will and pleasure, but that it is a reasonable and moral right, which every man ought to be allowed to exercise, with no other limitation than such as the public safety or interest reqirires, to which all private rights ought and must forever give way. " And if in any government principles of patriotism and public good ought to pre- dominate over mere private inclination, surely they ought to do so in a republic founded on the very basis of equal rights, to be perfectly enjoyed in every instance where the public good does not require a restraint. " 4. In some instances, even in time of war, exijatriation may fairly be permitted. It ought not, then, to be restrained. But who is to permit it ? The legislature, surely, the constant guardian of the public interest where a new law is to be made or an old one dispensed with. If they may take cognizance in one instance, (as, for example, in time of war,) because the public safety may require it, why not in any other in- stance, where the public safety for some unknown cause may equally require it ? Upon the eve of a war it may be still more important to exercise it, as we often see in case of embargoes. "5. The supposition that the power may be abused is of no importance if the public good require its exercise. TMs feverish jealousy is a passion that can never be satisfied. No man denies the propriety of the legislature having a taxative power. Suppose it should be seriously objected to, because the legislature might tax to the amount of 19*. to the pound. They have -the power, but does any man fear the exercise of it ? A legislature must possess every power necessary to the making of laws. When con- stiticted as ours is, there is no danger of any material abuse. But a legislature must be weak, to the extremest verge of folly, to wish to retain any man as a citizen whose heart and affections are fixed on a foreign country in preference to his own. They would naturally wish to get rid of him as soon as they could, and therefore, perhaps, the proper precaution would be to restrain acts of banishment, (if such could be at all permitted,) rather than to limit the legislative control over expatriation. But is there no danger of abuse on the other side 'I Have not all the contentions about expatria- tion in the courts arisen from a want of the exercise of this very authority ? For if the legislature had prescribed a mode, every one would know whether it had or had not been pursued, and all rights, private as well as public, would be equally guarded ; but upon the present doctrine no rights are secured but those of the expa- triator himself. I, therefore, have no doubt that, when the question is in regard to a citizen of any country whose constitution has not prohibited the exercise of the legislative power in this instance, it not only is a proper instance in wliich it may be exercised, but it is the duty of the legislature to make such provision, and for my part I have always thought the Virginia assembly showed a very judicious foresight in this particular." It is impossible to misapprehend the general effect of the opinion expressed by Mi. Justice Iredell. It disaffirms unlimited right of expatriation. It reserves all the rights of the State in the premises. (Sergeant's Constitutional Law, p. 319.) Indeed, when this case first made its appearance in the admiralty court of the State of South Carolina, under all the influences of local sympathies to bias him, the judge, (Bee,) in maintaining the right of expatriation and emigration, expressly adds the conditions " Where no legal prohibition exists, and no prejudice is done thereby." (Jansen v. The Christina Magdalena, Bee's Kep., pp. 11, 23.) This was in the year 1794. In the year 1799 the same question recurred, but under different circumstances. Indictment was found in the proper court of the United States against a person, a natural citizen of the United States, charged with acts of hostility against a foreign goverhment, who pleaded that he had expatriated himself, and become the subject of the belligerent state, in whose service he committed the acts of hostility. But the plea was overruled by the court, (Chief Justice Ellsworth,) 200 and tho imrty was convicted and sentenced. (The United States r. Williams, 2 C'rinicli's Kc])., 1). 82, note.) lu tliiH ciisc the Chief .Justice said, and said truly, that the political society, that is, the whole hody of the citizens associated in a government, had rights as well as its indi\idniil citizens ; and that thd latter had no rights to be enjoyed to the destruction of the whole society. He also said with truth that "The most visionary writers on this snliject do not contend for the principle in the unlimited extent that a citizen may at any and at all times renounce his own and join himself to a foreign country." These views, it is clear, are in accordance with the spirit and letter of the existing laws of the States of Virginia and Kentucky. The opinion expressed hy the Chief Justice on this occasion was much criticised at tie time ; hut with the less reason, considering, as the facts in the case indicate, that the party assumed foreign allegiance only for the special purpose, and then returned to reclaim his ancient rights as a citizen of the United States. No Laws in any country would he capable of execution if men were allowed to oscil- late thus between different allegiances, at the dictate of caprice or seli-iuterest. There was another act of Congress, in the exeoution of which questions of the same class came once again before the Supreme Court of the United States. During the partial estrangement which occurred between the United States and the French Republic, at the close of the last century, an act of Congress was passed which for the time being prohibited all commercial intercourse with France on the part of persons resident within the United States, or under their protection ; and subjected to forfeiture all vessels employed in the prohibited commerce, and belonging to persons residing in the United States, or to citizens thereof residing elsewhere. It contained other provisions in the same spirit, not material to the present question. While such was the law a vessel was captured, and came before the courts of the United States for adjudication under circumstances which raised the question whether the owner fell within the scope of persons to whom commerce with France was pro- hibited. This person was born in the State of Connecticut before it became independent of Great Britain, and thus might, perhaps, have claimed the rights of citizenship in the United States. But he went to the Danish island of Saint Bartholomew's at an early age, married, and was domiciled there, and became a subject of Denmark. Upon these facts, the whole question of expatriation passed in review before the Supreme Court. The court, by Chief Justice Marshall, disposed of it in these words : " Jared Shattuck, having been born within the United States, and not being proved to have expatriated himself according to any form prescribed by law, is said to remain a citizen, entitled to the benefit and subject to the disabilities imposed upon American citizens ; and, therefore, to come expressly within the description of the act which comprehends Anjerican citizens residing elsewhere. "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character, . otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by the law, is a question which it is not necessarj' at present to decide. The cases cited at bar, and the arguments drawn fi'om the general conduct of the United States on this interesting question, seem com- pletely to establish the principle that an American citizen may acquire, in a foreign country, the commercial privileges attached to his domicile, and be exempted from the operation of an act expressed in such general terms as that now under consideration. Indeed, the very expressions of the act would seem to exclude a person under the cir- cumstances of Jared Shattuck. He is not a person under the protection of the United States. The American citizen who goes into a foreign country, although he owes local and temporary allegiance to that country, is yet, if he performs no other act changing his condition, entitled to the protection of our Government; and if, without the viola^ tion of any municipal law, he should be oppressed unjustly, he would have a right to claim that protection ; and the interposition of the American Government in Ms favor would be considered a justifiable interposition. But his situation is completely changed where, by his own act, he has made himself the subject of a foreign power. Although this act may not be sufficient to rescue him from pimishment for any crime committed against the United States, a point not intended to be decided, yet it cer- tainly places him out of the protection of the United States while within the territory of the sovereign to whom he has sworn allegiance, and consequently takes bim out of the description of the act. " It is, therefore, the opinion of the court, that the Charming Betsy, with her cargo, being at the time of her recapture the ionor-fide property of a Danish burgher, is not forfeitable in consequence of her being employed in carrying on trade and commerce with a French island." (Murray vs. Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, pp. 64, 119.) It is observable that the court carefully abstain from asserting any unlimited right of expatriation. Nor was any such right pretended among the eminent counsel, Messrs. Key, Alexander J. Dallas, and Martin, who argued the case. On the contrary, it was conceded on all hands, in the words of Mr. Dallas, "that a man cannot expatri- ate himself unless it be done in a fit time, with fairness of intention, and publicity of act." 201 At tlid comiiicucemeut of the last war between the United States and (Jreat Britain, this (int'stiou again pveneutcd itsi'lf in t\V(.> cases of great interest, where, however, the main question being of the eftect of commercial domicile on the national chnracter, the doctrine of expatriation was touched only, without being elucidated. (The Vejius, M Craneh, p. -353 ; the Francis, ibid., p. 335.) In each of these cases, the party con- cerned was a native of Great Britain, who, after coming to the United States and being naturalized here, returned to Grejt Britain, and there resided at the time of the declaration of war. Laying aside all consideration, either of naturalization or of ex- patriation, the Supreme Court, in discussing the effect of their commercial domicile in the enemy's country, conceded to them, for the argument's sake, all the rights of native Americans. Soon after this, in the question of the ownership of a vessel as bearing upon the question of domestic or foreign bottom, Mr. Justice Washington said : ''I do not mean to moot the question of expatriation, founded on the self-will of a citizen, because it is entirely beside the business before the court. It may suffice for the present to say that I must be more enlightened on this STibject than I have yet been, before I can admit that a citizen of the United States can throw oif his alle- giance to his country without some law authorizing him to do so." (United States vs. Gillies, 1 Peters's C. C. Rep., p. 159, 161.) Finally, at a later period, the same question came before the Supremo Court, and was argued by eminent counsel, including Mr. Tazewell and Mr. Webstc)-, in exposition of a clause of the existing treaty b(^tween the United States and Spain, which pro- hibits the citizens or subjects of the respective contracting parties from taking com- missions to cruise in private armed vessels against the other, under penalty of being considered pirates. On this occasion Justice Story, in delivering the opinion of the court, made the following observations : "This view of the question renders it necessary to consider another, which has been discussed at the bar, respecting what is denominated the right of expatriation. It is admitted by Captain Chayton, in the most explicit manner, that, during this whole period. Ids wife and family have continued to reside at Baltimore ; and, so far as this fact goes, it contradicts the suiiposition of any real change of his own domicile. As- suming, for the purposes of argument, that an American citizen may, independently of any legislative act to this eftect^ throw off his own allegiance to his native country — as to which we give no opinion — it is perfectly clear that this cannot be done without a bona-fide change of domicile, under circumstances of good faith. It can never be asserted as a cover for fraud, or as a justification for the commission of a crime against the country, or'for a violation of its laws, when this appears to be the intention of the act. It is unnecessary to go into a further examination of this doctrine ; and it will be sufficient to ascertain its precise nature and limits when it shall become the leading point of a judgment of the court." (The Santisima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, pp. 283, 3.57.) There is one other important relation of the subject in which it has come before the Supreme Court of the United States, and that is in the discussion of questions of alle- giaiice as bearing on the rights of property of persons who, though natives of the United States, yet left the country on its revolutionary separation from Great Britain. It is the celebrated question of the ante-nati, discussed in Calvin's case, (7 Co. E., p. 18 b.,) and previously determined by Bracton. (De Legihus Angli:e, fol. 427 b.) In disposing of such cases, the Supreme Court has occasionally, and at a relatively late time, referred to the question in very expressive language. Thus, in one of them, Justice Thompson assumes that " allegiance may be dissolved by the mutual consent of the Government and its citizens and sirbjeots," (Inglis vs. Saihu's' Snug Harbor, 3 Peters's E., pp. 99, 125 ;) and in another Justice Story says, "The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the Government, put off their allegiance and become aliens." (Shanks v. Dupont, ihid., pp. 242, 247.) Here, in so far as regards the views of the Supreme Court or its members, the matter stands ; unadjudicated as decision, but not undetermined as opinion. After carefully reviewing the -tvhole subject. Chancellor Kent pronounces the better opinion to be, that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without permission of the Government, to be declared by law. (Commentaries, vol. 2, p. 49.) It is a sig- nificant fact, at all events, that, on so many occa.sions when the question presented itself, not one of the judges of the Supreme Court has affirmed, while others have em- phatically denied, the unlimited right of expatriation from the United States. This exposition of the opinions on tlie question of the right of expatriation by the udicial authorities of the United States would be incomplete without some brief statement of what has occurred on the subject in the courts of the States. Observations on the subject occur in sundry cases of the class already spoken of, where the main question was of land belonging to persons who were bom in the United States before their separation from Great Britain, but adhered to the mother-country. As the law of England maintains the unalterable perpetuity of allegiance, and as that of England, transmitted to many of the States of the Union, denies the capacity of aliens to hold lands, the question of citizenship repeatedly came before the courts in the early years of the republic. 26 SD 202 In such a oaso. in the State of Massachusetts, its supreme court, l>y Chief Justice Par- sons, say : " Pidtoction and allegiance are reciprocal. The sovereign cannot refuse his protec- tion to any subject, nor discharge him from his allegiance against liis conseut ; and he ■will iruiaiu a subject, unless disfranchised as a punishment for some crime. So, on the other liand, he can never discharge himself from his allegiance to his sovereign, unless the protection which is due to him from the laws is unjustly denied him." (Ainslie v. Martin, 6 Mass. E., p. 460.) Here a most important feature of the rightfulness of the claim of society, as agaiust the citizen, is indicated, namely, that the laws of the country afford him due protec- tion. In a case of the same character in the State of Pennsylvania, her supreme court, by Chief .Justice Tilghman, speaks of a "principle not compatible with the constitution of Pennsylvania or her sister States ; that is to say, that no man can, even for the most pressing reasons, divest himself of the allegiance under which he was born." (Jackson V. Burns, 3 Binney's E., pp. 75, 85.) Allusions to the point as being yet unsettled occur in the State of Alabama, in a case where distinction between emigration and expatriation is well suggested. (Beavers i'. Smith, Ala. E., N. S., vol. 11, pp. 20, 29.) The doctrine is touched, also, in several cases involving matrimonial rights, as affected by domicile or citizenship ; hut without any result of importance. (See Bishop on Marriage, b. 7.; But, of the eases in the several States, those adjudged by the courts of Virginia and Kentucky are the most important, because of the special laws of those two States on the subject of citizenship ; and these cases also possess intrinsic interests Controversy arose in the State of Virginia, in a matter not material to be here ex- plained, which presented the immediate question of expatriation from the State, but involved in argument that of expatriation generally. (Murray v. McCarty, 2 Mumford's E., p. 393.) In this case Judge Cabell, with concurrence of his associates of the court, affirms the general right of expatriation in these words : "Nature has given to all men the right of relinquishing the society in which birth or accident may have thrown them, and of seeking subsistence and happiness else- where ; and it is believed that this right of emigration, or expatriation, is one of those inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity. But, although municipal laws cannot take away or destroy this great right, they may regulate the manner and prescribe the evidence of its exercise; and in the' absence of these regulations, jwris poaitim, the right must he exercised according to the principles of general law." (IMd,, pp. 396, 397.) The same judge suggests reasonable doubt of the effect of that provision of the law of Virginia which requires a formal declaration of the purpose of change of citizen- ship. "If," he says, "arguments drawn from the long and uniform practice of a country are ever allowed to have any influence on a question concerning the construc- tion of its laws, they might here be urged with much force. For, of the innumerable emigrants from Virginia who have overspread the Southern and Western States and Territories, and filled their highest offices, it is believed that not one has ever deemed it necessary to confoi'm to our act concerning expatriation. Are they still citizens of the State ?"" (lUcl, p. 399.) And he adds expression of opinion that, "if a citizen of Virginia shall have departed out of this commonwealth with an open and avowed, fair and ionafide, intention of quitting it, and of becoming a citizen of some other State, and shall, in fact, have be- come a citizen thereof, that, from thenceforth, he ceased to be a citizen of Virginia, notwithstanding he may have omitted to comjily with the requisites of our expatria- tion act." (Ihid., p. 400.) Judge Eoane, another member of the court, dwells on the important fact of the dif- ference between citizenship of a State an,d that of the United States ; the consideration of which leads him to say, among other things : " I entirely subscribe to the doctrine that the situation of America, in this particular, is new and may produce new and delicate questions ; that we have sovereignties moving within sovereignties ; that allegiance to a particular State is one thing, and that to the United States is another ; that a renunciation of the former allegiance does not draw after it a renunciation of the latter ; and that a statute of the United States on the subject of expatriation is much wanted." {Ihid., 403.) And the same distinction draws after it the following reflection : " The power of expatriation, in relation to the commonwealth of Virginia, is one with which Congress had certainly nothing to do ; it is not granted in the instru- ment of government; and it is a fundamental principle in our system that each State retains every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States. The power of legisla- 203 tion on the subject of expatriation from the commonwealth of Virginiui has not and onght not to have heen given iqt by Virginia to the United States." (IhUl, p. 405.) As to which it may be observed that, undonbtedly, tlie State of Virginia may de- termine who is a citizen of that State, in relation to any matter of the proper juris- diction of the State, but not in matters of the jui'isdiction of the United States. The'qnes- tion of citizenship, for instance, as aft'ectiug the right to hold lands in the State, the State itself may decide, without interference on the part of the United States. Not so in regard to Federal citizenship. Indeed, in one great class of cases, that of suits in the courts of the United States by the citizens of one State against the citizens of another, as provided for by the C(ni8ti- tntion, it has been adjudged that mere simple removal to one State from another, and residence in the former, constitutes a change of citizenship in that respect within the meaning of the Constitution and the acts of Congress. (Cooper v. Gilbraith, 3 "Wash- ington's C.C. R., p. 546 ; Case v. Clark, 5 Mason's li., p. 70.) The party must of course be otherwise a citizen of the United States. (Gassies i'. Ballon, 6 Peters, 761.) Finally, the members of the court affirm, with one accord, that, conceding the right of expatriation, however regulated, its effective exercise depends on the completeness, publicity, and good faith of the assumed act of expatriation. Views to the same effect, in substance, appear to have been entertained by the courts of the State of Kentucky. In one case, to be sure, the court merely refer to this matter as a " litigated question," and refuse to pass upon it without necessity. (Brooks ?j. Clay, 3 A. K. Marshall's R., p. 545. See S. C, Shearer v. Clay, 1 Littell's R., p. 261.) But, in a later case, the court of appeals of that State, by Chief Justice Robertson, met the great question directly, and placed it on what are, in my judgment, its true foundations. In the iirst place, the court construe the law of Virginia reasonably, suggesting that the mode of expatriation prescribed by that law is very pro]ier, but " is not, of course, the only admissible or satisfactory evidence of the fact that the admitted right has been exercised." In the second place, the court say : " Whatever may be the speculative or practical doctrine of feudal governments or ages, allegiance, in these United States, whether local or national, is, in our judgment, altogether conventional, and may be repudiated by the native as well as adopted citi- zens, with the presumed concurrence of the Government, without its formal or express sanction. Expatriation may be considered a practical and fundamental doctrine of America. American history, American institutions, and American legislation, all rec- ognize it. It has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. The political obligations of the citizen, and the interests of the republic, may forbid a re- nunciation of allegiance by his mere volition or declaration, at any time, and under all circumstances. And, therefore, the Government, for the purpose of preventing abuse and securing the public welfare, may regulate the mode of expatriation. But when it has not prescribed any limitation on the right, and the citizen has in good faith ab- jured his country, and become a subject or citizen of a foreign nation, he should, as to Ms native government, be considered as denationalized, especially so far as his civil rights may be involved, and at least, so long as that government shall seem to acqui- esce in his renunciation of his political rights and obligations." (Alsberry v. Hawkins, 9 Dana's E., p. 177.) These are intelligent views : expatriation a general right, subject to regulation of time and circumstance according to pubUo interests ; and the requisite consent of the State presumed where not negatived by standing prohibitions. In conclusion of this part of the subject, it seems proper to add, that the juridical authorities of the United States admit that a party may by his own act he subject to the conflictiug obligations of two diiierent allegiances. (United States v. Williams, 2 Cranch, p. 82, note ; Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Massachusetts R., p. 453 ; Sergeant's Consti- tutional Law, p. 319.) . , , A meritorious writer on constitutional law (Mr. Rawle) has devoted some pages to the discussion of the question. He maintains, with reason, that no such thing as abso- lute or indefeasible right of expatriation exists, any more than absolute or indefeasible right of allegiance ; and suggests consideration of the distinction between mere emi- gration, involving question of domicile only, and expatriation, involving of necessity change of aUegiance. (Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 9. See also Duer's Lectures, p. Another legal commentator lias been disposed to affirm, with more absoluteness, the right of expatriation, and with perhaps insufficient regard for the contingent rights of the State. (Tucker's Blackstone, vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 90.) , ,, „ ,. .^ ■> , ., There is a small but well-written treatise on the question by Mr. Hay, elicited by the circumstances m which the second war between the United States and Great Britain originated, and which involved, among other things, extravagant assertions of the doc- trine of indefeasible allegiance, as against British emigrants to the United States. In truth, opinion in the United States has been at all times a little colored on the 204 subject l>y ncccssniy opposition to the assumption of Great Britain to uphold the doc- trine of indefeasible allegiance, and in terms to prohibit expatriation. Honce ^ve have been prone to regard it hastily as a question between kings and their subjects. It is not so. The true question is of the relation between the political society and its mem- bers, upon whatever hypothesis of right, and in whatever form of organization, that society may be constituted. Tlio assumption of a natural right of emigration, without possible restriction in law, can be defended only by maintaining that each individual has all possible rights against societ}', and the society none with respect to the individual ; that there is no social organization, but a mere anarchy of elements, each wholly independent of the other, and no otherwise consociated save than by their casual co-existence iji the- same territory. (Ahrens, Droit Natural, p. 324.) Accordingly through all the diversities of opinion respecting the question, the true doctrine of our law is readily distinguishable, as it appears to me, and is not in con- tradiction with jurisprudence, theroetical or positive, of the enlightened nations of Europe. If we cursorily inspect the existing laws of different countries, we discern in them tlnee aspects of the main question. In Great Britain the professed theory and the actual law combine to prohibit expa- tiintiou in terms. (Act of 3 James I, cap. 4.) In practice, however, emigration is permitted, nay encouraged. And, on the other hand, the most striking negation of the indefeasibility of allegiance as a xirinciple is afforded by the act of Parliament of 7 and 8 Victoria, cap. 66, which makes permanent a general provision for the natiuali- zation of aliens in Great Britain. (See Bowyer's Const. Law of England, p. 406.) Thus it is that the jurisprudence of England, little capable of generalization, asserts an as- sumed nile of public law, or denies it, according to the caprices of apparent local in- terest ; and her diplomacy, with characteristic inconsequence and partiality of thought, uiaholds abroad, while it repudiates at home, the saying of the great republican juris- consult, cioHcis mrcer nou est. (Bynkershoek, Quajst. J. Pub., lib. i., cap. 22.) The singularity of the law of England consists in the doctrine, that, as explained by Sii' William Blackstone, a natural subject cannot by any possibility or for any reason cease to be a subject, save by the permission of his liege lord. (Blackstone'sCom., vol. i, p. 369.) And this, adds Blackstone, is a " principle of universal law ;" in support of which strange assertion he cites, not any of the great authorities of universal or pub- lic law — all of whom, as we shall presently see, maintain the conti-ary — but a commoji lawyer of his own country, namely, Sir Matthew Hale. (Pleas of the Crown, vol. i, p. 68.) And a very modern commentator on the laws of England (Mr. Anstey) adheres to the doctrine, appljdng to every Englishman who leaves the country the phrase of amittit regmim sed non regem. (Lectures on the Laws of England, p. 94.) In other countries, the party emigrating contrary to law may lose the civil rights of his birthplace, and become liable to forfeitures of a local description, but without drawing upon himself the extreme consequences involved in the doctrine of the laws of England. Thus, the Code Napoleon provides that " The quality of Frenchmen will be lost : 1, by naturalization acquired in a foreign country ; 2, by the acceptance, without au- thority of the government, of public functions conferred by a foreign government ; 3, by establishment in a foreign country without purpose of return." (Art. 17.) It also provides the means of recovering the lost quality, except in the case of the party bearing ai-ms against his country. (Arts. 18, 20, 21.) There are several decrees, one of the reign of Louis XIV, and two of that of Napoleon I, which add confiscations and loss of civil rights, a^the penalty of any Frenchman expatriating himself without pub- lic authority. But some doubt exists whether these decrees are now in force, and at any rate they are not so as respects the provision of confiscation ; the doctrine of 'the general right of expatriation being maintained in France. (Dalloz, Die. Jur. voc. Droit Civil, 53.) Spain and the Spanish American Eepublics contemplate and provide for voluntary exj)atriation. (Escriche, Die. sub. voce. Espanol, Natural.) It is a curious fact that, at the time when Bynckershoek wrote, the governments which prohibited expatriation under penalties were Great Britain, Russia, France, and China. (Qijest. Juris. Publ., lib. i., cap. 22.) Then, as now, expatriation was lawful in Spain, as it now is in the Spanish Ameri- can Eepublics. (Escriche, ubi. supra.) And the public policy of Spain has never been otherwise in this relation. (Don, Derecho Publico, lib. i, tit. 7.) But the most explicit and complete enactments on the subject are those of some of the States of the Germanic Confederation. I take as example the legislation of Austria and Prussia. In each of these countries emigration is permitted by law, but regulated. In neither of them can expatriation take place legally in evasion of military duty. In both spe- cial conditions apply to the time of war. In Prussia permission to emigrate is not re- fused unless for prescribed causes, appertaining to military or civil obligations ; in 205 An>stria it may be refused at discretion. In Prussia ten years' residence in a foreign country, with some exceptions, efl'ects tlie result of expatriation ; ttis provision is omitted in Austria. Of eaoli system, the common and essential feature is a standing- provision for emigration on application to the public authorities. (Decree of the Em- peror Francis I, of March 24, 1832 ; Circular of King Frederick William, of December 31 1842.) ' ^ In the United States, as we have seen, there is no provision of federal law which de- fines citizenship ; and none which expressly forbids or expressly authorizes the exj)a- triation of citizens of the United States. On several occasions, when the question was before Congress, doubts were suggested whether the Federal Govei'nmeut has power to legislate on the subject. I cannot per- ceive the force of these doubts. Citizenship is a federal qualification for the tenure of office, and for the enjoyment of many other rights under the Constitution of the Union. "Wliat constitutes citizenship of the United States cannot be determined by the several States. If they were to undertake it, they would he found to dilfer radically and irreconcilably in the matter. If Congress cannot do it, then the Union is in the singu- lar predicament of the constitutional impossibility of ascertaining who compose it, who may be its President, Senators, and Representatives. No such impossibility exists. When Congress enacts that only citizens of the United States are competent to do cer- tain things, it may well proceed to say, if it choose, who the x^ersons thus designated are, and to define them by classes or desciiption of inclusion or exclusion. If it could not say this directly, and by systematic definition, in the way other nations do, it could say it indirectly by acts of penalty ; it could say what are the circumstances of time or manner in which the act of emigration would or would not deprive an Ameri- can of rights, or subject him to penalties and forfeitures. But the idea that citizen- ship, or the loss of it, cannot be defined by Congress, is one of the lingering prejudices of the common law, which relies upon judicial exposition to deduce general rules from particular cases, instead of laying down general rules by previous legislati-^e survey of the subject-matter. Thus it is that Congress leaves this question to the fortuitous oc- currence of sonic judicial contingency, in which it may be definitely disposed of by decision of the Supreme Court. In the absence of such a decision, we are compelled to reason out a conclusion in the premises, with aid of analogies of our own or of the public law applicable thereto. The doctrine of absolute and perpetual allegiance — the root of the denial of aiiy right of emigration — is inadmissible in the United States. It was a matter involved in, and settled for us by, the Revolution, which founded the American Union. Moreover, the right of expatriation, under fit circumstances of time and of manner, being expressly asserted in the legislation of several of the States, and confirmed by decisions of their courts, must be considered as thus made a part of the fundamental public law of the United States. Most of the jurisconsults and judges who have had occasion to discuss the subject admit, as we see, either directly or indirectly, that it is a question of circumstances and conditions. The admissibility of change of allegiance in the United States without necessary expms co-operation of the foreign government, is implied by the naturalization acts, which require conditions of residence, of personal character, of publicity, and of actual abjuration of the foreign allegiance, as indispensable to the consummation of an act of expatriation. I think, in consideration of these premises, that the omission of the federal laws to enact any express or specific restraints on expatriation is tacit or implied consent, subject only to such conditions of good faith, of discharge of subsisting obligations to the society left, and of consummated expatriation in fact, as the principles of interna- tional right require to observed. As a question of natural right, emigration belongs to the general category of those elements of individual happiness which every citizen is entitled to pursue, but in sub- ordination, always, to the general welfare. (Grotius, De Jure Bell, ac Pacis, lib. ii, ch. 5, No. 24 ; Wolff, Jus Naturas, part vii, cap. i, s. 186, 187 ; Burlamaqui, Droit de la Na- ture, p. 2, ch. 5, s. 13 ; Almeda, Dereoho Publico, torn, i, cap. 17.) The society cannot absolutely take away this right, but may regulate it in such way as to reconcile the interest of the individual and of the community. (Wolff, Jus Naturai, pars viii, cap. 3, s. 415 ; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. i, ch. 19, s. 10.) In fine, the present state of the law of nations and of nature on this point; is well stated by D. Antonio Eiquelme, as follows : " It is a recognized principle of the law of nations that all can change their primi- tive nationality, according to their convenience. This principle, admitted by all the world and in virtue of which every individual may renounce the nationality which birth combined with parentage gives him, does not release him who avails himself of it of the obligations which he owes to his country ; so that the citizen or subject who, without authorization of his government, accepts the nationality of a foreign state, may be called upon for the performance of the personal charges imposed upon 206 him liy his primitive country iu the form which the laws establish. Thus, a deserter from the military service, who becomes natiualized in the state to which he flies, though not subject to extradition without special treaty authorizing it, if , nevertheless, he come within the jurisdiction of the authorities of his primitive country, cannot be reelaimod by his new one, but remains bound to fulfill tlic obligations of his service. AVhile the law of nations concedes to individuals the liberty of changing their nation- ality, it also empowers a state to restrict this faculty in certain circumstances, as in case of war and others, in return for the services and protection which it bestows on the citizen or subject ; and when he changes his nationality in contempt of the laws, he gives»occasion for the disregard of his new nationality." (Derecho luternacional, tom. i, p. 319.) In the absence of general prohibition, general consent of the state is presumed. "Vel si consenu cxpresso ant tacito." (Puffendorf, De Officio Hominis et Civis, lib. ii, cap. 18.) Or, in the words of Bynkershoek, " Si nou sit lex quae prohibeat, utique licet subditi conditionem exuere, et civitatem ut lubet mutare." (Quasstiones Juris Publici, lib. i, cap. 22.) Of course, the citizen cannot apply such implied consent to any act of pretended emigration, which is itself a violation otherwise of the law, either public or muni- cipal, as in the case of illegal military enterprises ; nor, by it, can he escape the punish- ment of crime or the performance of local contracts, nor appeal to it aa a mask to cover desertion or treasonable aid of the public enemy. I am not prepared to say that the right of a citizen of the United States to expatriate himself, implied iu the absence of any prohibition, may not be exercised in time of war; but, if so, it would have to be done with attendant circumstances, clearly showing good faith, in order to be justi- fiable; and it is not easy to see how citizenship covild be transferred in time of war to the foreign enemy iu such way as to escape reprehension, if the party should after- ward return to the United States. And, whether in peace and war, the expatriation would have to be an actual one, by foreign residence, and with authentic renunciation of the pre-existing citizenship. XJnder the circumstances and with the conditions thus indicated, and subject to such others as the public interest might seem to Congress to require to be imposed, it seems to me that the right of expatriation exists, and may be freely exercised by the citizens of the United States. ■ I have the honor to be, very respectfully, C. GUSHING. Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretm-y of State. (B.) United States naturalization act, 1802. [N. B. — This law has teen already printecl.'\ (C.) "Ann," Smith. This ship, under American colors, was seized in the river Thames, by the marshal of the admiralty, on the 1st of August, 1812. A claim was given by the master, who was also sole owner of the ship, describing himself to be a British subject, and as such en- titled to the benefit of the order in council of November, 1812, directing the restitution of British ships under the American flag. It appeared that he was a native of Scot- land, and that his wife and family resided in that country, but that he had himself been admitted a citizen of America about sixteen years ago, upon taking an oath that he had been sailing out of the American port for two years ; that from the year 1799 till 1805 he had been connected with a house of trade at Glasgow, which had an estab- lishment at New York, and another at Charlestown, and that he had occasionally re- sided at each of the last-mentioned places ; that he had purchased this vessel at public auction in America, and had made three voyages in her, the two first from Charlestown to Kingston, in Jamaica, returning each time iu ballast, and the last from Charlestovn to the river Thames. The question was, whether, from the residence and employmeiit of this man, he was, quoad this vessel, to be considered as a British subject. 207 JUDGMENT. SirW. SrOTT. This ship, wlien seized liy the jiiriTshaliii the vivoi- Tliamps, w;i,s inidov the Auifvicuu lUig', but, according to the iiccoimt gi-\'cii by the mastoi', was not furn- ished with the American, or indeed with any pass whatever. It is very difficult to conceive tliat tliis was tlie true state of the case, since the ship was not only Auiorican- built but likewise American-owned, as far, at least, as the ostensible character of the chximaut is concerned; for though he could not altogether throw off his allegiance to his native country, he had been admitted a citizen of the United States. I cannot con- ceive, therefore, why the pass was not granted, or what obstacle prevented this man from obtaining so important a document. I must presume that the vessel was furn- ished with an American pass ; but, supposing the case to be otherwise, still, if the ship was furnished with the documents usually granted to American shii)s, the same rule of law must be ajiplied as if she had been furnished with a regular flag and pass. The ship must be conclusively held to be American property, and consequently subject to condemnation. It is said, however, that this ship is protected by the order in council issued on the 28th of November, 1812, by which it is directed " that all vessels under the flag of the United States of America which are ionaficle and wholly the property of His Majesty's subjects, and not purchased by them subsequent to the ^late of hostilities on the part of the United States of America, and which shall have been detained in port under the embargo, or shall have sailed to or from the ports of this kingdom previous to the knowledge of hostilities, and shall have been captiu:ed on such voyage, shall be re- stored to the •British owners, upon satisfactory proof being made to the high court of admiralty or the courts of vice-admiralty, to which they shall be taken for adjudica- tion, that the said vessels are bona fide and wholly the property of His Majesty's sub- jects as aforesaid, and had been engaged in trade as above described." A claim has been given for this ship by Mr. Smitli, describuig himself to be a British subject ; and, if he is a British subject, he will, under this order in council, be entitled to restitution. The question, therefore, comes to this, whether the claimant is, quoad this property, to be considered a British subject. For some purposes he is undoubtedly so to be con- sidered. He is born in this country, and is subject to all the obligations imposed upon him by his nativity. He cannot shake olf his allegiance to his native country, or divest himself altogether of his British character by a voluntary transfer of himself to an- other country. For the mere purposes of trade he may, indeed, transfer himself to another state, and may acquire a new national character. An English subject, resi- dent in a neutral state, is at liberty to trade with the enemy of this country in all articles, with the exception of those which are of a contraband nature ; but a trade in such articles would be contrary to his allegiance. Now, the account which he gives of himself is, "that he was born at Falkirk, in Scotland; that during the last seven .\-eiirs he has been chiefly at sea, but, when at home, he has lived, and still lives, at Bathgate, in the shire of Linlithgow, in North Britain ; that he is the subject of our sovereign lord the King, but about sixteen years ago he was admitted a citizen of the United States of America, for the purpose of commerce only." Why, this transaction is for the purpose of commerce. According to his own account, then, he ceased to be a British subject for commercial purposes. He goes on to say, that he was admitted "for the purpose of covering a ship of his own, to enable her to sail without risk of capture, and he was so admitted by the magistrates of Philadelphia, on oath being made that he had sailed out of an American port for two years ; that he hath never been admitted a burgher or freeman of any city or town, but, fTom the year 1799 to the year 1805, the deponent having been connected in a house of trade at Glasgow, which had a house at New York, and another at Charlestown in South Carolina," so that, from the year 1799 to the year 1805, he might, asfarashewasconnected with the house atGlas- gow, and for that particular branch of his trade, be considered a British subject. Bnt since that time I understand him to say that he has withdraAvn altogether from that connection. He says afterward, in answer to the ninth interrogatory, " that he is a North Briton by birth, and when he is at home his place of residence is Bathgate, in the sliire of Lin'Uthgow, in North Britain, where his wife and family reside, and where he the deponent hath always resided from the time he was ten or eleven years of age, when he was not at sea or in foreign parts." The affirmative part of his history, as far as it goes, shows that he lived very much abroad, and principally at New York or Charlestown, in America. True it is that he had no house in either of these places, but he was there as a single man. It is not the mere circumstance of leaving a wife and family in Scotland that will avail him for the purpose of retaining the beneiit of his national character. He cannot be permitted to take the advantage of both characters at the same time, and in the same adventure. The utmost that can be allowed to him is, that he should be entitled to the one character or the other, according to the cir- cumstances of the transaction. When the vessel herself is American-built, when the personal residence of the owner, as far as he has any, is in America, (for it does not ap- pear that tliis man at aU resided in Scotland,) it would he difficult to say that it could 208 up nii.v otlicv than :\\i Aiucnciiii tiaiisaitioii. Simo the. pnreliasc of lliiH sliij) liv Mr. Smith, lie has mado three voyages: two of them to KingNtoii in Jamaica, and one to tlie ])orf- of Louih)M ; but to the \H>vin of Scotland he has never sailed, nor (hies it appear that he has even visited his wife and family in that country. He has hei^n sailing con- stantly out of Ameiican portiS, and his previiilin}>' destination has hetsn to the West India Islands. It is quite impossible that he can be protected under the order in coun- cil, whieli applies only to those who are clearly and habitually British subjects, liaving m) intermixture of foreign commercial character. It never could be the intention of His Majesty's government that the benefit of this order should be extended to a person who has thrown off his allegiance, and estranged himself from his British character, as far as his own volition and act could do. I am of opinion that Mr. Smith is not enti- tled to the benefit of the order in council, and therefore I reject the claim. Ship con- demned. (D.) lixlriiit de^ minutes du greffe du trWunal ciril de premiere instance de Van'ondissentent de Wissenibourg, dipartement du Bas-Bhin. Le tribunal civil de premiere instance de I'arrondissement de Wissembourg h rendu le jugement suivant : Audience du vingt-cinq a'S'xil, mil huit cent soixante : Entre Jlichel Zeiter, cultivateur, domicilii aux Etats-Unis de l'Am6rique, deniandeur, oomparant par Maitre Volpert, son avouiS ; Contre M. le pr<5fet du Bas-Ehin, d^fendeur. Aprfes avoir oui a,.l'audience du vingt courant, les conclusions de M. de Eing, substi- tut du procureur imperial, et aprfes en avoir dtSlib^r^ en la chambre du conseil: Attendu que les tribunaux sont comp^teuts d'aprfes Particle vingt-six de la loi du vingt-un mars, mil huit cent trente deux, pour decider les questions relatives k l'<5tat ou aux droits civils des jeunes gens appel^s k faire partie du contingent de I'arm^e ; attendu que, d'aprfes rarticle deux de la mSme loi, nul ne pent 6tre admis dans les troupes f ranyaises s'il n'est f raaif ais : Que le demandeur pr(5tendant qu'il a perdu sa quality de FranQais par sa naturalisa- tion en pays iStraiiger, il n'y a pas h s'inqui^ter si cette naturalisation en laays stranger a en lieu sans I'autorigation du gouvernement franfais, contrairement aux pr&crip- tions du decret du vingt-six aotlt, mil huit cent onze, mats seulement si, an moment actnel, le demandeur est encore Frangais. Attendu que le demandeur rapporte un certifioat constatant qu'il s'est pr^sent^ devant la cour des pLaids communs du comt6 d'Essex, (Stat de New .Jersey, et a fait la demande d'etre admis h devenir citoyen des Etats-Unis d'Am^rique, mais qu'il n'est pas justifi(5 quo cette formality sutHse pour conf&er cette quality ; que le tribunal doit exi- ger un supplement de renseignements, tel, par exemple, qu'une attestation du consul des I5tats-Uuis en France de reconnaissance du titre de citoyen des fitats-Unis d'Am6- rique. Par ces motifs, le tribunal surseoit a statuer sur la demande jusqu'^ ce que le deman- deur rapporte une attestation du consul des Etats-Unis en France, constatant qu'il a rempli toutes les formalitfe n^cessaires pour devenir citoyen des Etats-Unis, ou toute autre pifece justificative de sa nouvelle nationality et le condamne dfes a prdsent aux d^pens. jugd et prononc^ a I'audience publique du tribunal civil de I'arrondissement de Wis- sembourg: presents. Messieurs Bardy, president; Lanth et Stoffel, juges; et Richert, procureur imp&ial. N. BAEDY, ET VOGT, Commis Greffier. Extrait des minutes du greffe du tribunal civil de premiiere instance de I'arrondissement de Wissembourg, Bas-JRhin. Le tribunal civil de premiere instance de I'arrondissement de Wissembourg a rendu le jugement suivant : Audience du deux juin, mil huit-cent soixante : Entre Michel Zeiter, cultivateur, domicilii aux fitats-Unis d'Am&ique, demandeur, coniparant par Maitre Volpert, avoue ; Contre M. le pr(5fet du Bas-Ehih, d^fendeur, repr6sent(5 par M. le procureur impe- rial. Aprfes avoir oui les conclusions respectives des parties, ainsi que celles du ministfere public : 209 Attendu qne, psir la production dii certifloat qui lui a 6t6 delivr<5 ]e vingt-liuit luai denuer, par le consul des Etats-Unis fl Paris, et qui a 6t6 enregistrg k Wissembouro- aujourd'liui, le dcmandeur a justiH6 qu'il eat citoyen aiii^ricain : " Le tribunal donue acto au demaudeur de co que, par la production du dit ccrtiHcat il a^satisfait au jugement rendu en ce sihge le vingt-cinq avril dernier. ' _ En consequence dit et reconnait que le dcmandeur, Miclicl Zeiter, par sa naturalisa- tion en pays stranger, a perdu la quality de Frangais, et le condamne aux d(?pens. Jng6 et prononc6 h I'audience publique du tribunal civil de I'arrondissement de Wis- sembourg: presents, Messieurs Bardy, president ; Lanth et Stoffel, juges: et De Ring snbstitut du procureur imperial. N. BAEDY, ET VOGT, Commis Greffiei: Note.— M. Treitt, who has procured the copy of this paper, states that the judgment attracted little attention at the time it was given, and that it must not be accepted as a definitive exposition of French law on a point which, as he believes, is still open to controversy. (E.) Extracts of an opinion of Mr. Attorney-Genei-al Bates, dated Novemler 29, 1862. Who is a citizen ? What constitutes a citizen of the United States ? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and the records of our courts for a, clear and satisfactory definition of the phrase citizen of the United States. I find no such definition, no authoritative establishment of the meaning of the phrase neither by a course of judicial decision in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government. For aught I see to the contrary, the subject is now as little understood in its details and elements, and the question as open to argument and to speculative criticism, as it was at the beginn ing of the Government. Eighty years of practical enjoyment of citizenship, under the Constitution, have not sufficed to teach us either the exact meaning of the word, or the constituent elements of the thing we prize so highly. In most instances, within my knowledge, in which the matter of citizenship has been discussed, the argument has not turned upon the existence and the intrinsic quali- ties of citizenship itself, but upon the claim of some right or privilege as belonging to and inhering in the character of a citizen. In this way we are easily led into errors both in fact and principle. We see individuals, who are known to be citizens, in the actual enjoyment of certain rights and privileges, and in the actual exercise of certain powers, social and political, and we, inconsiderately, and without any regard to legal and logical consequences, attribute to those individuals, and to all of their class, tlie enjoyment of those rights and privileges, and the exercise of those powers, as incidents to their citizenship, and belonging to them only in their quality of citizens. In such cases it often happens that the rights enjoyed and the powers exercised have no relation whatever to the quality of citizen, and might be as perfectly enjoyed and exercised by known aliens. For instance. General Bernard, a distinguished soldier and devoted citizen of France, for a long time filled the office of general of engineers in the service of the United States, all the time avowing his French allegiance, and, in fact, closing his relations with the United States by resigning his commission and returning to the service of his own native country. This and all such instances (and tbey are many) go to prove that in this country the legal capacity to hold office is not confined to citizens, and therefore that the fact of holding any office for which citizenship is not specially prescribed by law as a qualification is no proof that the incumbent is an American citizen. Again, with regard to the right of suffrage, that is, the right to choose officers of gov- ernment, there is a very common error, to the effect that the right to vote for public officers is one of the constituent elements of American citizenship, the leading faculty indeed of the citizen, the test at once of this legal right and the sufficient proof of his membership of the body-politic. No error can be greater than this, and few more inju- rious to the right understanding of our constitutions, and the actual working of our political government. It is not only not true in law or in fact, in principle or in prac- tice, but the reverse is conspicuously true ; for I make bold to affirm that, viewing the nation as a whole, or viewing the States separately, there is no district in the nation in which a majority of the known and recognized citizens are not excluded by law from the right of suffrage. Besides those who are excluded specially on account of some personal detect, such as paupers, idiots, lunatics, and men convicted of infamoiis crimes, and, in some States, soldiers, all females, and all minor males are also excluded. And 27 SD 210 tlicsp, ill cvoiy (Dmimiviity, iii.ake the majoiity ; and yet, I think, no (ino will ventuie to deny that women aiid childven, and hinatics, and even convict felons, may Ihs citi- zens oi tlic United .States. Onr code (nnlike the codes of France, and perhaps some other nations) makes no pro- vision for hiss or legal deprivation of citizenship. Once a citizen, whether «o/«.i or (latiis, (as Sir Edward (Jok(^ expresses it,) always a citizen, unless changed by the voli- tion and act of the individual. Neither infancy nor madness nor crime can take away from the subject the quality of citizen. And our laws do, in express terms, declare women and children to he citizens. Sec, for one instance, the act of Congress of Feb- ruary 10, 1855, 10 Stat., 604. The Constitution of the United States does not declare vrho are and who are not citi- zens, nor does it attempt to describe the constituent elements of citizenship. It leaves that quality vrhere it found it, resting upon the fact of home, birth, and upon the laws of the several States. Even in the important matter of electing members of Congress it does no more than provide that " the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen ever j^ second year % Wie people of the several States, and the electors in the several States shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature." Here the word citizen is not mentioned, and it is a legal fact, known of course to all lawyers and publicists, that the constitutions of several of the States, in specifying the qualifications of electors, do altogether omit and exclude the vrords citizen and citizenship. will refer, in proof, to but three instances. 1. The constitution of Massachusetts, adopted in 1779-80, in article 4 of section 3, cap 1, provides as follows: "Every male ])erson, being twenty-one years of age, and resiieni of a particular town in this Commonwealth for the space of one year next preceding, having a freehold estate within the same town of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds, shall have the right to vote in the choice of representative or repTcsentatives for said town." 2. Tlie constitution of North Carolina, adopted m 1776, after a bill of rights, and after reciting that " whereas allegiance and protection are, in their nature, reoijirocal, and the one should of right be refused where the other is withdrawn," declares, in sec- tion 8, that aM freemen at the age of twenty-one years, who have been inliabiiauts of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceding the day of any elec- tion, and shall have paid piiblic taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the house of commons for the county in which he resides." 3. The constitution of Illinois, adopted in 1818, in article 2, section 27, declares that "in all elections all white male inhaMtants above the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State six months next preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector ; but no person shall be entitled to vote except in the pounty or district in which he shall actually reside at the time of the election." These three constitutions belong to States widely separated in geographical position, varying greatly from each other in habits, manners, and pursuits, having ditferent climates, soils, productions, and domestic institutions, and yet not one of the three has made citizensTiip a necessary qualification for a voter ; all three of them exclude all females, but only one of them (Illinois) has excluded the black man from the right of suffrage. And it is historically true that the practice has conformed to the theory of those constitutions respectively ; for, without regnrd to citizenship, the colored man has not voted in Illinois, and freemen of all colors have voted in North Carolina and Massachusetts. From all this it is manifest that American citizenship does not necessarily depend upon nor co-exist with the legal capacity to hold offlce, and the right of suffrage, either or both of them. The Constitution of the United States, as I have said, does not define citizenship ; neither does it declare who may vote, nor who may hold office, except in regard to a few of the highest national functionaries. And the several States, as far as I know, in exercising that power act independently, and without any controlling authority over them, and hence it follows that there is no limit to their power in that particular but tlieir own prudence and discretion ; and therefore we are not surprised to find these faculties of voting and holding office are not uniform in the different States, but are made to depend upon a variety of facts, purely discretionary, such as age, sex, race, color, property, residence in a particular place, and length of residence there. On this point, then, I conclude that no person in the United States did ever exercise the right of suffrage in virtue of the naked, unassisted fact of citizenship. In every instance the right depends upon some additional fact and cumulative qualification, which may as perfectly exist without as with citizenship. I am aware that some of our most learned lawyers and able writers have allowed themselves to speak upon this subject in loose and indeterminate language. They speak "of all the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution to the citizen," withoxrt telling us what they are. They speak of a man's citizenship as defective and imperfect, because he is supposed not to have "all the civil rights," (all the jura civitatis, as expressed by one of my predecessors,) without telling what partiou- 211 lar rights tliey are, nor what rehition they have, if any, with citizenship. And they suggest, without affirming, that there may he different grades of citizenship, of higher and lower degree in point of legal virtue and efficacy ; one grade " in the sense of the Constitntion," and another inferior grade made by a State, and not recognized hy the Constitution. In my opinion the Constitntion uses the word "citizen'' only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation ; to declare that he is a member of the body-politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other. Aaid I have no knowledge of any other kind of political citizenship, higer or lower, statal or national ; or of any other sense in which the word has been used in the Constitution, or can be used properly in the laws of the United States. The phrase " a citizen of the United States," without additiim or qual- ification, means neither more nor less than a member of the nation. And all such are, politically and legally, equal. The child in the cradle and its father in the Senate are equally citizens of the United States. And it needs no argument to prove that every citizen of a State is, necessarily, a citizen of the United States ; and to me it is equally clear that every citizen of the United States is a citizen of the iiarticular State in which he is domiciled. And as to voting and holding office, as that privilege is not essential to citizenship, so the deprivation of it by law is not a deprivation of citizenship. No more so in the case of a negro than in case of a v/liite woman or child. In common speech the word " citizen," with more or less of tmth and pertinency, has a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used in conlTrast with soldiei- ; sonietinies with farmer ox coiDitri/man ; sometimes with o^icK or /omj/Hec. Speaking of a particu- lar man, we ask. Is he a citizen or a soldier ? meaning. Is he engaged in civil or mili- tary purauits ? Is he a citizen or a countryman ? meaning, Does he live in the city or in the country f Is he a citizen or an alien ? meaning. Is he a member of our body- politic or some other nation ? The first tw" predicates relate only to the x'ursnits and to the place of abode of the person. The last is always and wholly political, and con- cerns only the political and governmental relations oJE the individual. And it is only in this last sense, the political, that the word is ever used in the Constitution and stat- utes of the United States. AVe have natural-lorn citizens, (Constitution, article 2, § 5,) not made by la w or other- wise, but horn. And this class is the large majority — in fact, the mass of our citizens — for all others are exceptions sj)ecially provided for hy law. As they become citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, iniless, by their own voluhtary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenise a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or by the legal process of adop- tion. And in this connection the Constitution says not one word, and furnishes not one hint, in relation to the color or to the ancestral race of the "natural-hom citizen." Whatever may have been said in the opinions of judges and lawyers, and in State stat- utes, about negroes, mnlattoes, and persons of color, the Constitntion is ^yholly silent upon that subject. The Constitution itself does not make the citizens ; (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural-^home- l)orn — and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien — foreign-bom — making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. And'l am not aware of any provision in our laws to warrant us in presiiming the ex- istence in this country of a class of persons intermediate between citizens and aliens. In England there is such a class, clearly defined by law, and called denizens. "A deni- zen," says Sir William Blackstone, " is an alim born, but who has obtained, ex dovatione regis, letters-patent to make him an English subject; a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien and a natural-bom subiect, and partakes of both of them."— (Sharwood's Com., 374.) In this counti-y I know of but one legal authority tending to show the existence of such a class among us. One of my learned predecessors, Mr. Legari5, (4 Opin., 147,) supposes that there may be such a class, and that free colored persons may be ranked hi it. Yet, in that same opinion, he declares that a "free man of .color, a- native of this country, may he admitted to the privileges of a pre-emptioner under the 10th section of the act of the 4th September, 1841." And that act declares that a pre-emptioner must be either a citizen of the United States or a person who had declared his intention to become a citizen, as required hy the naturalization laws. Of conrsethe "coloredman" must have been a citizen, or he oonld not have entered the land under that act of Congress. If not a citizen then by virtue of his native birth, he never could become one hy force of law, for our laws extend the privileges of naturalization to such persons only as are "aliens, being free white persons," and he was neither ; not alien, because natural-bom in the country ; and not a free white person, because, though free, confessedly ' a man of color As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the "accident of birth"— the fact that we happened to be horn in 212 the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of iiaiiiral-lxn'u cUisuns, nses no iiftiiniativo language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffinns (he univer- sal principle, common to all nations and as old as political society, that the i)Oople born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are naluval members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle — and I do not doubt it — it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, ^nmo /acie a citizen; and he vrho would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the "natural-born" right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or anjf other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as between the individ- ual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by authority. Nevertheless, for the satisfaction of those who may have doubts upon the subject, I note a few books, which, I think, cannot fail to remove all such doubts : Kent's Com., vol. 2, part 4, sec. 25 ; Bl. Com., book 1, ch. 10, p. 365 ; 7 Co. Jie\)., Calvin's case ; 4 Term Eep., p. 300, Doe v. Jones ; 3 Pet. Eep., p. 246, Shanks v. Dupout ; and see a very learned treatise, attributed to Mr. Binney, in 2 Am. Law Eeporter, 193. In every civilized country the iudividual is born to duties and rights — the duty of allegiance and the right to protection ; and these' are correlative obligations, the one tlie price of the other, and they constitute the all-sufficient bond of union between the individual and his country, and the country he is born in is, prima facie, Ms country. lu most countries the old law was broadly laid down that this natural connection be- tween the iudividual and his native country was perpetual — at least that the tie was indissoluble by the act of the subject alone. (See Bl. Com. supra ; 3 Pet. Eep.) But that law of the perpetuity of allegiance is now changed, both in Europe and America — in some countries by silent acquiescence ; in others by affirmative legisla- tion. In England, while asserting the perpetuity of natural allegiance, the King, for centuries past, has exercised the power to grant letters of denization to foreigners, making them English subjects, and the Parliament has exercised at pleasure the power of naturalization. In France the whole subject is regulated by written law, which plainly declares who are citizens, {dtayms frangais,) and who are only the French, {Frangais,) meaning the whole body of the French people. (Seeies Codes Franfcds, titre premier.) Andthesanie law distinctly sets forth by what means citizenship and the quality of French may be lost and regained; and maiutains fully the right of expatriation in the subject, and the power of naturalization iu the nation to which he goes. In the United States it is too late now to deny the political rights and obligations conferred and imposed by nativity ; for our laws do not pretend to create or enact them , but do assume and recognize them as things known to all men, because pre-existent and natural, and therefore things of which the laws must take cognizance. Acting out this guiding thought, our Constitution does no more than grant to Congxess (rather than to any other department) the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." And our laws made in pursuance thereof indue the made citizen with all the rights and obligations of the natural citizen. And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage at children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, (10 Statutes, 604,) provides that " persons," (not loWfe persons,)' "jDer- sons heretofore born, and hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or shall be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered, and are hereby declared to be, citizens of the United States : Frovided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States." "Sec. 2. And l>e it further enacted. That any woman who might lawfully be natural- ized under the existing laws, married or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen." But for that act, children of our citizens who happen to be born at London, Paris, or Eome, while their parents are there on a private visit of pleasure or business, might be brought to the native home of their parents, only to find that they themselves were aliens in their father's country, incapable of inheriting their father's land, and with no right to demand the protection of their father's Government. That is the law of birth at the common law of England, clear and unqualified ; and now, both in England and America, modified only by statutes made from time to time, to meet emergencies as they arise. Every citizen of the United States is a competent member of the nation, with rights and duties, under the Constitution and l.iws of the United States, which cannot be de- stroyed or abridged by the laws of any particular State. The laws of the State if they conflict with the laws of the nation are of no force. The Constitution is plain beyond 213 Oiwil upon this pomt._ Artiolo 6 : " This Constitution, aud the laws of the United States vvhicli shall be luadein pursuance thereof, and all treaties, &c., shall he the supreme law ot the land, and the judges in ever), State shaU he bound thereby, anything in the consti- tution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And fi-om this I assume that every person who is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturali- zation, holds his great franchise by the laws of the United States, and above the control of any pai-ticular State. Citizenship of the United States is an integral thing, incapa- ble ot legal existence m fractional parts. Whoever, then, has that franchise is a whole citizen aud a citizen of the whole nation, and cannot he (as the argument of my learned predecessor seems to suppose) such citizen in one State and not in another. ■ 4.1 J concur m the statement thait " the description, dtizen of the United States, used in the Constitution, has the same meaning that it has in the several acts of Congress passed under the authority of the Constitution." And I freely declare my inability to conceive of any second or subordinate meaning of the phrase as used in all those in- struments. It means in them all the simple expression of the political status of the person m connection with the nation— that he is a member of the body-politic. And that is all it means, for it does not specify his rights and duties as a citizen, nor in any way refer to such " rights, privileges, and immunities" as he may happen to have, by State laws or othemdse, over and beyond what legally and naturally belong to him in his finality of citizen of the United States. State laws may, and do— nay, musl^-vest in individuals great privileges, powers, and duties which do not belong to the mass of their fellow-citizens, and, in doing so, they consult discretion and convenience only. One citizen, who happens to bo a judge, may, under proper circumstances, sentence another to be hanged, and a third, who happens to be governor, may grant a pardon to the condemned man, who, as a citizen, is the undoubted peer of both the judge and the governor. The Constitution, I suppose, says what it means, and does not mean what it does not say. It says nothing about "the high characteristic privileges of a citizen of the State," (of Virginia, or any other.) I do not know what they were ; but certainly in Vii-ginia, for the first half of the existence of the commonwealth, the right of suffrage was not one of them. For dui'ing that period no man ever voted there because he was a free white adult male citizen. He voted on his freehold, in land ; .and no candidate, in soliciting his election, appealed to the people or to the citizens, but to the freeholders only, for they alone could vote. (F.) Chief Baron FigoU's refusal of a mixed jurij in Warren's case. The Chief Baiion. My learned brother and I do not entertain the least doubt as to the course we ought to adopt in reference to this proceeding. It is essential to sustain the application ; and, assuming the court has the powerto grant it, the practice has been invariably to award &jure de niedietate, as it is called, wherever an alien claims it. But assuming the authority of the court, upon which I will not now cast the slightest doubt, it is perfectly plain the person who claims a jury de medietate linguw must be an alien. It is very truly put by the counsel for the iirisoner that what the prisoner contends for in the present case is, that by reason of what ajipears — assuming the statement to be fact — what appears stated in the suggestion, he is an alien, and he is not now under the allegiance of the Queen. I cannot allow that proposition to be put forward without meeting it with a prompt and unhesitating denial. According to the law of England, a law which has been administered without any variation or doubt from the very ear- liest times, he who once is under the allegiance of the English sovereign remains so for- ever. It would be really almost pedantry for me to cite authorities on that subject. They are familiar to every lawyer. I shall cite one English authority, and I shall then cite some American authorities of the greatest weight and highest reputation. In the first volume of Blackstone's Commentaries, pages 269 and 270, the law is thus stated: " Allegiance, both express and implied, is, however, distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local ; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from natural-born subjects. This is a tie which cannot be severed or altered by any change of time, place, or cir- cumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the legislature. An English- man who removes to France or to China owes the same allegiance to the King of Eng- land there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former, for this natural allegiance was intrinsic and primitive, aud antecedent to the other, and cannot he divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed, the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes al- 214 legiance, may 1)6 eii til uglecl luy subjecting Mmself absolutely to auother, but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties of owing service to two masters ; and it is unreasonable that, by such vohmtary act of his own, he should be able at ploiisure to unloose those bonds by which he is connected to his natural prince." Blaclistone then proceeds to show that local allegiance, which by foreigners is due to the monarch, continues so long as the foreigners reside within the kingdom. The maxim of the law on tliis subject, referred to by Sir Michael Foster, page 184 of his treatise, and referred to by a variety of other authorities, is nemo potest cxuere patriavi. I said I would ouly refer to one English authority. I have brought down, with a view to some possible matter which might have arisen, some American authorities ; and I don't tliink it is unuseful to cite these authorities on the subject now before us. In Story's "Conflict of Laws," page 23, section 21, referring to the general maxim or rule that the laws of one State do not bind x^roperty or persons in another, he says : " Upon this rule there is often engrafted an exception of some importance to bo rightly understood. It is, that although the laws of a nation have no direct binding force or effect except upon persons within its own territories, yet that every nation ha.s a right to bind its own subjects by its own laws in every other place. In one sense this exception may be admitted to be correct and well-founded in the practice of nations ; in another sense it is incorrect, or at least it requires qualification. Every nation has hitherto assumed it as clear that it possesses the right to regulate and govern its own native-born subjects everywhere, and consequently that its laws extend to and bind such subjects at all times and in all places. This is commonly adduced as a consequence of what is called natural allegiance ; that is, of allegiance to the government of tlie territory of a man's birth. Thus, Mr. Blackstone says, natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the King's dominions immediately upon their birth." He then proceeds to quote the passage from Blackstone which I have cited. In Chan- cellor Kent's Commentaries, in the second volume, page 42, the following is laid down as English law. He is expounding the American law ; and, expounding the American law, founded as it is on the law of England, he says — "It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural-bom subjects owe an allegiance which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be divested by any act of their own." He then cites an English authority in. the case of McDonnell, who was tried for high treason in 1746, by Lord Chief Justice Lee, and who, he says : "Though born in England, had been educated in France, and spent his riper years there. His counsel spoke of the doctrine of natural allegiance as slavish and repug- nant to the principles of their revolution. The court, however, said that it had never been doubted that a subject bom, taking a commission from a foreign prince and committing high treason, was liable to be punished, as a subject, for that treason. They held that it was not in the power of any private subject to shake off his alle- giance and transfer it to a foreign prince ; nor was it in the power of any foreign prince, by naturalizing or employing a subject of Great Britain, to dissolve the bond of allegiance between that subject and the Crown. Entering into foreign service without the consent of the sovereign, or refusing to leave such service when required by proclamation, is held to be a misdemeanor at common law." Chancellor Kent then deals with the question, how far the English-law prevails in America. He says : "It has been a question [here he leaves the English law and proceeds to expound tlie other] frequently and gravely argued, both by theoretical writers and in frequent discussions, whether the English doctrtue of perpetual allegiance applies in its full extent to this country." That is, whether in America that doctrine is recognized. Its recognition there or repudiation could not in the slightest degree affect this country or its tribunals. Chancellor Kent then proceeds with an elaborate review of the authorities, and he closes thus, stating his view of the American law : "From this historical review of the principal discussions in the Federal courts on this interesting subject of American jurisprudence, the better opinion would seem to be that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of Government, to be declared by law ; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains un- altered." I have thought it right to cite these two great American authorities — Mr. Justice Stoiy in Ms book on the Conflict of Laws, that is, on the laws of nations as they I'e- late to each other, and Chancellor Kent expounding the law of America, and expound- ing it in the first instance by an exposition of the law of England, which is its founda- tion. We in our covurts have been in the habit of treating, not merely with respect, but with reverence, these two great lights of the laws of America. We liavc cited them in our courts of justice ; they have been quoted in our forensic discussions. The principles laid down by them in interpreting in Ameiica the laws of England as they are adopted there, have been approved and adopted by some of the ablest judges 215 tliiit luivo sat on the BritJsli liencli. Mr. Justice Ktory was liiiiisclf a great .iudgo. So was Cliaiicellor Kent; anil some of tlie finest contributions tliat liave cvcv been made to the science of jurisprudence, or to the law of England as a science, have been iriiide by tlieso two great men from whose works I have read these passages. I ha^'e thought it not nuuseful, since I had the opportunity of doing so, of stating that this was tlie hiw ON laid down by the great authorities in America, because I think it is desir- able that they who in America formed views — I will say no more now than that — with respect to what is passing, or what is expected to pass, within the dominions of the Crown of England, should be aware of the obligations imposed on them if they have ever been lender the allegiance of the Crown of England; and how, according to the laws of England, they may he dealt with when they are found here. For these rea- s(nis we are of opinion that the objection made by the attorney-general is well founded, and that we ought not to comply with this application, and that the prisoner is not entitled to a jury de meiiktcde linguw. (G.) Memorandum on Prussian laws. [Translation.] By the terms of section 1 of the law of 3d September, 1814, (Collections of laws for the year 1814, p. 79,) every Prussian subject who has attained the age of twenty full year.s is ohliged to serve in the army. In consequence, in each y^ar all the young men of that age must present themselves at a certain time before the military commission of the circle in which they are domi- ciled, to be examined as to their fitness to render service, and designated, the case happening, to the detachment in which they are to be incorporated. This ohligation to present themselves for service is not extinguished by time. "Who- ever does not appear at the point indicated is held to serve at a more advanced age ; and, if he can be got hold of, is enrolled under the flag hefore any other. Service in the army in active employ lasts three years. (Section 6 of the law above mentioned.) During the two years following, the soldier is dismissed on leave and belongs to the reserve ; thenceforward he is not called into service until a war or an increase of the active force requires it. After the expiration of these two years, the soldier passes for seven years into the first levy of landwehr, (land-guard,) which in time of peace musters only annually for some weeks of drill. These seven years completed, the soldier hecomes a member for seven years longer of the second levy of the landwehr, which is only called out in time of war. Whoever evades the duties of the landwehr is obliged to take part therein at a later time, and his more advanced age does not exempt him from such call. Emigration is not permitted, except with express leave from the government. This permis.sion cannot he granted to males between seventeen and twenty-flve years of age, unless they produce a certiftcate from the commission for recruiting the army, testify- ing that they do not propose to expatriate themselves for the sole purpose of evading their military obligations. (Section 17 of the law of Slst December, 1842, on the mode in which the quality of subject of Prussia is acquired and lost. Bulletin of the Laws of the year 1843, p. 15, et seq.) This certificate serves also as a guide when it is required to determine if there is reason to grant to minors authority to emigrate with their parents. Soldiers belonging to the army in active service, or to the reserve, do not obtain leave to expatriate themselves until they have been dismissed. On the other hand, the service in the first or second levy of the landwehr does not prevent the person who may still be subject to such service from disengaging himself from the ties which bind him to his native land; one exception alone is made to this regulation, which is when the landwehr is called into active service. Whoever leaves Prussia without permission, and thereby evades service either in the army in active service, or the landwehr, incurs a penalty of 50 to 1,000 crowns, or in-' curs an imprisonment of one month to one year. (Section 110 of the Penal Code of April 14, 1851.) , , , . , ^ ^ . But the payment of the penalty or the infliction of the punishment of imprisonment does not dispense with the obligation to render the miUtary service. This obligation continues the rather until he who may have neglected his duty discharges it com- Proceedings are taken against such persons the moment it is perceived that they are 216 niilawfnlly !i1)sciit, and without regavrt to the as'o they may moan timo have attaiiuHl. Tho pciinisHioii to omigraite, of whii'h a formula is annexed -to tliis momoraniluiii, puts au cud to the quality of Prussian sub.ioet, (section 20 of the law of December :51, 1842,) and whoever has obtained it is no ionjf(^r under any obligation to serve in tlie army. Unless lliere be a formal exception, this permission embraces also the wife of the individual to whom it has been granted, as well as the minor children, -who are still subject to the paternal authority. Berlin, Jmutanj H, 1859. Form. [TrajQSlation. I The undersigned royal government certifies hereby, that a permit of emigration has been granted to, (name, profession, residence,) at his request, and for his emigration to with his wife, formerly Miss , and the following minor children, still being under the authority of the father : [Name .ind time of their birth. ] This permit of emigraition causes the loss of the quality of Prussian subject from the date of its delivery, only, however, for those persons expressly named therein. The day of . ROYAL PRUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, [seal.] (No. .) (H.) Report hy counsel to the Vienna embassy on Austrian laws. The qualification of an Austrian subject can be attained : 1. By way of birth. The citizenship in the Austrian States is inherent in the children of Austrian subjects from their birth. (Sec. 28 of the Austrian Civil Code.) 2. A female foreigner becomes an Austrian in marying an Austrian subject. (Decree of the Imperial Chancery, 23d February, 1833, No. 2,596.) 3. By an expressed investing a foreigner with the rights of an Austrian subject. (Sec. 30 of the Civil Code.) 4. By accepting a situation in the public service. (Sec. 29 of the Civil Code.) 5. By an uninterrupted residence of 10 years a foreigner can obtain the quality of an Austrian subject, provided that he has during this time not suffered any punishment for crime, and that his behavior was always respectable. Only on this presumption such a foreigner is to be admitted to take the oath of an Austrian subject. (Sec. 29 of the Civil Code and Aulic Decree of 1st of March, 1833.) 6. In conformity with section 21 of the Patent, 24th March, 1832, an Austrian sub- ject who has, without legal authorization, emigrated, and consequently lost his rights as an Austrian subject, can be re-established by the grace of His Imperial Majesty. The rights arising from the quality as an Austrian subject cease : 1. lu consequence of emigration, which can take place with or without the authorization of the competent authorities. (Patent, 24th March, 1832, No. 2,557.) 2. For females, on their marrying a foreigner. (Sec. 19 of the Patent, 24th March, 1832, No. 2,557.) Particular remarks. — It is nearly impossible to give a distinct and coherent summary of all the laws concerning the mode of acquiring the quality of an Austrian subject, and the mode of losing it. The first and systematic dispositions regarding this matter are contained in the Austrian civil code. They have, however, experienced in the course of time so many alterations that the code can no longer be considered as the principal scource regulating such matters. The above cited laws, copies of which accompany this note, contain most of the now existing rules. There are, besides, some which ex- ercise a certain influence on the subject, even if they have not been issued with the intention to give a new rule of attaining the quality of an Austrian subject. So, for instance, the now existing law in regard to trade does no longer maintain the distinc- tion between business requiring a regular domicile in a certain place and other under- takings. Therefore the establishing of a business requiring a regular domicile can no longer be considered as a mode of aoquixing the quality of an Austrian subject. This is the more accurate, as foreigners, according to this law, are fully entitled to carry on 217 such business in this conntry without unrtorgoiiig jiny alteration of their quality an foroiy-ners. Further, the law concerning tlie communes establishes the principle itliat tiny Austrian subject must be a, member of a conuuuuity in the country. And as no commune (gemeuule) can be compelled to receive a. new member against their will, it IS a natiu'al conseotueuce that a foreigner who is about to apply for the Austrian citizenship must secure himself the reception in some Austrian community, and that he cannot obtain the citizenship itself without having secured an eventual reception 111 such an Austrian community. o ,„.o D. J. WINIWAETEB. Vienna, Fehniary 8, 1868. [Inclofiure 1 . | Code civil, sec. 28. On acqnieit la jouissance complete des droits civils pax le droit de bourgeoisie. Lo droit de bourgeoisie dans nos ^tats h&^ditaires appartient, par droit de naissance, aux enfants de tout bourgeois autrichien. [IncloBure 2. — Translation.] Court Chwieery Decree of 23(? Felruary, 1833, to all the Chief National Authorities, inpur- suanee of tlw Imperial Resolution of 26th January, 1833. His Imperial Royal Majesty has been pleased to decide, in addition to th« methods of acquiring Austrian citizenship in the General Code of Civil Law, and in accordance with section 32 thereof, and with section 19 of the Emigration Patent of 24th March, 1832, (I. G. S., No. 2,557,) that Austrian citizenship may also be acquired by a foreign woman through her marriage with an Austrian citizen. [Incloaure 3.] Code dvil, sec. 29. Les strangers acquierent le droit de bonrgesisie autrichienne en entrant dans un service public, en entreprenant une Industrie dont I'exercice exige un domicile habituel dans le pays ; par un sdjour non interrompu de dix anndes dans nos ^tats, sous la con- dition toutefois que, dans ce laps de temps, l'<5tranger ne se sera attiriS aucune peine il raison d'un d61it. [Inclosure 4.] Code dvil, sec. 30. On peut aussi, sans I'exercice d'une Industrie ou d'un metier, et avant I'^coulemeut de dix ann(Se8, se pourvoir anprfes des autorit<5s politiques pour obtenir le droit de bourgeoisie, et celles-ci pourront I'accorder suivant V6ta,t de la fortune, la capacity iu- dustrielle, et la moraliti du demandeur. 1 [Inclosure 5. J Abstract of an ordinance by Francis I, Emperor of Austna, respecting the emigration or ex- patriation and unauthorized absence of his subjects from tkdr country, applicable to his Germxm States, to Lombardy and Venice, Dalmatia, Galada, and Lodomeria. I. Emigration or Expatriation. — Any Austrian stibjeot who leaves his own country for a foreign state without the intention of returning is to be considered as an emigrant. II. Lawful Emigration. — Those who wish to emigrate must apply to the proper authority to be released from their Austrian citizenship. They must prove that they are self-dependent, and in the free exercise of their rights ; they must state what mem- bers of their family are to emigrate with them ; prove that they have all fulfilled their military liabilities ; and show that no hinderances exist in regard to public duties. Should the application be rejected, recourse may be had to the Privy Council. 28 SD 218 III. Uuautlwj-ijued Expairiation . — Those who go to a foreign country without leave, with the expressed or apparent intention to return no more, are to he eoiisiclered as unautiiorized emigrants. Such intention is shown by the acceptance of foreign citi- zenship, or a foreign, civil, or military office without special permission, by joining a foreign religious institution or other association out of the empire, requiring personal attendance ; by staying abroad for five years without having property or business there requiring such absence, and if the family and property of the emigrant be with- drawn from the country ; by staying abroad for ten years without the previous condi- tions ; by non-obedience to a summons of recall to the Austrian states, issued by the authorities. The five and ten years' periods are not applicable to Austrian subjects residing in states with which Austria has treaties of free emigration. IV. Tlie Effects of Emigration. — Those who emigrate with permission lose their char- acter as Austrian subjects and aie treated as foreigners. Those who emigrate without permission lose their rights of citizenship, and are liable to all the legal consequences of that loss ; they lose the rank and advantages which they held in Austria, and are struck off the registers ; they can neither acquire nor transfer property where this law applies ; any previous testamentary dispositions with regard to such property become void ; their inheritances go to the next Iieir after them. Their property, is sequestered without prejudice to the claims thereon. Their children or descendants resident in the State are suitably maintained out of the sequestrated property. The net overplus goes to increase the property, the whole of which reverts to the heirs at the death of the expatriated owners. In special cases the sovereign can allow the children to enjoy the sequestrated property. V. The Children of Unauthorized Emigrants. — ^Those who are bom before sentence has been passed against the father do not lose their Austrian citizenship or their position during their minority, nor for 10 years after coming of age if the father be still living; nor for one year after his death, if within the 10 years; nor for three years after com- ing of age if the father die before they do so; and they enter upon their full rights if they return to the Austrian states within those periods. This favor is also applicable to children sent to reside abroad by an Austrian subject living himself in the country. Such children are, however, to be looked upon as foreigners if they have acquired citi- zenship abroad, or if they do not claim the reserved rights within the prescribed periods. VI. Female' Subjects married to Foreigners. — They lose the Austrian citizenship on such marriage, and if they become widows, can only regain it in the same way as any female foreigner. VII. BehaUtation. — Citizenship can only be reconferred on unauthorized emigrants by permission of the sovereign ; but those who have emigrated with permission may regain it in the manner prescribed in the General Code of Civil Law. Such regained citizenship is only available in regard to subsequently acquired rights. VIII. Unauthorised Absence. — Subjects who go out of the state without passports or permission, or who stay away longer than the time i fixed, are considered to be absent without authority; and if they cannot justify themselves they are liable for that absence alone to a penalty of from five to fifty florins, or imprisonment for from three to fourteen days, and to double the amount of fine and one or more fast-days during the imprisonments, if the absence continue for longer than three- months. IX. Proceedings against Unauthorized Emigrants. — The absentees are to be summoned to appear witMn a certain time by edicts duly promulgated in newspapers and in the neighborhoods to which they belong. If they do not appear within the appointed period proceedings are taken against them in the civil courts by order of the govern- ment, and their property is sequestrated. X. Proceedings against Unauthorized Absentees. — The absentee is first to be summoned by an edict to answer for himself within three or six months, according to the circum- stances; he may justify himself during those periods; if he does not, judgment is passed against him by the competent court. Appeals are allowed to the superior authority. XI. Provisions applicable to the proceedings in both cases. — If the absentee or emigrant be accused of any criminal act, proceedings are taken in the criminal court, and the civil proceedings are stayed meanwhile. The judgment in the criminal proceedings is sent to tbe civil court for its sentence on the absence or expatriation. The sequestra- tion is operative during the criminal proceedings. XII. Transitory provisions. — Expatriation proceedings pending at the promulgation of this ordinance are to be adjudged according to it ; but if former laws awarded a milder punishment, that only is to be inflicted. Sentences passed before the promulgation of this ordinance remain in full force. The enactments of the general civil code, as well as all military conscription and police laws applicable to absentees or emigrants retain their full force and validity ; all other laws and regulations on the subject are hereby annulled. Vienna, 2ith March, 1832, 210 [Inclosure 6. — Translation.] -■ Cottrt Chance)'y Decree of 1st March, 1833, to all the Chief Authwities of the Couiitnj. His Imperial Eoyal Majesty has been pleased to command by supreme resolution of the eighth of February 1833, that from hencefortli Austrian citizenship shall not be acquired by a foreigner through an uninterrupted residence of full 10 years in the countries for -which the general code of civil law is binding, until he shall have given the requisite proof thereof to the chief national authority of his last dwelling- place; shall have taken the citizen's oath, by order of that authority, either to itself or at the proper district court, and shall have received a certificate of his having done so, The foreigner shall not, however, be allowed to take that oath until the aforesaid chief national authority has been fully convinced that throughovit the said time, not only has he not rendered himself liable to punishment for any crime, but that his conduct has always been peaceful, obedient to the laws and ordinances of the consti- tuted authorities, and well-mannered, and that by his demeanor and the known tenor of his thoughts, he has never given any real groiind for suspicion or complaint. On the other hand, those foreigners who have, on the day of the publication of this supreme resolution, already completed the 10 years' uninterrupted abode in the said countries, are to be allowed to relinquish the Austrian citizenship thereby acquired, by giving proof that they had no intention of becoming Austrian citizens; this proof must, however, be produced absolutely at the latest within six months from the pub- lication of this supreme resolution, as after that time it will no longer be allowed. I. — Naturalization act of 1844. [Omitted: the provisions of the act of 1870 {printed ante) having been substituted for it,\ K. — British diplomatic and consular circulars. [Omitted.) L. — Extracts from Mr. Vernon Harcourt's letters. {Omitted.) M. — Eeport of the Committee on Foreign Affairs concerning the rights of American citizens in foreign states, in the House of Represent- atives, January 27, 1868. [N. B. — Reference for this report is made to the documents printed by order of Congress.] ^. — Naturalization statutes. N. B. — The act of 1870, ante, is deemed to be ample to give a knowl- edge of the present legislation of Great Britain." It has not been thought necessary to reprint this title. APPENDIX No. II. DISABILITIES OF ALIENS.— EEPOETS FROM FOEEIGN STATES. The accompanying circular was sent from the foreign office to Her Majesty's repre- . sentatives at European ooui-ts and in the United States: FOKEIGN Office, June 16, 1868. "I have to instruct you to furnish me, with as little delay as possible, with a report for the naturalization 'commission, on the disabilities, if any, to which aliens residing in are subjected by law ;" and the following dispatches were received in reply : AUSTEIA. Vienna, Juno 23, 1868. My Loed : In compliance with the instructions contained iu your lordship's dispatch of the 16th instant, I addressed a note to Baron Beust, copy of which I have the honor to inclose, requesting the information desired by Her Majesty's government as to the disabilities of aliens, at the earliest convenience of the Austrian government, but as 220 some time will probably elapse before I shall receive; ;iii oflitial reply, I instructed Monsieur Winiwarter, the legal adviser to Her Majesty's embassy, to furnish me with the Austrian law on the subject. I inclose a copy of Monsieur Winiwarter's reply. I have, &c., BLOOMriELD. The Lord Stanley, M. P., ^C, <^C., jJ-C. Vienna, June 22, 1868. M. Le Bakon : Hor Majesty's government Iteiug desirous to obtain information for the use of the naturalization commission, now sitting in London, respecting the dis- abilities, if any, to which aliens residing in Austria are subjected by Austrian law, I have the honor to request your excellency's good offices in procuring the information required as soon as it can lie conveniently furnished by the imperial government. I avail, &c., BLOOMFIELD. His Excellency the Bauon de Beust, fc, fe., 4-c. Vienna, June 22, 1868. YouK Excellency : In answer to the letter 21st instant your excellency addressed me, I have the honor of submitting to your excellency a memorandum containing the most important disabilities to which aliens residing in Austria are subject by Austrian law. I must state at the same time that no particular la'w exists by which all these disabilities could bo ascertained. There exist on the contrary many laws which prescribe that for certain professions, positions in Ufe, and occupations, the Austrian citizenship is required. From these laws, which have been issued at very different periods, I have extracted the enumera- tion of cases in which aliens do not enjoy the same rights as the Austrian subjects themselves. I might further state that my information holds only good for the so-called German provinces, that is to say, for the kingdoms and countries represented by the-Eeichsrath. With regard to Hungary I can only say that a new law regulating the position of the Hungarian citizen and of foreigners is to be discussed in the two houses, but has not yet passed. I have, &c., D. WINIWAETEE. The Lord Bloompield, #c., #c., 4-c. LEGAL advice. The rights and the legal position of aliens residing in Austria are essentially regu- lated by § 33 of the Austrian civil code, which runs as follows : " Foreigners have in general equal civil rights and obligations with the natives if the quality of a citizen is not expressly required for the enjoyment of these rights. Foreigners must also, in order to enjoy the same rights as natives, prove in cases of doubt that the state to which they belong will likewise treat the citizens of this coun- try in regard to the rights in question like its own." According to this law foreigners enjoy the same civil rights with the Austrian citi- zens, if for the enjoyment of a certain right the qualifications of an Austrian citizen are not expressly required. On the other hand they are subject to the same obligations as the Austrians. There is a fundamental exception from this general rule respecting the citizens of states which do not confer on Austrians the same rights which their own subjects legally enjoy. A total enumeration of cases in which the Austrian citizenship is expressly required is hardly possible, and therefore I cannot guarantee that the following list of cases in which foreigners are not in possession of the same rights as Austrian subjects will be complete. I can only say that no case of any importance has been overlooked. For- eigners cannot — 1. Eeceive the appointment of public functionaries, (official.) 2. Nor those of advocates, notaries, or pviblic agents. 3. Foreigners cannot be superiors of religious orders. 4. If a foreigner wishes to commence a public trade or business, it is not sufficient to give notice to the board of trade of his intended project, but a special concession of the home department is besides required. 5. Foreigners cannot be admitted to the military service. 6. They cannot be appointed guardians or committees for Austrian minors or Aus- trian subjects under committee. 221 7. They have not the right of constituency for the diets and the Eeichsrath. 8. Nor have they the right of being elected as such deputies. 9. They cannot be admitted to the membership of political associations. 10. They are not authorized to act as undertakers, directors, or managers of public meetings, the object of which is the discussion of political affairs. 11. They have not the right of election for the common council and cannot be elected as such members. 12. They cannot obtain the position of a sworn broker, (agent of exchange.) 13. They cannot exercise the profession of hawker. 14. Physicians, surgeons, and midwives, as well as apothecaries, if foreigners, are not admitted to the practice of their respective professioUs till they have passed the legal examinations of the country. , 15. Foreigners cannot be directors of public schools or educational establishments ; as little can they become professors of a university or of any public institute. 16. The personal capacity of foreigners is in regard of their transactions to be judged of according to the laws of their own country, via : Although an Austrian has become of age by completion of his 24th year, a foreigner, however, of 24 years cannot be re- garded as of age if the laws of his country requires a greater number of years. In this regard the foreigners may not be able to enjoy the same rights as the Austrians. Vienna, 22d June, 1868. D. WINIWARTEE. BADEN. Stuttgart, July 14, 1868. My Lokd : In conformity with your lordship's instructions of the 12th June, I have the honor to inclose herewith translation of a note addressed by Baron Freydorf to Mr. BaiUie, containing information with respect to the position of aliens in the Grand Duchy of Baden, from which it will be perceived that aliens are practically subject tihere to no disabilities whatever, except exclusion from political and municipal rights. I have, &c., G. J. E. GOEDON. Lord Stanley, M. P., [Translation.] Within the whole compass of private rights, especially in respect to the right of acquiring and possessing property of every kind, landed property included, aliens stand according to Baden law upon a footing of complete equality with native subjects. As regards the right of settlement and of engaging in trade or industry, the Baden government are entitled, if they please, to demand reciprocity as the condition of ad- mission to such rights. They have, however, never as yet taken any advantage of their authority in this respect, so that in point of fact aliens residing in Baden are sub- ject to no disabilities in regard to the right of settlement, or of engaging in trade or industry. . , , j. «. ■ On the other hand, aliens are of course excluded from political rights, from oftices m church and state, and from such rights as appertain to persons as members of a cor- porate community. ^^^^"''^''- FEEYDOEF, E. M. Baillib, Esq., #«•> #«• fo., fO; fc. BAVAEIA. Munich, July 10, 1868. My Lord : Mr. Fenton having, on the receipt of your lordship's circular dispatch, of the 16th ultimo, applied to the Bavarian government for the information desired by your lordship for the use of the Naturalization Commission, on the disabilities to which aliens residing in Bavaria might be subjected, I yesterday evening received in reply from Prince Hohenlohe the note of the 5th instant and the memorandum of which 1 have the honor to inclose herewith copies and translations. 222 This memorandum contains Buch full particulars on the legal position of foreigners in Bavaria that I have no occasion to add any further explanations on the suhject. Your lordship will perceive that Prince Hohenlohe remarks in his note that as the priuciiiles of the Bavarian poor-law and communal legislation are at present under- going a legislative revision, it had been necessary to omit treating, in the memorandum, of the position of foreigners with respect to these two institutions. I have, &c., HENRY F. HOWAED. The Lord Stanley, M. P., cf-c, #c., 4-0. [Translation.] Munich, July 5, 1868. The undersigned has had the honor to receive the note of the 22d ultimo, by which the royal British charg^ d'affaires ad interim, Mr. H. P. Fonton, requested communica- tion of the regulations in force in the kingdom relative to the djsabUities to which for- eigners are liable in this kingdom. The inclosure contains a review of the legal pro- visions which are in force in this respect, and the only remark to be made is, that the principles of the poor-law and of the communal legislation are at present undergoing a legislative transformation, on which account a discussion of the position of foreign- ers with regard to these two institutions has had to be omitted. I have, &c., PEINCE HOHENLOHE. Sir Henry F. Howard, K. C. B., ^c, ^c, ^c. THE LEGAL POSITION OF FOREIGNERS IN BAVARIA. Tlie general principle rules that a foreigner enjoys equal rights with a native of the country, to which the only exception made is where such exception is legally enacted, or when a royal ordinance applies the principle of retaliation on account of disadvan- tages to which Bavarian subjects are liable abroad, as compared to persons belonging to the country which imposes the disadvantages. The legal disabilities relate to : I. — The domain of civil law and civil proceedings. While a preference to native creditors or debtors is excluded by § 34 of the code of priority of the Ist of June, 1823, in cases of bankruptcy, paragraph 8 I of the code of procedure of the 22d of July, 1819, leaves it optional to the defendant, being a native of the country, to require of the foreign plaintiff, when he does not possess any estate situated in Bavaria, the deposit of a security for the future payment of the costs of the lawsuit. With regard to foreigners, and as is the case generally when there is the danger of loss, the judicial code affords the security of arrest, which likewise then determines the forum arresti. In this respect, likewise, international treaties, as, for example, with Wiirtemberg, have introduced milder enactments in favor of the subjects of the respective states. Moreover, article 76 of the introductory law to the German commercial code places the citizens of the states of the former German Con- federation on an equality with natives of the cotintry. Foreigners are likewise capable of acquiring real property on the condition of reciprocity. II. — Penal law and penal procedure. Foreigners are subject to the Bavarian penal jurisdiction when they have either committed a penal act in the country or when they shall have been guilty beyond the Bavarian frontiers of such an act against the king, the Bavarian state, or a person be- longing to it. — ^A, 12, penal code. If a foreigner has been condemned in Bavaria on account of a crime, he will be expelled from the country after having undergone his punishment ; the same takes place with regard to convictions on account of offenses or contraventions in the cases determined by law. — Art. 43, loc. dt. In actions for libel the demand of a security for the costs from a foreign pL.intiff is optional, according to article 61, 'section 3, of the introductory law to the penal code. In respect to foreigners, concerning whom well-founded doubts may be entertained of their appearing before the court if summoned to do so, preliniinaiy arrest is more- over admissible, according to article 41, section 3, loc cil., on account of any penal act. 223 III. — III the domain oftlw coimtitiitional and admhiistmlire law tlie foreigner is excluded. 1. As not being in possession of tlip Bavarian naiiiralizaiiori, {inOujeiiat,) from all civil rifihts: — § 9 of the iirst edict of tlie constitution. If he a.eqnire.s tlie naturalization, it is only after the expiration of six years that he enters into the enjoyment of the ahove-mentioned rights. T]i(! foreigner, as such, is therefore exclndecl from tlie active and passive electoral francliise for comumnal, dis- trict, provincial, and parliamentary elections, from admission into state offices anil the possession of heneiices ; ho cannot be elected as a juryman, nor as a member of a com- mittee of taxation. Crown and superior court offices, superior military posts, are closed to the foreigner, although it is not the possession of the fullest rights of citizen- ship, but merely that of naturalization, which gives a claim to many of the above- named rights. 2. Tlie trade law of the 18th of January, 1868, only reserves in article 2 the sanction of the state for foreign joint-stock companies, branch establishments, and other com- panies established for trading purposes, inasmuch as the provisions of state treaties do not determine otherwise. Even § 21 of the ordinance relative to the hawking trade, of the 28th of April of last year, places foreigners on a complete equality with the natives of the country, excepting in oases of retaliation. Foreign medical men receive from the provincial governments or fi'om the ministry of state for the interior the permis- sion temporarily to practice in the country. Medical men who only sojourn tempo- rarily in Bavaria, and who are entitled to practice in their own country only, have the right of giving consultations, not however that of ordinary practice. — 5 15, ordinance of the 29th of January, 1865, concerning the medical art. 3. Ar"ticle 10, section 2, of the military law of the 30th of January of this year, pro- hibits the permanent residence in the kingdom, as foreigners, of those emigrants who have not yet attained their 32d year. 4. Foreigners are permitted to reside in any commune of the kingdom when they can bring suflScient proof of their nationality and place of legal settlement, and when there is no legal impediment to their residence. The expulsion of a foreigner from a com- mune is only admissible on the same legal grounds (article 45 of the law of settlement of the 16th of April of this year) in virtue of which the expulsion of a Bavarian subject not having a right of settlement in the locality could likewise take place. It is only the ministry of the interior which, except in the aforesaid cases, is entitled to expel a foreigner from the country on grounds connected with the internal or external security of the state. 5. Only the person who possesses the Bavarian naturalization can acquire a right of settlement in a commune of the kingdom ; foreigners are consequently excluded from it. — Article 1-10, loc. cit. A foreign woman, however, who marries a Bavarian acquires thereby the natirraliza- tion (indigenat) and the settlement of the husband. — § 3 of annex 1 to the constitution and article 3 of the law of settlement. 6. Foreigners can likewise marry in Bavaria when they can prove to the respective district police authorities that, according to the laws in force in the country of the hus- band, the contracting of this marriage is admissible, and has the same effects as if it had taken place in that country. If the future wife is a foreigner she has to produce a permission of emigration, if such a permission is necessary according to the laws of her own country for emigration. —Article 34, &c., and ai-tiole 39 of the law of settlement. 7. Foreigners, independently of cases of retaliation, and with the sole exception of those who carry on a wandering trade, or who belong to the class of journeymen, ser- vants, and trade assistants, require no^erjiM* /or traveling. — J 2 of the royal ordinance of the 9th of December, 1865, respecting passports. BELGIUM. No. 96.] Brussels, July 4, 1868. My Loed : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship's dispatch circular of the 16th instant, instructing me to furnish you with a report on the disabil- ities, if any, to which aliens residing in Belgium are subjected by Belgian law. The disabilities under which aliens labor m this country are so various that I found it necessary to apply to the government for more details than I felt myself competent to afford, but as your lordship desires that information on the subject should be supplied with as little delay as possible I herewith transmit copies of two laws which bear di- rectly upon the residence of foreigners in Belgium, and which may be considered as embodying the material features of Belgian practice toward aliens. The first is a law which is renewed fi'om time to time, the last renewal being on the 224 7th of July, 1865, for a period of tliioe years, investing the govermuent with tlie control ()\'er tUf i-csidence of foreigners. The government exercises the power of sending alicuN ont of the country in cases, 1st, of vagrancy, or when the resources for subsistence are not ]iroved when required to he declared. 2d. 01' .scandalous, immoral, or turhuleut conduct offensive to the public. ^d. Of political proceedings T>y agitation, writing, or conspii'acy against the tran- quility of a friendly state in abuse of the hospitality here afforded them. The second' law in question passed this year extends the power hitherto in force for the extradition of foreigners accused or guilty of criines committed in their own coun- tries, and constitutes the basis of the extradition treaties of which copies were forwarded in my dispatch of January 20. Until April, 1865, British subjects were not entitled to hold or inherit freehold prop- erty situate in Belgium. At present all foreigners in that respect are placed upon the same footing as Belgians. Further, distinctions between foreigners and natives are made in regard to judicial processes; for instance, in civil actions, a foreigner cannot obtain an order of provisional arrest either against a Belgian or another foreigner ; in commercial actions he is under the same disability. But the Belgian can obtain an order of provisional arrest against a foreigner upon a simple petition through his " avou6 " to the President of the Tribunal of Premifere Instance. In all tribunals ex- cept the Tribunal of Commerce he can be called upon at a stage of proceedings to give security for costs, unless he' has letters of domicile from the King. For a foreigner to acquire the same civil position as a Belgian he requires a letter of domicile from the King. To acquire a i)osition political as well as civil he requires an act of legislature. The letter of domicile confers on the foreigner the right of provisional arrest in all eases where a Belgian would have such rights. He cannot be called upon as plaintijf in any action to give security for costs ; he is also exempt from provisional arrest ex- cept iu such cases where a Belgian would not be exempt, for instance, in criminal or correctional proceedings. The foreigner is not liable to the conscription for the army, nor is active service re- quired of him iu the Civic Guard, though, for the latter, he is called upon to contribute a pecuniary amount. I have, &o., HOWARD DE WALDEN. The Lord Stanley, M. P., ^e., fc, ^c. MmiSTEEE DE LA JUSTICE. Loi relative aux itrangersJ^ L^JoPOLD, roi des Beiges, k tons presents et Jl veutr, salut : Les chambres ont adopt(5 et nous sanctionnons ce qui suit : Art. I. L'^trauger r^sidant en Belgique, qui, par sa conduite, oompromet la tranquil - litiS publique, ou qui a 4>t6 poursuivi ou eondamn^ £1 1'^tranger pour lea crimes on diSlits qui donnent lieu k I'extradition, conform^ment h la loi dii 1 octobre 1833, pent 6tre contraint par le gouvernement de s'floigner d'uu certain lieu, d'habiter dans un lieu d^termin^, ou mSme de sortir dn royaume. L'arret^ royal enjoignant h un stranger de sortir dn royaume par ee qu'il compromet la tranquiUitiS publique sera dflib^r^ en conseil des miuistres. Art. II. Les dispositions de I'article pr^c^dent ne ponrront &tre appliqu^es aux strangers qui se trouvent dans un des cas suivants, pourvu que la nation d> laqueUe ils appartiennent soit en paix avec la Belgique : 1°. A I'^tranger autoris6 d, €tablir son domicile dans le royaume. 2°. A I'^tranger mari^ avec une femme beige, dont il a des enfants n^s en Belgique pendant sa r&idence dans le pays. 3°. A I'^tranger d^corij de la croix de fer. Art. III. L'arret6 royal portion vertude I'art. 1^' sera signifi^ par hrdssier h, I'^tran- ger qn'il conceme. II sera accord^ k l'6tranger un d^lai qui devra etre d'uu jour franet au moins. Art. IV. L'^tranger qui aura repu I'injonetion de sortir dii royaume sera tenu de d€- ' !N"ot printed for the Commission. 2 Cliamber des representants, session de 1864-1865 : Docunieats parlementaires. Expose des motifs et texto dn projet de loi. Stance dn 17 novemtoe 1864, pp. 108. Eapport. Stance dn 7 jnin 1865, pp. 833-836. Annales parlementaires. Discnssion gtofirale. Stances des 32 jnin 1865, pp. 1235-1246 ; 23 jnin, Pip. 1247-1257 ; 24 jnin, pp. 1259-1270 : 27 jnin, pp. 1271-1283 ; et2e jnin, pp. 1285-1296. Discnssion des articles et adoption. Stance dn 29 jnin, pp. 1297-1311. Senat :—Docnments parlementaires. Eapport. Stance dn 30 jnin 1805, p. Ixxii. Annales parlemen- taires. Discnssion gtotoale. Stance dn 4 jnillet 1865, pp, 526-527. Discussion des articles et adoption. , Stance dn 5 julUet pp. 529-530. " 225 sif^iior 111 froutifei-e pnr liniui^llo il sortirii ; il rooevra uiio. fenillc dc route. I'l^ylniit I'it- ii6raire de sou voyage et la dnv6e de sou s^jourdaiis cluKiue lieu ou il doit passer. En (IIS de eontraveutiou il I'ime ou I'autrc de ees dispositions, il sera coudnit liors du royanuie par la force pnblique. Art. V. Le f;'ouveruem<'nt pourra onjoindro de sortir dn royaume a I'^tranger (pii quittera la resilience qui lui aura etc ddsigufi. Akt. VI. Si I'dtranger auquel il aura et6 eujoint de sortir du royaume rentre sur le territoire, 11 pourra 6tro pouisuivi et 11 sera condannuS, pour ee fait, a uu emprisouue- ment de quinze jours h six mois ; et a rexpiration de sa peine, il sera conduit il la frou- tifere. , Akt. VII. La prfeente loi ne sera obligatoirc que pendant trois ans, k moins qu'elle ne soit renouvel6e. Promulguons la pr&ente loi, ordounons qu'elle soit revalue du sceau de l'€tat, et publi^e par la vole du Moniteur. Donn€ il Laeken, le 7 juillet 1865. LEOPOLD. Par le roi : Le ministre de la justice, Victor Tesch. Scell(S du sceaii de l'<5tat : Le ministre del a justice, Victor Tesch. Brussels, July 16, 1868. My Lord : With reference to my dispatch of the 4th instant, I have the honor here- with to inclose a copy of a note which I have received from the minister of foreign affairs, affording the information regarding the disabilities which affect aliens in this country, which was desired for the use of the naturalization commission in your lord- ship's dispatch of the 16th ultimo. I have, &c., HOWARD DE WALDEN and SEAFOED. The Lord Stanley, M. P., ^c, ^c, ^c. Becxelles, 13 juillet 1868. jjIy Lord : Sous la date du 20 juin dernier votre excellence m'a exprim6 le d^sir de recevoir des rensignements sur les incapacity l^gales auxquelles sont soumis, en Bel- gique les strangers qui y r&ideut. En ce qui concerne les droits politique, my lord, les strangers en sont exclus. lis ne sont ni ^lecteurs ni 61igibles pour la formation des corps politiques. lis ne peuvent 6tre nommfe k des fonctions publlques ni etre temoin dans un acte notari6. (Art. 9, loi 25 ventose an XI.) L'^tranger naturalist est assimil^ au Beige. Toutefois la loi exige la grande naturali- sation pour 6tre 61ecteur ou iSligible pour la formation des chambres legislatives. (Ai-t. 1 et 41 de la loi du 3 mars 1831.) Quant aux droits civils, I'dtranger jouit on Belgique des mSmes droits que ceux qui sont accordes aux Beiges par les trait^s de la nation k laquelle I'^tranger appartient. (Article 11 du code civil.) L'6tranger qui a 6t6 admis par autorisation royale k ^tablir son domicile en Belgique y jouit de tous les droits civils taut qu'il continue d'y r^sider. (Article 10 du memo code.) En dehors et abstraction faite des cas pr^vus par ces deux dispositions la condition des strangers n'est d^termin^e par aucune rfegle bien certaine, et est diversement ap- pr^ci^e dans la doctrine et la jurisprudence. Pour ce qui est des incapacit^s auxquelles ils peuvent fetre soumis la loi n'a express€- ment determin^e que la suivante : L'^tranger demandeur dans un procfes en matifere civile est tenu de donner caution pour le paiement des frais et dommages-int&6ts resultant du procfes, k moins qu'il ne possfede en Belgique des immeubles d'une valeur sufSsante pour assurer ce paiement. (Article 16 du code civil.) L'^tranger est passible de la contrainte par corps pour I'ex^cution de tout jugement de condamnation, conf orm6ment il I'article 10 du 21 mars 1859. Aux termes de I'article 11 de cette loi, il peut meme fitre arrdtiS provisoii'ement avant le jugement de condamnation, en vertu d'une ordonnance du prc^sident du tribunal de Ire instance ; mala la legislature se trouve aotuellement saisie d'un projet de loi portant I'aboUtion de la contrainte par corps mgme k l'6gard des strangers. L'^tranger d^biteur n'est pas admis au b^n^fice de la cession de biens, (article 905, c. proc. civile.) Les <5trangers out le droit de swcc^cler, de disposer, et de recevoir de la mfime manifere 39 s p 226 que les Beiges dans toute l'(5t('nflno (In royaume. Dans le cas de partago d'une mfime su(;<'i\s dont ils seraient cxclus h qnelque titre (pie ce soit en vertu des lois ct coutumes h'^gales. (Loi dn 27 avril 1867.) L'(5trangci' peiit 6tre expulsddu royaume dans les cas i)i'<5vus par la loi du 7 juillet 1867, prorogue r^cemment. Ennn I'^trauger peut Stre extiad^t dans les cas prdvus par la loi d'oxtradition. Veuillez agr^er, &e., (Sigu6 pour le ministre absent) le SeoriStaire 6<5n6ral, * BARON LAMBEMONT. Lord Howard de Walden et Seaford, G. C. B. DENMARK. Copenhagen, June 27, 1868. My Lord : With reference to your lordsMp's dispatch of the 16th instant, I have the honor to inclose a copy of a note which I have received from Count Frijs, in reply to my inquiries on the position of aliens in Denmark. It appears from the statements of his excellency that foreigners resident in this coun- try enjoy the same private rights as natives. They are, however, entirely excluded from all political rights whatever, and are debarred from all employments, civil or military, under the Crown. His excellency's note passes in review these disabilities, and seems to contain all the information which I was ordered by your lordship to procure. I have, &c., CHARLES LENNOX WYKE. The Rt. Hon. Lord Stanley, M. P. Copbnhagub, le 25jum 1868. Monsieur le Chevalier : En vous remettant sous ce pli la circulaire dans laquelle Stanley vous demande des renseignements sur la position des strangers ^tabUs en Dane- mark, j'ai I'honneur de voiis informer que pour ce qui regarde les droits particuliers et privfe il n'existe aucune diilKrenoe entre la condition des (Strangers domioili^s dans le pays et celle des nationaux. Par centre, les droits politiqnes sont r6serv& aux senls nationaux. Pour entrer an service de I'^tat comme employ^, pour prendre part aux Elections des membres de la reprfeentation nationals ou des oouseils municipaux, enflu, pour si&er dans ces assemblies la quality de national est indispensable. Cette quality revient de droit ^ tout individu n6 dans le pays, quelle que soit la nationality des pa- rents, sauf les cas oti le s^jour des parents n'est que temporaire; autrement il f aut qu'une loi sp6ciale et nominative accorde la naturalisation h celui qui vent I'obtenir. Je crois devoir encore ajouter, pour completer les informations dout il s'agit, que d'aprfes les riSglements des ohapitres de chanoinesses fond^s en Danemark la nationalit(5 danoise est de meme requise chez les personnes qui d^sifent Stre admises dans ces 6tab- lissements. Veuillez agrfer, &c., ^ (Signed) FRIJS. A Sir Charles Wykb, (fc, ^c, ^c. British Legation, Copenhagen, July 30, 1868. My Lord : As a supplement to my dispatch of the 27th ultimo, on the position of aliens in Denmark, I have the honor to inclose herewith, at the request of the natural- ization commission, the written opinion of Mr. Brock, a distinguished Danish lawyer, with reference : Ist. To the oath required of aliens entering on certain professions. 2dly. Whether the birth in Denmark of a son of an alien cbnstitutes a Danish sub- ject ? Your lordship will see by the inclosed document that — 1st. The " Borgherskab " or Burgherbur oath was abrogated in 1859. The oath now taken by brokers, translators, &c., is non-political, and limited to the faithful perform- ance of their ofiSce. 2d. The son of an alien born in Denmark is considered a Dane to all intents and purposes so long as he remains in Denmark/ I have, &c., CHARLES LENNOX WYKE. The Lord Stanley, M. P., 227 C'oPENHACiEX, July 26, 1868. Sir : Your oxceUeiicy has ii.skcd my opinion on the following questions : 1st. Is the " Borgerbur " onth stOl required for entering on certain professions, and, if so, what professions : 2A. Does the fact of birth in Denmark constitute a son of an alien a Danish subject ? Answer. 1st. The " Borgerbiu- " oath required by the Danish law for entering on pro- fessions of different kinds has been abolished by the law of December 29, 1857. The oath still taken by brokers, translators, and such persons of public trust, that they will faithfully perform the duties imposing on their office, has no influence uj)on their situation as subjects of the Danish Crown, and is no oath of allegiance. 2d. The son of an alien, born in Denmark, is regarded a Dane, if he remains here. I have, &c., GUSTAV BROCK, Advocate of the Supreme Court. Sir Charles L. Wyke, K. C. B., #c., cfc, 4-c. FRANCE. Paris, .7«i»' 29, 1868. My Lord: I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a report by Mr. Treitt, legal adviser of this embassy, upon the disabilities to which aliens residing in France are subjected by law, which I requested that gentleman to draw up upon receiving your lordship's dispatch of the ICtli instant. I have, &c., LYONS. The Right Hon. Lord Staxley, ))ri(St(S indu.stricUe, artistiquc, et litt^raire a 6t6 objet de trait^s internationaux. Dans les communes oJi les strangers rcSsident, ils participent 5. certaines jouissances communales, telles que la vaine pAture, la distribution du bois des forSts appartenant aux communes, &c. 228 En uu mot, on pent dire que, eu ce qui conceine lu stiitut rdel et le droit de pi-oxmM, lea (Strangers sont dans une condition identique a cello des Fraiifais. Quant au utatut prmonnel, ils jouissent de tous les droits de famille comme pfere, tils, et ^poux. lis ont le droit de chasse et de peche et de jiort d'armes. lis ont la liberty dn culte et la liberty individnelle et impriment leiu's opinions conime les Franfiiis enx-mfimes. Des auteurs accredit^s sontiennent qn'ils peuveut se crder une famille legale par I'adoption d'enfants selon les lois de France, qu'ils peuvciit 6tre tntcurs et jouir de tous le droits dout la loi a entour^ la protection de la famille. Leurs incapacity. — Mais les strangers sont exclus de toutes les fonctions politiques gouvernementales. lis ne penvent 6tre temoins dans certains actes authentiques puis- que la loi a dit : Les temoins seront majeurs frangais, du sexe masciiliii, &c. lis ue peuvent §tre nrbitres dans les litigea parceque I'avbitrage en fait des juges temporaires. II faut aux strangers une autorisation spiSciale pour exercer la pharmacie, la chirurgie, ou la m6decine. Les emplois publics, comme prfitres dans les divers cultes, comme directeurs do postes et d'autre positions, qxii exigent un serment au chef de I'^tat, sont interdits aux Strangers ; c'est ponrquoi ils ne peuvent 6tre ni avocats, ni notaires, ni avouds, &c., &c. lis ne font point partie de la garde nationale, ni de I'arm^e, ni d'aucun jury. >Si les 6trangers sont demandeurs en justice, le d^fendeur pent leur demauder la caution jiidicatiimsolvi, il moins qu'il ne s'agisse de matiferes commerciales, oti cette caution n'existe pas. Avant la r^cento abolition de la contrainte par corps, les (Strangers pou- vaient 6tre arretfe prSventivement. En cas de faillite, les strangers jouissent des mfemee droits que les Franfais, seulement ils ne sont i)a8 admis k la cession de leurs Mens il lenrs cr^anciers pour se lib^rer ainsl do toutes leiu's dettes. D'6miuents juristes pensent que m6me l'(5tat de guerre ne suspend ■ point centre I'etranger son droit d'actionner le Fran^ais devant les tribunaux de France pour des obligations, mSnie contraetdes a V^trangen-. En matifere civile, le tribunal fran^ais peut reftiser sa juridiction il deux strangers, mais en matifere commerciale, deux strangers ont droit k la justice fraufaise dans tous les cas. Enfin la loi du 3 d^cembre 1849 (article 7) aiitorise le gouvernement k expulser du territoire de I'empire les (Strangers qui y voyagent ou y resident. Ce droit du gouvernement est arbitraire et absolu. § II. Des strangers domicili^s ou admis S. I'exercice des droits civils par autorisation gouvernementale. L'^tranger, h, moins d'obtenir des lettres de grande naturalisation accord^es seule- ment £l de grands services exceptionnels, ne peut 6tre naturalist en France qu'aprfes un stage de dix' ann^es qui conrent dn jour ou le gouvernement lui a accord^ le domicile. L'admission au domicile fait cesser en favour de I'etranger qui I'a obtenue certaines incapacity qui frappent I'etranger simplement rfeidant. L'admission au domicile n'enlfeve pas la quality d'^tranger, mais il donne aux enfants nfe en France de parents strangers, le droit de r^clamer h leur majority la quality de Frangais, sans autre for- malitl quo de se soumettre aux charges des lois frangaises, tels que le recrntement, &c. (Article 9 du code NapoMon.) Los strangers admis au domicile jouissent de tous les droits civils ; ce sont les termes formels de I'article 13 du code Napol(Son ; il en r^sulte que mSme, avant la loi du 14 juillet 1819 ci-dessus rapport^e, I'etranger domicilii iStait capable de recevoir, de dis- poser, &c., comme le Franjais lui-m§me ; il peut proceder en justice sans 6tre soumis ^ la caution judicatum solvi. II est admis au ben6iic6 de la cession de ses Mens ^ ses creanoiers pour se lib^rer de toutes ses dettes. Avant I'abolition de la contrainte par corps, I'etranger domicilie n'y etait sujet que dans les mSmes cas que le Frangais ; et il pouvait lui-meme exercer la contrainte par corps centre les etraugers. Bref , sauf les droits politi(}ues, I'etranger domicilie jouit des droits civils comme le regnicole ; cepeudant conime il est toujours etranger, il ne peut etre t6moin dans cei-tains acte authentiques ni 6tre arbitre pusque I'arbitrage est une j uridiction. Le domicile acquis en France ne deiie pas I'etranger des obligations que le statut personnel de son pays lui impose ni de ses devoirs envers sa mfere patrie. Le droit de domicile peut 6tre retire k une etranger par le gouvernement sur un avis due conseil d'etat. Mais malgre l'admission au domicile le droit d'expulsion ecrit dans la loi du 3 de- cembre 1849 reste tout entier aux mains du gouvernement. ' Eeduced to three years tj- the law of the 29th of Jane, 1867, (Meiuorajidum,) C. S. A. A. 229 Certains pcays ont fait avec la France des traitfe particuliers pour la jouissance des droits civils. Ainsi un traitd avec la Sardaigne du 24 mars 1760 dispense les suiets Sardes de la caution judieatiim solvi. 11 y a d'autres traitfe qui r^servent £l des pays strangers le traitement de la nation la plus favoris^e.' Mais de pareils traitiSs sont presque superflus, en presence du petit nombre d'inca- pacitfe qui frappent les strangers en France et qui apartiennent presque toutes k I'ordre politique on aux fonctions qui entrainent la prestation d'un serment au souverain, car de tout ce qui vient d'etre dit on pent conclure que par suite des progrfes de la legisla- tion et do la jurisprudence il n'y a plus gufere de difference entre r6tranger rSsidant domicilie, si ce n'est que ce dernier n'est plus soumis jl la caution jmlicatum solvi, et que ses enfants n& en France ont une plus grande facility pour acqu&-ir la quality de Franpais. En resume, I'^tat et la capacity de I'^tranger sont r^glfe par les lois de son pays ; son statut personnel I'accoinpagne partout ; mais en France oet (Stranger est capable, comme le regnicole, de tout les contrats r6els ou personnels reconnus par la loi f rangaise ; au point de vue du droit priv^ la condition de I'^tranger soit risidant soit domicilii, et la condition du Frangais ne different pas beaucoup aujourd'liui. La jurisprudence tend inoessaminent b, am^liorer encore la condition des strangers ; on ne leur refuse plus que les droits qui leur sont expressemcnt denies par des lois non encore modiflees ; et ils jouissent d'une mani&re absolute de tons les droits que derivent du droit des gens. Fait k Paris le 28 juin 1868. . * (Signe) _ W. TEEITT, Avocat a la Cour Imp&iale, Legal Adviser to the British Embassy. GREECE. Athens, July 16, 1868. My Lord : In compliance witli the instructions contained in your lordship's dis- patch of the 16th ultimo, I have the honor to transmit herewith to your lordship a copy of a report drawn up by the lawyer employed by this legatioii, on the subject of the disabilities to which aliens residing in Greece are subjected by Greek law. I have, &o., E. M. EESKINE. The Et. Hon. Lord Stanley, M. P., &c. Notice sur les incapacit^s Mgales des Strangers en Grice. 1°. En droit public : Aux tennes de Part. 3 du code civil grec, les lois d'ordre public (de police et de sflrete) obligent tons ceux qui se trouvent en Grfece, par suite, les Grecs aussi bien que les strangers. L'hospitalite, que I'^tranger regoit en entrant dans le pays, I'oblige h respecter les lois et les arrfet^s de j)olice. Comme consequence de ce principe I'art. 37 du code penal dispose que, dans tous les cas oh les tribunaux de repression soumettait les Grecs h la surveillance de la police, les etraugers sont expulses du territoire par I'autorite administrative. Bien qn'en principe general le droit de repression ne puisse s'exercor qu'a raison d'actes commis sur le' territoire helienique, I'art. 2 du code d'instruction crimiuclle oonsacre uno extension h, cette rfegle k regard des etrangers qui peuveut &tre poursuivis, jnges et punis en Gr&ce : 1° pour crimes et deiits commis a I'etranger coiitre un Grec, 2° pour crimes de haute trahison centre I'etat, pour fabrication de fausse monnaie natio- nale, ayant cours en Gr&ce, pour contref ag on de sceau de I'etat, ou complicite tl ces actes. Mais leur punition presuppose leur extradition ou leur arrestation dan^ le pays. Les etrangers ne sont livres h un gonvernement etranger pour crimes et deiits commis h, i'etranger, que s'il y'a une loi speciale ou un traite tl cet egard. 2°. Quant aux droits politiques : Comme on ne saurait avoir deux patries, on ne pent fitre citoyen de deux etats ; par consequent I'etranger ne i)eut exeroer en Grece les droits qui presupposent la qualite de citoyen. II ne pent done ,§tre membre de la chambre des deputes (art. 70 de la con- stitution), des conseils provincianx (art. 5 de la loi du ^-g- decembre 1836 sur les conseils provincianx), ou municipaux (art. 13 de la loi du 27 decembre 1833 des com- munes), ni se presenter aux assembiees eieotorales en qualite d'eiecteur. (art. 4 de la loi du 19 novembre 1864 sur I'eiection des deputes), ni d'eiigible (art. 7 do la constitu- tion et mfeme art. 4 de la loi ci-dessus). ' Suisse, 12 juillet 1828 ; Bolivie, 9 decembre 1834 ; Porte, 25 mars 1838 ; Mexicjue, 9 mars 1839 ; Vene- zuela, 25 mars 18'13 ; Kouvelle Grenade, 28 octobre 1844. 230 lis lie peuvent 6tre nommds aux foiictioiia pnbli(nics (art. 3 de la coiistitution) iii exeicfi- la profession d'avocat que la loi helldiiique y assimile (art. 142 de la loi Bur I'organisatioii des tribunaiix et du notiiriat), ni celle de juriS. Aux termes de I'art. 112 du code de procedure civile, I'dtranger ne pent 6tre nominfi arliitre. Quaiid il s'agit de constater un fait on ne saurait clioisir see tdmoins ; lis sont domife par les circonstances de temps et de lieu, et tout t^moin present est ndcessaire et capa- ble, a moins qu'il ne soit sujet k quelque incapacity naturelle. Les strangers sont done admis b. ddposer comme tdnioins devant la justice. II en est de mSme des tdmoins des actes de I'dtat civil. Ici anssi il s'agit de constater un fait : la iiai.ssance, le mariage ou le ddcfes d'lm individu. Toute personne qui a assists k ces faits est admise k les constater. Mais l'(5tranger ne saurait servir de t6moin instrumentaire dans un acte authentique, contrat ou testament public. Ici, en effet, il s'agit moins de recheroher des preuves que d'en cr€er (art. 179 de la loi sur I'organisation des tribunaux et du notariat). Les diSmoins participent ici a la confiance de I'acte, et cette. participation est un motif d'exclusion centre Vdtranger qui ne pent remplir de fonctions publiques. 3°. En droit priviS : Nous consid^rerons l'(5tranger dans cette partie de notre travail sur deux points de vue : 1°, sous celui de statiit personnel ; 2°, sous celui de statut rfel. § 1°. Statut' 2iersonnel. La loi personnelle s'empare de I'liomme k sa naissance pour ne I'abandonner qu'^ sa mort. Elle lui donne un dtat, qui le suit en quelque lieu qu'il se trouve. Ce priricipe est expressdment consaor(S par I'art. 4 du code civil de la Grece, aux termes duquel le mariage, les rapports entre ascendants et dfecendants, la tutelle et la curatelle sont rdglfe quant aux Hellfenes, mfime rdsidant k l'<5tranger, par les lois hell6niques, et quaint a I'dtranger, par les lois de son pays. D'aprfes la premifere partie de cet article la capacity de I'dtranger pour I'acquisition de droits ou pour I'exercice d'actes Mgaux en g^ndral, est jugde conformiSment h la loi de sou pays, et en cela la loi hell<5nique a confirm^ le priucipe gdn6ralement admis par les legislations des autres dtats de I'Euiope, que I'dtat et la capacity des personnes sont rdgis par les lois de leur patrie. Mais le dernier § du 2me al. du m6me article consacre une exception au principe admis en faveur des strangers. Dans I'int&St des citoyens Hellfenes, les strangers qui, d'aprfes les lois belldniques auraient la capacity ndcessaire pour contracter une obligation, sont reconnus avoir la capaoit<5 ndcessaire k la validity des contrats passes entre eux et les Hellfenes en Grfece, bien que la loi de leur pays leur refuse cette capacity. J 2". Statut reel. Les immeubles font partie du.territoire de I'dtat, et sont par consequent r6gis par la loi hell^nique. Les strangers peuvent en devenir propridtaires mgme sans resider eu Greco, mais ils ne peuvent les acqu(Srir ou en disposer que conformdment aux lois helliSiiiques. C'est la disposition formelle de I'art. 5 du code civil. "La possession, la propri6t<5 et les droits r(Sels sur des meubles ou des immeubles situds en Grfece sont regl(5e par les lois belldniques. La succession testamentaire ou ab intestat est rdgie • par les lois du pays du ddfunt, k moins qu'il ne s'agisse d'immeubles situes en Grfece, lesquels sont, £1 cet <5gard, rdgis par la loi belldnique." Ainsi I'dtranger est soumis k la loi helldnique pour tout ce qui oonceme la distinction des biens en meubles et immeubles, la saisie immobiMfere, les liypotbfeques, la prescrip- tion acquisitive des immeubles ou celle extinctive des actions immobiliferes. La succession ab intestat d'un stranger qui se compose d'immeubles situds en Grfece, sera dgalement rdglde, pour ce qui concerne ces immeubles, par la loi helldnique d'apr&s I'art. 5 du code civil. Du reste, aux termes de Particle prdcitd, les effets de la possession, de la propridtd, les privileges et des voies d'exdoution sont rdgis par la loi helldnique m6me quant aux meubles. Enfin un stranger ne pent 6tre propridtaire d'un- navire lielldnique poui plus de la moitid (art. 4 de la loi du l^ novembre 1836, de la navigation commerciale). Droits privds de I'etranger. Aux termes de I'art. 15 du code civil, I'dtranger qui voudra se faire naturaliser, doit declarer sa volontd k la nmnicipalitd du lieu oti il veut 6tabUr son domicile, et habitcr en Grfece pendant deux aus, s'il est Grec d'origine, et pendant trois ans, s'il ap- partieut il toute autre nationalitde. Pass6 ce ddlai et aprbs qu'il aura 6t6 constats que 231 I'dtranger ne s'ost point rendu coupable de crime ou de I'un des ddlits pr(5vns par I'art. 2-i du code p^nal, 11 prdtora par deviiiit le Noiiuiriiue le serineut de, sujet HolUme. L'(Straiij>er qui aura rendu des services iniportauts il I'etat, qui aura iutroduit dans le pays dos inventions on une industrie utiles, ou qui se distingucrait par des talents I'xtraordinaires pent, des qu'il aura fixe son domicile en Grfece, ^tre naturalist jiar unc loi. Pendant tout le temps qu'il sera ndcessaiie il I'^tranger de resider en Grfece pour la naturalisation, il pourra etre admis par le roi h la jouissauce des droits civils, et dans ce cas il sera r6gi pour tous ses ijapports l<5gaux par les Ms Ii6ll6niques (art. 16 du code civil). Les (Strangers peuvent contractor mariage avec des Greos, sort en pays (Stranger soit en Grfece, en se conformant quant il la capacity aux lois de lem-s pays, et quant aux formalitfe soit h celles consaor(5es pay la loi liell^nique, soit ^ celles usitles dans le Ijays on le mariage est contracts (art. 4 et 7 du code civil). Les mariages mixtes avec des personnes appartenant k une autre communion reli- gieuse sent reconnus valables par la loi du ^ octobre 1861, sur les mariages mixtes. L'^tranger ne pent 6tre appelg ^ la tu-telle de mineurs Hellfenes, ni f aire partie d'un conseil de faniille les concornant (art. 30 et 49, § 6 de la loi sui' la minority, la tutelle, etc.) Mais il peute 6tre tuteur de ses parents mineurs iStrangers comme lui. Peu im- porte que la loi helliSnique considfere I'ofBce de la tutelle comme une espfece de charge publique, r^sery(5e aux Hellfenes seuls. Ce n'est pas la loi helliSnique qui d^ffere la tu- telle du mineur et qui la r^git, comme elle rcSgit tous les autres droits personnels et de famlUe. IJn stranger pent consolider jjar I'usucapion une acquisition d'immeuble. C'est un mode d'acqu^rir qui est permis a tout possesseur de bonne foi. L'^tranger i^eut stii^uler a son profit bypotlifeqne surdes imnieubles d'un Grec et en consentir une sur les siens au profit do ses criSanciers. Tout jugement ^man6 d'un tribunal belMnique au profit d'un stranger lui conffere le droit d'hypothfeque judiciaire sur les biens de son diSbiteur situ^s en Grfece. Mais le jugement ^manant d'un tribunal stranger ne conffere ce droit qu'aprfes avoir 6t6 declare exfeeutoire par le tribunal hellfenique competent. Le mariage coutract(5 eutre une <5trangfere et un Grec donne si la fenime un titre d'bypothfeque legale pour garantie de sa dot qu'elle jieut insorire sur les immeubles de son mari. La femme grecque qui (Spouse un (Stranger a le mtoie droit sur les immeubles de cet stranger situ^s en Grfece. Quant S, eeux situ(Ss h 1' stranger, les droits de la femme Bont r^gl^s par la loi du pays de son mari. Un stranger ne pent etre nomm^ captaine ou. officier d'un navire hell^nique. Les trois quarts de I'^quipage d'lm navire helMnique doivent etre pris parmis les Grecs, (art. 5 de la loi du if novembre 1836, de la navigation commerciale). Les matelots enr61^s en vertu de I'inscription maritime doivent etre des sujets grecs (loi d'inscription maritime du 24 octobre 1856). Aux termes de I'article 220 du code de proc(Sdure civile, et de Part. 2 de la loi sur le timbre, de 1867, les droits d'indigence sont accord^s an plaideur qui, en vertu du cer- tificat du dfemarque de son domicile, constate un 6tat d'indigence. L6s strangers ne sont point admis h jouir de ce droit, qui est consid6r6 avoir ^t^ introduit par la loi hell^nique en faveur des Grecs seulement, (ciroulaire du ministfere de la justice du 8 juin 1837). Tout stranger peut 6tro poursuivi devant tout tribunal bell6nique sans distinction pour des obligations oontract^es en Grfece ou ^ I'^tranger envers un Hellfe.ne (art. 28 du code de procedure civile). Et vice-versd I'Hellfene peut 6tre poursuivi devant les, trlbunaux bell^nlques pour les obligations contractus par lui en pays Stranger envers un Hellfene ou en Stranger. S'll n'y h point de stipulation contraire dans les traltSs, r(Stranger demandeur quis intcnte nne action centre un HellSne doit, aux termes des art. 78 et 79 du code de procedure eivUe, foumir, s'U en est requis, caution pour les frais du procfes et le dommages-int(5r6t8. Cette obligation n'existe point dans les affaires de commerce, on lorsque I'Stranger possfede en Grfece des immeubles suffisants, ou que le defendeur re- connait une partie de la demande suffisante pour assurer le paiement des frais et des dommages-lntSrfits. Tandls que le rSgnicole n'est soumis h, la contrainte par corps qae pour dettes com- merciales, et poui' les dettes clviles, exceptionnellement en certalnes circonstances de suspicion legitime, cette mesure peut fitre prise centre 1' Stranger dSbiteur soit comme mesure conservatoire, soit ponr I'exScution d'un jugement mSme pour dettes civiles en gSnSral. Bien entendu qu'elle doit Stre invoquSe par la partie et prononc(S6 expressS- ment par le juge (code de procSdure civile, art. 999, § 1 et 1000). La contrainte par corps n'est point prononc(5e dans les affaires civiles centre I'Stranger qui possfede en Grfece des immeubles suffisants pour assurer le paiement ou qui donne caution. . .... La contrainte par corps dont le but est de forcer le debiteur au paiement peute etre 232 6vit6o pav le r(^s"i''ol'' honiiete maiH malheuronx, qui, faisaiit pioiivo <[e bonne volont^i, pt lie ]Mm\ iuit inire pluH, almudonne tout son actif ^ ses cr^mcii'rs, on rotouraut an liriii51ic(' (le conipdlenco on (le la eession de Ijiciis. Cette mesure eHt refu8(Se il r<5tran- Rer paice (pi'il n'est pas possible (I'en contrdler la fidiSlit(5. C'est la (lisi)08itio)iforin(!llc (les ait. 688 du code de procedure civile, ot 575 du code do commerce en vigiier en Grfece. (Signed) G. A. EHAI.LY, Avocat. HANSE TOWNS. Hamburg, June 26, 1868. My Lord : By yonr lordship's dispatch of the 16th instant I am directed to report the disabilities to which aliens residing in the Hanse towns are subjected by the local laws. I have accordingly the honor to state as follows : The laws of Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg prohibit aliens from exercising the ordi- nary rights of citizenship except as undermentioned. They cannot hold any office under the State, nor can they acquire lands or houses in their own names within the territories of the state. Those privileges are reserved to citizens of the state, and to the subjects of the other states of the North German Confederation, who are on the same footing as Hanseatic citizens. But a foreigner can easily purchase land in the name of a citizen as his trustee, and this is not infrequently done. At Lubeck and at Bremen aliens are still restricted from carrying on trades unless they have first acquired the rights of citizenship. The Lubeck law of the 20th of November, 1866, and the Bremen law of 15th February, 1861, had for their object the abolition of guilds, and facilitated the admission of foreigners as citizens at lees expense than heretofore. But the condition of citizenship was not removed by those laws. At Hamburg, however, aliens are no longer under any disabilities in respect of the exercise of trades. A law issued on the 7th of November, 1864, declares that trades and industrial occupations may be carried on by foreigners not subjects of the state ; and it also reduces the cost of obtaining citizenship by those aliens who desire it. Another law, dated the 30th of December, 1867, abolished the exclusive privilege of entering goods in transit, formerly reserved to Hamburg citizens. The alien merchant is, there- fore, in as favorable a position as the citizen merchant in any line of business which he may think proper to enter. There are residing at Hamburg a considerable number of persons who claim the rights of British subjects on account of their birth or descent, but who are Hamburg subjects by having acquired citizenship or by being the children of citizens, or by hav- ing been born within the territory of the state. Such persons assert a double nation- ality, and appear in the character of a British subject or of a Hamburg citizen, as it suits their purpose. Ought they not rather to lose their British nationality so long as they are the voluntary citizens of a foreign state ? I have, &c., JOHN WARD. The Eight Hon. Lord Staniey, #«■, #"., cf-c. ITALY. Florence, December 19, 1868. My Lord : With reference to Lord Stanley's dispatch of the 16th of June last, I have the honor to inclose herewith to your lordship a translation of a report which has been drawn up by Signer Corsi, legal adviser to this mission, relative to the disabilities to which aliens residing in Italy are subjected by Italian law. I have, &o., A. PAGET. The Eight Honorable The Earl of Clarendon, K. G. 233 1 Translation.] Mcmoraiidiim on the hiws wliich regulate the rUjTits of aliens hi Italy. The civil caiiaeity of aliens in Italy in regard to tlicii- private rights is as follows : As a general rnle " the alien is admitted to the enjoyment of all civil rights accorded to the citizen," (art. 3 of the Civil Code.) If a citizen has lost his nationality before the bu-tli of a child, the latter is considered a citizen if born in the kingdom and resident there ; but he can, within a year of the attainment of his majority, determined by the laws of the kingdom, select the quality of an alien, by making a declaration to that effect before the civil authorities of hi's domicile, or, if he is abroad, before the king's diplomatic or consular agents, (art. 5 of the Civil Code.) "A child born abroad of a father vrho has lost his nationalitv before his birth is re- puted an alien. " He can, however, select the quality of a citizen provided lie makes a declaration to that effect in accordance with the foregoing dispositions, and provided he fixes his domicile in the kingdom within one year of such declaration. " If, however, he has accepted state employ in the kingdom, or servos in the army or navy, or has otherwise complied with the terms of the conscription law, without invok- ing exemption therefrom on the plea of being an alien, he is considered a citizen with- out further formalities, (art. 6 of the Ci^'il Code.) "When the father is unknown, the child, born of a mother who is a nalive, is a citizen." " If the mother has lost her nationality before the birth of her child, the dispositions of the two preceding articles apply." If the mother be likewise unknown, the child born in the kingdom is a citizen, (art. 7 of Civil Code.) "A child, born in the kingdom, of an alien father who has been domiciled there for ten years uninterrujitedly is considered a citizen. Residence on account of commercial affairs does not constitute domicUe." "He can, however, select the quality of alien, but the dispositions of the two first paragraphs of art. 6 are applicable to this case, (art. 7 of Civil Code.) "An alien woman married to a citizen acquires citizenship, and retains it as a widow, (art. 9 of Civil Code.) "An alien can also obtain citizenship by naturalization granted by law or royal de- cree." " The royal decree is not effective unless registered by the civil authority of the place where the alien intends to fix or has fixed his domicile, and unless he swears before the said authority to be faithful to the king and to observe the statutes and the laws of the kingdom." " The wife and minor children of an alien who has obtained citizenship become citi- zens, provided they have a fixed residence in the kingdom, but the children can select the quality of aliens by making the declaration mentioned in art. 5, (art. 10, Civil Code.) Citizenship is lost : 1st. By a person who renounces it by a declaration to that effect before the civil authority of his domicile, and transfers his residence to a foreign country. 2d. By a person who, without the permission of his government, has accepted em- ployment from a foreign government, or has entered the military service of a foreign power. " The wife and minor children of a person who has lost his nationality become aliens, unless they continue to reside in the kingdom. " They can nevertheless regain their nationality in the cases and manner described in the first paragraph of art. 14 as regards the wife, in the first two paragraphs of art. 6 as regards the children, (art. 11, Civil Code.) " The loss of nationality, as described in the preceding ai-ticle, does not imply exemp- tion from the obligations of military service, nor from the penalties inflicted on those who bear arms against their native country, (art. 12, Civil Code.) " The citizen who has lost his nationality from any of the causes mentioned in art. 11, regains it, provided — " 1. That he returns to the kingdom with a special permission from the government. " 2. That he renounces his foreign nationality, the employment or military service taken abroad. " 3. That he declares before the civil authorities that he intends fixing, and really does fix, his domicile in the kingdom within the space of one year, (art. 13, Civil Code.) "A woman who marries an alien becomes an alieil whenever by the fact of marriage she acquires the nationality of her husband. " If left a widow, she regains her nationality if she resides in the kingdom, or if she 30 SD 234 roturns there and declares in liotli cases helore the civil authorities that slu^ wishes to tix her domicile there, (art 14, Civil Code.) " The acquisition or resumption of nationality in the preceding cnses only takes effect from the day succeeding that on which the prescribed conditions and formalities are fulfilled, (art." 15, Civil Code.)" The law of the 15tli November, 1865, for the regulation of the civil status, ordains : Art. 44. " In the registers of citizenship are inscribed : 1st. " The declarations of a reputed alien who desires Italian nationality. 2d. "The declaration of a reputed Italian subject who selects the quality of an alien. 3d. " Declarations renouncing Italian nationality. 4th. " Declarations relative to fixing, or the intention of fixing, domicile in the kingdom. 5fli. " Declarations relative to the transfer of domicile from one commune of the kingdom to another. Art. 45. " In the said registers are transcribed the royal decrees conferring nation- ality. Art. 46. " The declarations mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of art. 44, are received by the civil authorities of the domicile of the person making them, if he resides in the kingdom, and by the diplomatic and consular agents if abroad. " The said agents transmit, vrithin three monfiis after the date given them, copy of the declarations they have received to the ministry of foreign affairs, whence they are forwarded to the civil authorities of the last domicile of the person making the declar- ation ; or, in default of that, of the last known domicile of the father. Art. 47. " The declarations mentioned ija No. 4 of art. 44 must be made before the civil authority of the place in which the person making the declaration resides, or in- tends residing. Akt. 48. " The declarations mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of art. 44 must explain the circumstances of their origin. " The person making the declaration must further prove, by the production of his certificate of birth, or of a notarial document, that he has attained majority according to the laws of the kingdom. Art. 49. " The declaration contained in No. 4 of art. 44 must explain the motive of its origin and the object in view. " When a declaration is made by a widow in accordajice with art. 14 of the Civil Code, she must prove her widowhood by producing a certificate of the death of her husband. Art. 50. " Before transcribing the decree conferring nationality, the civil authority must demand from the alien an oath, according to the special rites of the religion he professes, that he will he faithful to the king and mil observe the statutes and laws of the " The fulfillment of this formality must appear on the register. Art. 51. " If the civil authority is requested to register said decree after a lapse of more than three months from its date, he must refuse to accept the oath and to regis- ter the decree." With reference to the influence of foreign laws on personal capacity and family re- lations, art. 6 of the law of the 25th June, 1865, ordains : " The personal status and capacity and family relations are regulated by the laws of the country to which the persons belong." As to matrimony, however, attention must be paid to the following articles of the Civil Code : Art. 100. "A marriage celebrated in a foreign country between subjects, or between a subject and an alien, is valid, provided it be celebrated according to the established custom of that country, and provided the subject has not contravened the dispositions contained in section 2 of chapter I on this matter. "The marriage must be notified within the realm in accordance with arts. 70 and 71. If the subject has not residence in the realm, the notification must be made in the commune of his last domicile. * Art. 101. "A subject who has contracted marriage abroad must, within three months after his return to his native coimtry, cause his marriage to be registered by the civil authority of the commune in which he takes up his residence, under pain of a fine to the extent of one hundred lire, (francs.) Art. 102. " The capacity of an alien to contract marriage is determined by the laws of his coimtry. " But an aiien is subject to the impediments contained in section 2 of chapter I, on this matter. Art. 103. " An alien desirous of contracting marri age in the realm must present to the civil authority a declaration from the competent authorities of his country, prov- ing that according to the laws of his country there is no obstacle to the intended marriage. 235 " If the alien resides in the realm he must further make the notification required by the dispositions of this code." The influence of foreign laws of property is explained in art. 7 of the said law of 25th of June, 1865, as follows : " Personal property is subject to the law of the proprietor's country, unless the law of the country where it is situated disposes otherwise. " Eeal property is subject to the laws of the place ■^^'here it is situated. Article 9 of the same law refers as follows to the form of deeds : The extrinsic form of deeds executed between living persons, and of wills, is deter- mined by the law of the place where they are made. The disposers or contractors may, however, adopt the forms of their own national law.s, provided the latter are common to all the parties. "The substance and effects of testamentary douatious and dispositions are considered as being regulated by the laws of the disposer's country. The substance and efi'ects of obligations are considered as being regulated by the law of the place in which the deeds were drawn, and if the contracting aliens belong to the same country, by their national laws. In every case the proof of a contrary desire holds good." Alien successions are regulated by ait. 8 of this law, as follows : "Legitimate and testamentary successions, however, whether with reference to the order of succession, or with regard to succession rights, and the intrinsic validity of the dispositions, are regulated by the law of the person deceased, whatever may be the nature of the property, and without regard to the country of its situation." For the forms of procedure, and the influence of foreign sentences in the realm, art. 10 in the same law ordains : " The competency and the forms of procedure are regulated by the law of the place where sentence is given. " The proofs of obligation are detennined by the laws of the place where the deed was drawn. " The sentences pronounced by foreign tribunals in civil matters will be executed in the realm, if declared capable of execution according to the forms established by the code of civil procedure, and if not opposed to international stipulations. "The maimer of execution of deeds and sentences is regulated by the law of the place where execution ensues." A general clause, placed at the end of this law, (art. 12,) prevents a too extensive aiiplication of its various dispositions from clashing with the laws in force in the realm, and says : " Notwithstanding the stipulations of the preceding articles, the deeds and sentences of a foreign country, as well as private dispositions and agreements, can in no case be derogatory of the prohibitive laws of the realm which concern persons, property, or deeds, nor of the laws which in any way regard public order and morality." The mode of citing aliens before the tribunals is traced in the following articles of the Code of Procedure : " Aet. 105. An alien who has no domicile in the realm may be cited before the judi- cial authority of the realm even when absent from it — " Ist. In a question regarding real or personal property situated in the realm. " 2d. In a question of obligations arising out of contracts or deeds executed or to be executed in the realm. " 3d. In every other case in which there is reciprocity. " Akt. 106. Besides the cases indicated in the preceding articles an alien can be cited before the judicial authority for obligations contracted abroad — " 1st. If he has his residence in the realm, though not actually there. "2d. If he happens to be in the realm, though having no residence there, provided ho be personally cited. " Art. 107. When an alien has no residence, dwelling, or chosen domicile in the realm , and no place has been fixed on for the execution of the contract, personal or real aettoii as regards personal property , (Vazoine personales Wreale su l>eni mohili,) takes place before the judicial authority of the place in which th^plaintiff hashis residence or domicile." With reference to commercial relations, the stipulation of .art. 3 of the civU code above cited, which concedes to aliens the same rights as to subjects, independently of political treaties, is to be observed. Anonymous foreign commercial companies carrying on business in the realm must be authorized by the government like Italian ones. A law of the 20th October, 1860, allows French anonymous companies recognized in France to operate in Italy, and to have legal standing without any special authoriza- tion. Two diplomatic conventions, concluded on December 5, 1867, with England, and on December 8, 1867, with Eussia, repeat similar dispositions as regards English and Rus- sian commercial companies, but in the Russian convention insurance companies are excluded. A French decree dated in September, 1860, and the above-mentioned conventions, grant full reciprocity to Italian companies in those states. 236 These, imd in general all other foreign commeriial societies, (accomaiidite collective,) must publish their charter in the chancery of the tribunal of commerce of the distiict in which they choose a domicile. With reference to questions of criminal law the Sardinian code has Mtherto been applied in all parts of the realm except Tuscany. The above-mentioned law of the- 25th June, 1865, in art. 11, contains the following general disxJoeitions : Criminal laws, and those of police and public security, are bind- ing on all persons who may be within the territory of the realm. The criminal code contains the following dispositions : Art. 5th. "The native of the kingdom who commits on foreign territory a crime against the security of the realm, or who forges the seal, the moneys, bank-notes, obli- gations of the state, or documents of public credit equivalent to money, is to be tried and punished in the realm according to the provisions of the present law. Akt. 6th. "The native of the kingdom who commits on foreign territory a crime against another native of the kingdom, or against a foreigner, when he returns to tlie realm, is to be judged and punislied according to the penalties established by the pres- ent law, which, however, may, according to circmustances, be diminished by one degree. "The same rule will be applied to the native of the kingdom who commits on foreign territory a crime against another native of the kingdom, provided the injured party commences an action against him. " The same rule will also apply if the crime be committed on foreign teiTitory against a foreigner, provided that in the country to which the foreigner belongs the same treatment is extended to inhabitants of the kingdom. Art. 7th. "The foreigner who on foreign territory commits a crime against the security of the state, or forges the seal, the moneys, bank-notes, obligations of the state, or documents of public credit equivalent to money, and who is arrested within the realm, or is given up by foreign governments, is to be judged and punished ac- cording to the provisions of the present law. Art. 8th. " The foreigner who commit? on foreign territory, either against a native of the realm or against another foreigner, any of the crimes indicated in articles 596- 600 exclusively, if arrested in the realm' or given up by other governments, is to be judged and punished according to article 6, provided the crime shall have been com- mitted within half a miriametre of the frontiers of the realm, or, iu case the crime has been committed at a greater distance from the frontiers, when the cul^jrit brings into the realms moneys or effects which he has stolen. Art. 9. "Besides the cases mentioned in tlie preceding article, the foreigner who on foreign territory commits a crime against a native of the realm and then enters the royal states is to be arrested, and the authorization of the king's government having first been obtained, an offer of his surrender is to be made to the government within whose jurisdiction the crime has been committed, in order that he may be tried there. But if that government should fail to receive the culprit, he is to be judged and pun- ished iji the royal states according to article 6. " The same rule applies to crimes committed by a foreigner against an inhabitant of the realm in a foreign country, when under similar circumstances an inhabitant of the realm would be punished iu the country to which the foreigner belongs, except in case of civil actions." Art. 10. "Articles 6, 8, and 9 are not to be applied when the culprit shall have been tried and sentenced in the country where the crime has been committed^ and in case of his having been condemned, shall have there gone through the term of punishment. Art.' 11. "No culprit can be surrendered to any state without the order of the king's government." In the Tuscan provinces, where, as has been already said, there still exists the penal code promulgated by the Grand, Ducal government in 1853, the regulations respecting f oroigners are as follows : Art. 3. "1. Whoever commits a crime on Tuscan territory, whether he be a Tuscan subject or not, is punishable according to the provisions of the present law." 2. "However, soldiers in the service of the state do not come under the above head, insomuch as crimes committed by them are punishable according to the military laws." Art. 4. "A Tuscan subject is punishable according to the present law also for crimes committed- out of the Tuscan territory — " (a.) Against another Tuscan ; "('&.) Against the internal or external security of the state ; " (c.) Forgery of moneys or documents of public credit ha-ring legal or commercial circulation in Tuscany; " (d.) Foigery of the seal of a, public authority or of a public office of the Grand Duchy, or of the instruments used in making it. "The same rule applies to crimes committed by Tuscans out of Tuscany against a foreigner: but in such cases — "(a.) For the punishment of death is substituted imprisonment ('ergastolo'); 237 " (b.) For imprisonment C&rgastolo') is substituted the penitentiary (' Casa di Forga') for twenty ycnrs; " (v.) Tlie penitentiary ean be reduced within the legal limits; and " (d.) If the crime is punishable with less than the penitentiary, not only may the punishment be diminished, as laid down under letter c, but moreover the person injured must bring the action against tlie culprit." Art. 5. "When arrested in Tuscany, or given up by other governments, a foreigner is liable to punishment under the present law, when beyond the limits of the Tuscan territory he has bex^n guilty of a crime — " (u.) Against the internal security of the state ; "(i.) Forgery of moneys or of public papers of credit in Tuscany; or "(c.) Forgery of seals of a public authority, or of a public office of the Grand Duchy, or of the instruments for making them." "The same rule appUes to crimes committed by foreigners out of Tuscany against a Tuscan; but in such cases are applied the limitations laid down in sec. 2 of the prece- ding article." Akt. 6. "In the cases foreseen in sec. 2 of art. 4, and sec. 2 of art. 5, acts are not to bo punishable which, although punishable in Tuscany, are not liable to punishment in the country where they are committed." Art. 7. "If the Tuscan subject, as mentioned in art. 4, or the foreigner as mentioned in art. 5, has, beyond the Tuscan frontiers, suft'ered the punishment inflicted by law on his crime, no criminal proceedings can be taken against him in the Grand Duchy. " But if, condemned out of Tuscany, he has not gone through his punishment, or has only done so nn part, he is liable to be tried again in Tuscany, but at his trial the amount of punishment he may already have gone. through will be taken into consid- eration. Art. 8. "The rules laid down in articles 4 and 5 are to be observed in every case where there are no others laid down by special public conventions between Tuscany and other states." Art. 9. " Ko Tuscan subject can be given up to another state for any crime what- ever, whether committed in Tuscany or elsewhere." As regards criminal proceedings, the following are the provisions of the varions arti- cles of the code applicable to foreigners : Art. 34. " For crimes and offenses punishable according to articles 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Criminal Code in the kingdom, the place of domicile or of arrest, or of surrender of the accused, determines the competency of the court, and a preventive arrest may bo made." ("E si faluogo a la prevenzione.") " However, the court of appeal may, on the demand of the public ministry or of the other parties, send the afl'air before the court or tribunal nearest to the place where the crime or oflfense has been commited. Art. 35. " The court or tribanal competent to take cognizance of the crimes men- tioned in the preceding article may make use of acts made abroad. "These acts may, moreover, serve to determine the indemnity due to the injured party in the case of crimes committed abroad which are not punishable in the king- dom:" (C. S. 33.) Art. 36. " Whenever a judge receives notice of an action or a denunciation about a crime committed abroad, which can be adjudicated on in the kingdom, he must give no- tice of it to the ' procureur du roi,' who will call upon the ' procureur g6n(5ral' under whom lie is placed." (C. S. 34.) Art. 853. " When in criminal proceedings it is necessary to proceed to the examina- tion of witnesses or to the drawing up of deeds with foreign judicial authorities, or to demand the aiTest and extradition of a criminal who may be in a foreign country, the person drawing up the accusation mvist inform the court ( ' sezione d'accusa') to which he belongs, and the court, where necessary, will make the demand in the cus- tomary form, and will forward it through the public ministry, with the necessary documents, to the ministry of grace and justice, in order that it may insure the car- rying out thereof. " The extradition of an accused person may also be demanded directly by the gov- ernment of the King." " When the extradition of an accused person can be obtained from a foreign govern- ment only on sworn testimony, the judge who hears the case may examine on oath the witnesses whose depositions are rec[uired ; of these depositions a separate volume is to be made, which will serve for the demand of extradition. At the trial, however, these witnesses must again be sworn in the manner laid down by the law." (C. S., 832.) Art. 854. "When in criminal matters it is necessary to draw up acts of accusation at the request of foreign judicial authorities, it shall be done by the court of appeal in the ' sezione d'accusa,' and the judge appointed by it. " In such case witnesses may, if required, be examined on oath." (C. S., 833.) Art. 855. "No alteration is mailo in the rules in force for communications between the authorities of the kingdom and those of foreign governments on matters concern- 238 ing criminal jurisprudence, and the special conventions now in force are to be observed." (C. S., 834.) " In the cases in which, according to the provisions of the criminal code, the tribu- nal^of the state are competent to take cognizance of crimes committed by subjects in foreign countries, when they return home, the act of accusation and the documents necessary to prove and maintain the giiilt of the accused may be drawn up ; but he cannot be summoned or arrested until he returns into the country." In the international treaties there are special dispositions respecting the enjoyment of civil rights accorded to the subjects of each contracting state separately ; but, if exception is made of the stipulations exempting foreigners from any forced loans which may be raised in the kingdom, it may be said that they have been placed there more to satisfy the contracting powers than because they were necessary, for the provisions of law, as above explained, are framed on the most liberal principles of international law. Such are, both in matters of private and of criminal law, the rules affecting for- eigners in Italy. AVO. COESI. Florence, December 10, 1868. NETHERLANDS. The Hague, Jifiy 10, 1868. My Loud : On receipt of your lordship's dispatch of June 16, I lost no time in solic- iting of this government full information respecting the disabilities, civil and political, under which aliens resident in the Netherlands labor. M. Roert Van Liraburg in his reply, copy of which I have now the honor to inclose, makes frequent reference to the " code civil" and to the " code de procedure civil " in force in this kingdom. Of these works no translations from the Dutch exist, a want that, however, is the less felt as the whole body of statute law of this country is based on the " Code Napoleon," promulgated in 1810. Of the recent Dutch legislation on this subject, to which M. Roert Van Limburg calls attention, I have appended translations of those laws and articles the bearing of which, upon the condition of an alien in Holland, is not sufficiently explained in the text of his excellency's dispatch. In the event of the members of the "naturalization commission" requiring further information on the subject, I would venture to refer them to M. de St. Joseph's " Con- cordances entre les Codes Civils fitrangers et le Code Napol<5on," a work published at Paris in 1856, and furnished with an excellent index, showing at a glance the divergen- cies of legislation in different countries on any given point. I have, &o., E. A. J. HARRIS. The Lord Stanley, M. F. La Ha ye, lei juUlet 1868. Monsieur Ministre : En r^ponse a votre office de 20 juin dernier, par lequel vous avez exprimd le d^sir d'etre renseigncS au sujet des incapacity (disabilities) dont la loi frappe les strangers r&idant dans les Pays-Bas, j'ai I'honneur de porter S, votre con- naissance cjue ces incapacitis sont de deux espfeces, et coucernent, les unes I'exercice des droits politiques, les antres la jouissance des droits civils. Quant aux droits politiques, les strangers n'en ont pas la jouissance. lis ne peuveut 6tre nomm^s a des fonctions publiques qn'exceptionnellement conf orm^ment aux dispo- sitions de la loi du 4 juin 1858. lis peuveut m6me lorsqu'ils resident dans le royaume, sans avoir 6t6 assimilfe aux Nferlandais en vertu de I'article 8 du code civil, 6tre ex- trad6s (voyez I'art. 19 de la loi du 13 aoftt 1849). Enfin la loi du 14 mars 1819 6tablit une distinction entre les N^erlandais et les strangers par rapport ^ la deliverance des lettres de mer. Toutef ois I'^tranger qui a habit6 le pays pendant un an, est, aux termes de I'art. III. 2°, assimil^ a cet 6gard aux N^erlandais. En ce qui concerne I'exercice des droits civUs, les strangers sont, au contraire, assim- ilfe en giSn^ral aux uationaux. L'art. 9 de la loi, contenant des dispositions g^n^rales de legislation, declare le droit civil du royaume applicable aux strangers comme aux Neerlaudnis, pour autaut que la loi n'^tablit pas express^ment le contraire. Cette re- striction s'appliquant aux strangers en general rend toutefois necessaire de distinguer entre les exceptions qui s'appliquent k tons les strangers, par consequent aussi a ceux rfeidant dans le royaume, et celles qui ue sojit applicables qu'aux (Strangers ne resident pas, on n'ayant pas de domicile connu dans les Pays-Bas. A la premifere categoric de ces exceptions appartiennent celles d'aprfes lesqueUes un •239 hts consequent on citizenship. In the towns of the Dnchy of Holsteln (Holstein nuinieipal regulations of the 11th of February, 1854) aliens, on the same condition as natives, (independence, respect- ability, and settlement in the town,) are capable of acquiring the right of citizenship, provided the permission of their residence is not forbidden for police reasons, and that they have complied with the special existing regulations respecting the establishment of aliens. These regulations tend to the effect that aliens arriving in the country should not merely apparently and temporarily, but really settle down in the place. He (the alien) must not retain his own residence in another place, and must, when married, establish his household in the place, together with his wife and children, so that he (as the royal statute of the 23d September, 1796, saj's) can "be looked upon as oiu- own subject." Aliens who are unmarried and without a household establishment must, as a security that they intend to remain in the place', and before receiving the right of citizenship, deposit 200 thalers as bail, which Avill be retnined to them only after a lapse of five years, provided they liave dvning the interim resided in the place and followed a civil calling ; otherwise it goes to the municipal fuiul. Besides tliis, the special regulations specified by the charter of the 5th of November, 1841, (Chronological Collection of the Schleswig-H'olstein Ordinances of 1841, page 243,) with respect to the settlement of aliens, must be complied with. The right of citizenship qualities forthwith for every kind of civil employment in the place, also for the municipal elections, the municipal offices and duties (mandate,) and compels the acceptance of the latter. Residents in a municipality, but without the right of citizenship, are (schutzner- wanth) under the especial protection of the government. These enjoy such muuicii);il privileges as are not exclusively attached to the right of citizenship, and are obliged to pny the municipal taxes, (and, by statute, not at a less rate.) Aliens can only become (schutznerwauth) under the especial protection of the government when they have complied with the above-mentioned special regula- tions respecting domicile in a place. In the Holstein country towns the same princi- ples essentially prevail as in the towns and country towns of Schleswig. 6. Also in the country municipalities (landgemeinde) the general principle pre- vails, according to the municipal regulations existing in the different parts of the country, that aliens can only obtain complete municipal rights after they have first obtained the right of citizenship. In the municipality of Hanover, however, owners of property, farms, and d^yelling-houses in general, can exercise the right of muni- cipal electors, and so, also, if they are aliens, without being settled there when they have acquired the right to reside in the respective municipality, which again presup- poses the acquisition of the rights of a subject. In the municipalities of the Schleswig-Holstein Duchies, by the decree of the 22d of September of last year, (Law Collection, page 1603,) relative to the right of election, the local regiilations existing in each municipality are in the bulk maintained. These local regulations rest mostly on custom. 0. Relative to participation in the provincial and district representation, the qualifl- cation of being a Prussian on the part of an owner of landed property is not required. The royal order in council of the 28th of May, 1809, which is in force in the eight older provinces, with the exception of the Rhine Province, makes the acquisition of nolle property and manor-houses by aliens subject to a special concession from the minister of the interior, which is dependent upon taking an oath of allegiance. By royal order in council, also, of February 15, 1858, it is ordei-ed, in accordance with the decree of March 28, 1809, that the actiuisition of a Rittergut by an alien must, before a special permission can be accorded, 1 )e subject to this condition — that the owner of the property must only exercise the rights appertaining to the same, especially that of attendance at quarter session, by means of a delegate, who is to be chosen from these privileged owners of property (rittergustbesitzer) accustomed to the personal exercise of these rights. lu the Rhine Provinces the royal order in coimcil of May 31, 1847, only states that aliens who possess land in the Rhine Provinces are not pei-mitted to exercise the lights of privilege attached to the property until they have taken the oath of allegiance. With regard to capability of election, actively and passively, to the circuit, communal, and provincial sessions in towns and parishes, the condition of beiu"- a Prussian subject is in general attached, in accordance with II B, of the above- citecf regulations, as such capability is made subject to the possession of right of citi- zenship or membership of the parish. In the regulations issued in the year 1867 for the newly acquired provinces respect- ing the circuit and provincial constitutions, there exist no express provisiims touching the necessity of being a Prussian subject in order to exercise the rights of landowner- ship in regard to electing and being elected. As far as our laws arc silent upon this subject, aliens may be looked upon as author- ized to exercise those rights. Without doubt those who are in a similar position to 244 natives, iu respect to Tjeing large landed proprietors, are not compelled to obtain a- special coneeasion or to take the oath of allegiance. D. Aliens, having powers of policial supervision, arci not permitted to exercise their authority in person, but must appoint a native delegate to superintend the police of the place — (§ 7 of the law respecting the pural local magistracy in the six old East Provinces, of April 14, 1856; Collection of Laws, 354.) The appointment to situations under the state and also to the post of consul. § 6. Statute of December 31, 1842. Legal Code for 1843, p. 15. Eoyal order of Oct. 17, 1847, p. 375. Eoyal order of Jan. 27, 1862, p. 95. § 7 of the law on the organization of the consulates of the Confederation of Kovem- ber 8, 1867. Federal laws, page 1418. The right to act as jurymen in criminal suits. $ 62, decree of January 3, 1849, Legal Code, 14. Art. 56, law of December 3, 1852, p. 209. The right to act as arbitrators in civil suits is not attached to domicile, (indigenat,) but is nevertheless not allowed to persons living abroad. ^ 41. Introduction to general statutes respecting tribunal. III. Aliens, with the exception of the corps diplomatique, are subject in like manner as natives to the indirect taxes, as also to the land tax payable on land and houses ajj- pertaining to them in this country. They are liable to the class and income taxes, subject to the modifications mentioned above in 5 6 and 18 of the law of May 1, 1851. Legal Code, 193. In regard to their legal rights in private affairs, aliens are permitted in Prussia to acquire both personal and real property, as also to carry on business of all kinds. As participators in an inheritance within this country they possess equal rights with nati,ves. No deduction shall be made from inheritances falling to aliens, unless the gov- ernment of the alien raises a like tax on inheritances accruing to aliens. Royal order of April 11, 1822. Legal Code, page 181. With reference to the acquisition of property by aliens, the three following limita- tions are in force : 1. Donations, inheritances, and legacies cannot be left to foreign corporations and public institutions without royal permission. 5. 11. Law relating to donations and bequests to institutions and companies, of May 13. Collection of Laws, page 49. 2. Foreign corporations and other authorized persons, especially joint-stock compa- nies, are not permitted to acquire real pro]3erty within the Prussian state without royal permission. Law of May 4, 1846. Collection of Laws, page 235. 3. Estates and manor-houses belonging to the nobility cannot be acquired by for- eigners without the permission of the minister of the interior. Eoyal decree of March 28, 1809, page 7. With regard to real property situated in Prussia, it is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which it may be placed, without regard to the person of the proprietor. § 32. Introduction to general body of law. Every negotiation thereon must consequently be carried out in the form required by the laws of this country. § 115, I 5. Body of law. The personal qualifications and rights of foreigners ("_/«()•« status) are generally judged in accordance with the laws of their country. § 23. Introduction to body of law. If, however, that law should, as regards competency to enter into relations under the cognizance of the law, differ from the Prussian law, then the competency of the con- tracting parties with respect to such relations entered into in these countries, and with respect to the concluding of contracts, shall be determined by the law with which the subject shall the best comport. § 26, 35. Introduction to body of law. Especial regulations apply to the following cases : 1. Foreigners who are desirous of contracting a marriage in Prussia, either with a native or a foreigner, must, in addition to fulfilling the other legal requirements, prove by a certificate, properly, attested by the local authorities of their home, that they are permitted by the laws of their country, without hindrance to their state allegiance, to contract a marriage abroad, or that they have received, in accordance with these laws, the necessary permission for the contracting of the proposed marriage. The ministers of justice, religion, and the interior are, neverthless, empowered, as well in particular instances as with regard to the legislation of particular states, to permit to their subjects generally the production of such a certificate. § 1 and 2. Law of March 13, 1854. 245 Collection of Laws, p. 123. 2. The carrying on of business is usually permitted to aliens as well as to natives, but — • a. The right of owners of mercantile, ships to hoist the flag of the North German Confederation is confined to those foreigners who are luituralized. $ 1. Law of October 28, 1867. Confederation Laws, p. 35. General order of March 25, 1868, relative to keeping the ship's log. Judicial Miuis- terial Paper, p. 95. 6. Aliens must obtain permission of the minister in order to carry on through agents in Prussia insurances and emigration undertakings. J 2. Law of May 14, 1853. Collection of Laws, p. 293. $ 7. Law of May 7, 1853. Collection of Laws, p. 430. C. Foreign agents, in default of an inteniatioual treaty, can only caiTy on a perma- nent trade with the permission of the minister of commerce; likewise — D. In accordance with § 12 of the law of hawking, of April 28, 1824, the alien is in general only allowed to carry on the trade of the peddler under greater restrictions than the native. 3. Foreigners can only be appointed guardians to native wards with the consent of the minister of justice, when in all matters relating to the trusteeship, with the per- mission of their own foreign law, they have submitted to the authority of the courts exercising jurisdiction over guardians and wards. § 156, 157. Part II. 18 Common Law. V. With reference to the administration of the civil and criminal code, the jurisdic- tional stipulations concluded with separate states come next into operation. Apart from such stipulations the following principles are in force : A. In criminal cases. a. Foreigners are subject to the Prussian criminal code, if they commit in Prussia a crime, misdemeanor, or excess ; or abroad, an action which in the Prussian code would come under the heads of high treason or false coinage. § 3 and 4. Criminal Code of April 14, 1851. 6. There is this particular difference between the punishment of a native and a for- eigner, that in those cases in which a native would be sentenced to police supervision, a foreigner would be banshed from the country, (§29 in book above cited,) and the return of an alien thus banished is punishable with three months to two years' impiis- onment. § 115, as above cited. c. Aliens who fail to pay the fine affixed to smuggling are at once arrested, if they are found in the country, and the punishment of imprisonment fixed by law is carried into efiect if they do not once pay or find security, whilst the alternative punislinieiit of imprisonment is only enforced against a native when the amount of the tuie has not been procured by means of an execution on the property of the defrander. 4 54, 55. Law of January 23, 1838. Collection of Laws, p. 89. $ 24, 25. Law of July 29, 1867. Collection of Laws, x>- 1275. d. With regard to procedure, the same regulations apply to aliens and natives; but in cases in which a private suit is instituted for examination and punishment, alien private suiters must pay higher fees than natives, if in their native state foreigners and natives are not placed on the same footing. $ 492 of the law of June 25, 1867, touching the laws relating to penal punishment and procedure in those portions of the country annexed in the year 1866. In time of war aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of courts-martial in two cases : aa. Foreign officers attached in time of war to the Prussian army, and their suite; and — Vb. All aliens who, by traitorous conduct at the seat of war, bring danger or hurt to the Prussian troops; but in this latter case this extraordinary tribunal only comes into operation when the King, or the general in his name, gives the order for the assembly, and makes it publicly known. $ 18. Nos. 2 and 4 of the martial law of April 3, 1845. Collection of Laws, 333. E. In accordance with the principles of exti'a territoriality, the ambassadors accred- ited to this court, the charge d'affaires, their wives, and persons belonging to the mis- sions accredited to this court, and their servants, are free from all examination and arrest, except sentence is passed on them by the highest state authority. Courts of justice and police authorities are bound to take every precautionary measure to hiuder the accomplishment by any of these persons of a meditated crime. $ 251, 253, 258. Criminal Code of December 4, 1805. B. In civil suits. 246 1. Aliens have tlie same powers as natives asserting their' private claims as plaintiii's before the courts of justice. There are two exceptions to this principle within the jurisdictional limits of the general statute respecting tribunals. a. According to tlie regulations of the general statute respecting tribunals, natives as well as aliens are bound to give security to the defendants in cases where the matter cannot be at ouce settled. But the defendant can only refuse in a suit with a foreigner to go into court, or to allow the suit to continue, if the plaintift' cannot find security. § 13, I 21. 6. Aliens can only obtain the arrest of another alien. aa. When the summons has reference to a contract concluded or to be carried out in this country. hb. When the debtor in the deed by virtue of which the aiTest is sought has made himself liable either to payment or arrest in any place. cc. When the summons originates in a bill of exchange which has fallen due, and the drawer is a merchaut who visits the fairs and markets of this country. $ 88. I 29. General statute respecting tribunals. 1. According to the regulations of the Hanoverian law in force in the province of Hanover, only aliens are bound as plaintiffs to provide security for the payment of legal costs, in accordance with § 54, 55 of the Hanoverian statute of November 8, 1850. (Hanovei-ian Code of Laws, page 341.) 2. With reference to the obligations of aliens to appear as defendants before the courts of this country, a difference of procedure prevails in the provinces where the civil code or general statute respecting tribunals or where the common law is in force. a. Within the judicial limits of the civil code, according to art. 14, every alien, even if he does not live in the country, can be cited before the courts of the country on ac- count of obligations entered into with a native either in this country or abroad. i. There is, however, a difference in the working of the general statute respecting tribunals which depends upon this, whether personal or real law be put in force against the alien. 1. A personal forum ( the forum domicilii) belongs to foreigners in Prussia whenever they have settled there, or are staying in Prussia with that intention. After the ces- sation of (eximirten) legal status they can be cited on personal matters before the tri- bunals of the districts in which they have settled, or have declared their intention of settling. Section 26, 27. I 2. General statute respecting tribunals. Section 1 and 23, decree of January 2, 1849. 2. Foreigners traveling through Prussia have here generally no personal forum ; ac- cordingly they can only be cited before the tribunals of this country in those cases in which a native could be cited before another tribunal as constituting his personal forum. This is the case : rt._ Whenever plaint is made respecting the completion or cessation of a contract which was concluded in this country, or should be here carried out, the plaint can be instituted just as well before the tribunals of the country of the concluded contract as of the place for its earryiag out; but that forum is only established whenever the defendant allows himself to be met with there, i. c, whenever the plaint can be served upon him within the jurisdiction of any such tribunals. Sec. 14851. I 2. General statute respecting tribunals. The last restriction does uot apply in plaints respecting bills of exchange. These can be instituted at the place of maturity against any persons responsible for bills. Sec. 6. Law of February 15, 1850. Collection of laws, page 53. J. Claims arising out of an administration can be presented before the tribunal at which any one shall have administered a foreign real or personal estate, until the ad- ministrator has wound up the administration. . Sec. 154, 155. I 2. General statute respecting tribunals. c. If any one has had an attachment served for damages, he must free himself before the judge of the place where the attachment arises, and, if he be a foreigner, must on that account give security. § 120. I 2. General statute tribunals. § 546. 1 14. General body of laws. This regulation has been recently extended to the case of foreigners injuring natives in this country. ■ $ 8. Supplement to general statute tribunals. d. In the case of attachment. ■ Tlie order of attachment rendered necessary as security of the plaintiff's claim is admissible before e-v'wy tribunal within whose jurisdiction the defendant lives or where goods of his are to be found. Tlie hearing of the chief claim belongs to the judge of the personal forum of the defendant whenever he has a personal forum in his native 247 eonntry. With rpspect to foreigners, the forum (h-termiiies the attaeliment :,s well as the neiiriiifr or the ehief ehimi. i} 79, I 2, § 7G, «r!-9U, I 2',». General statute tribunals. § 201, -212. Suiiplenient to general statute tribunals. E. In the case of voluntary (deelared or tacit) Tiroh)u<'ati(iu » 160-16.5, 12. ^ 1 o In the ease of obligatr>ry jirolongation this takes plaee— aa. When aliens eite a native within his jurisrtietion in this country, then they can he sued in the same forum {foram reconventioms) by the accused on account of all coun- ter-claims, and also when it arises from a claim in a real action relative to a movable orimmovable property, whereas natives can in this case be sued only in the real forum. 9 16, 17, and following, I 19. 1)1). In the case of actions for defamation. When aliens pretend to a claim against a native, they can be accused by the latter upon the hearing of their pretended right, which subjects him to the prejudice of a .ludgment against the pretension before the court to which the hearing of the case would belong. $ 4, I 33. General statute tribunals. G. A divorce suit against an alien can in this country only be instituted when an alien who has no house elsewhere, or who conceals such house, has during his residence in this country married a native woman without acquainting her that he did not intend to remain in this country. § 129, I 2. General statute respecting tribilnals. $ 38. Supplement to general statute respecting tribunals. B. The real forum is open against natives or aliens possessing movable or immova- ble property for all causes of action having a real right for their basis. § 107, 116, I 2. General statute tribunals. a. In the provinces where the (Landfassinit ?) is in force, the bringing forward of personal plaints iiiforo ret sitw against an aUen proprietcu- is permissible. Apart from this, even personal claims which arise out of the possession of landed property, or out of transactions which in his quality as landed proprietor he had undertaken, can be instituted against the possessors of immovable property inforo rei sites. § 112, I 2. General statute respecting tribunals. Under that head the following cases are included : when a lauded proprietor refuses — a. To fulfill his obligations contracted with his farmer or agent, or 6. To allow compensation for loans and materials employed for the improvement of the estate ; or when a proprietor c. Disturbs his neighbor in possession. d. Or sets up a false claim to the actual rights of the adjoining property, or when he in part or wholly alienates landed property, and does not f ulfill his contract, or does not give the due quiet possession. $ 131, as above cited. B. These legal regulations are extended in favor of Prussian subjects, so that they can raise claims against any alien living in the country and possessing movable or immovable property, before the tribunal under whose jurisdiction the property is situ- ated, on account of personal claims, with the object of obtaining payment out of the property he owns in the country. $ 34. Supplement to general statute respecting tribunals. 4. In the courts having cognizance of inheritance there can be instituted against • foreign co-heirs — a. Claims of legatees and of creditors of the testator's estate. § 121-4, 12. 6. Claims on account of inheritance so long as there remains a portion of the inher- itance. § 125, as above cited. 5. On requisition of the Prussian courts, execution decreed by foreign courts of law will be carried into effect when there is no doubt as to their competence, or as to the affair in question. § 30, 1. 2. Such doubts especially occur whenever the period shall have expired within which, according to the laws of this country, execution by decree can be sought. §§2,3,124. Or whenever a kind of execution inadmissible by the laws of the land is sought. 6. The §§ 292-6 of the bankruptcy decree of May 8, 1865, contain special regulations for the procedure with respect to native property of a foreign insolvent debtor. Thus merchants who have a commercial establishment in this country can obtain an insolvency (particular concurs) in respect of property here; and any other insolvent co-debtor is subject, upon petition of the creditors, to the bankruptcy procedure, which allows the appearance of foreign creditors. The balance remaining after the conclu- sion of the insolvency or the bankruptcy, as the case may be, is delivered to the for- 248 cign biiiilcniiitcy jiulfjo after the eoiisoiit of tlie minister for foreign affairs and the minister of justice shall have been ol)taineiis are not against it. Such rooiprocity cannot bo evaded liy (•('(liny oiif's lights to iiiiotlier. ^ 1H7S. An alien, lieing a minor, and having immovable property in the country, has to appoint a guardian for it. The foreign guardian of the minor may act as such. § lK7y. If a foreigner who has a guardian abroad or is under the parental care of a foreigner requires a guardian in the country for some legal purpose or lawsuit, such a guardian may be appointed by the courts of the country. Abstract from the penal code. Aet. 3. Foreigners who have committed a crime, and are to be tried by a tribunal of the country, are subject to the penalties of this code, with the exception of the case men- tioned in art. 8. Art. 4. Trial of a foreigner for a crime committed. (a.) Foreigners enjoying the rights of extraterritoriality. Art. 5. (6.) With respect to other foreigners, those who are guilty of a crime are likewise to bo tried only by order of the ministry of justice if the crime has been committed abroad ; but even in this case the order is not requisite — 1. If the crime lias been committed against a state, its authorities, or subjects, or persons who live under its protection, or were in Saxony at the time of the crime. 2. If the criminal has settled in Saxony. Art. 8. Foreign penal laws. If an oifense has been committed abroad by a foreigner, or is, according to articles 4, 5, 6, brovight before a tribunal, he is to be judged by the laws of the country where the offense has taken place, provided it be known or can be proved that the oulijrit would, according to these laws, either not be punished at all or less severely than by the Saxon laws, or only upon indictment, with the exception of the cases mentioned in article 5, No. 1, as well as of offenses committed against the King and the royal family, in which cases the present penal code has to be enforced ; if in conformity with the above regulations'the judge has to refer to a foreign penal law, and this law inflicts upon the culprit a punishment which is inadmissible according to the present law, he cannot go beyond the wording of the law. Art. 9. Foreign punishment. In case the culprit has already been punished for his offense by a competent tribunal of another state he cannot be punished again for the same offense by a tribunal of this country, unless he has at the same time made himself guilty by violating certain obli- gations incumbent on him toward the country, its sovereign, and his subjects, and then his previous penalty is to be taken into account even in the case of a sentence pronounced by an incompetent foreign tribunal. Art. 312. Trade-marTca. Whoever counterfeits, with the intention to deceive, the peculiar marks of mer- chants and manufacturers, is liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding four months, and if the imprisonment is only for two months he has to pay a fine up to two hundred thalers ; the counterfeiter, however, can only be indicted by the merchant or manufacturer whose trade-marks he has forged. Complaints of foreign merchants and manufacturers respecting such counterfeits can only be attended to if they can prove 'reciprocity on the part of the state to which they belong. (Extract from the law respecting the acquisition and loss of Saxon citizenship of the 2d July.) $9. Obligation requiring naturalization. Every foreigner in the kingdom of Saxony who desires (a) to become possessed of landed property in town or country, with personal residence ; (b.) Or to obtain naturalization according to the forms of municipal law ; or 253 (e.) To exorcise in tlie country a trade or profession whioli in a town wonld require natiu-alization ; or (rf.) To hold a municipal office or some other employment in church or school which is not under government patronage, is ohliged previously to hecome a Saxon subject. Persons mentioned under "d" may apply for it to the respective authorities in whom the patronage is vested. § 10. There is no necessity for naturalization — (a.) For such as hold landed property in Saxony on which they are not domiciled and which is under foreign management ; (6.) For foreigners who acquire landed iiroperty in Saxony with habitual residence but usually reside abroad, as long as they continue abroad ; (c.) When a wholesale business or manufacture is established in the country by a, foreigner residing abroad. In the cases 6 and c, on condition that the obligations of citizenship which are at- tached to a property or undertaking are fulfilled by a proper native representative. Foreigners under § 10, (a, I, e,) participate in the privileges and duties of a Saxon subject only as far as the nature of their property or trade may admit or be sanctioned by the law. The rights of political honors in Saxony cannot be exercised by them. SWEDEN. Stockholm, Jiili/ 31, 1868. My Lord : I have the honor to inclose copy of a letter I have received from Count Wachtmeister, forwarding for the information of Her Majesty's government a memo- randum of the disabilities to which foreigners residing in Sweden are subjected by the Swedish laws. I have, &c., J. PAKENHAM. The Lord Stanley, M. P., 4-c., ^c, fc. Stockholm, ?e 27 Juillet, 1868. MONSlEtTE: Parunenotedu24dumoisdernier,M.leMinistre d'Angleterre s'est adress^ a, M. le Baron d'Ugglas, faisant alors les fonctions do ministre des affaires 6trang&res, aveo la demando d'obtenir pour le compte du gouvemement britannique des renseigne- ments complets sur les disqualifications (disabilities) auxquelles la loi suMoise assujettit les ^trangferes r&idant en Su6de. Je me vols maintenant h. mSme de fournir ces renseignements, et je m'enipresse de vous les transmettre en joignant ci-prfes le m^moire 61abor6 sur ce sujct au minist&re de la justice. Veuillez, Sec, ■ „ (Sign6) WACHTMEISTER. Mr. Pakenham, ^c, ^-c, ^c. [Translation.] P.M. Relative to the disqualifications to which foreigners settled in Sweden are subject, on the groimd of existing Swedish statutes. Swedish subjects only are eligible for election to the "Riksdag," (the Swedish legis- lative chambers.) (See § 22 of the "Riksdag" regvilations.) It does not appear, either, that foreigners are entitled to take part in the election of members of the "Riksdag," or of members of the municipal administrative bodies. (See J 8 of the statute relative to municipal administration in the rural districts ; § 10 of the statute relative to municipal administration in towns ; § 4 of the statute rela- tive to church vestries ("Kyrkorad") and school committees, ("Skolr&d;") U 3, 5, and 7 of the statute relative to the "lands tin^" (boards elected in provincial districts for the management of local communal affairs,) all of the 21st day of March, 1862, compared with §§ 6 and 14 of the "Riksdag" regulations.) „„ ^ , Offices of trust and service under the government may, as a rule, only be failed by natural-bom Swedish men. Foreigners may, notwithstanding, in certain cases, be called and appointed : Firstly. To the post of professors or teachers at the universities, with the exception of posts for theological instruction ; they may also be appointed teachers, or in any 254 other tiipaeity, at other scieutitio, industrial, aud artistic institutions, aud also to the iiUMlieal profession. Secondly. To military posts ; not, liowovor, to that of commander of a fortress. (See 5 28 of the constitution, "Eegerings Formen.") Foreigners helonging to countries in which Swedish subjects are entitled to inherit property also possess the same right in Sweden, (see chap. 15, § 2, of the statute of in- heritance, "Arfda Balkcn,") so that they may thus become the holders of real and per- sonal estate in this kingdom. Foreigners may not otherwise hold real and personal estate in Sweden without the special permission of the King, (see the royal proclamation of the 3d October, 1829;) but there appears to be no legal hiuderance to foreigners possessing the usufiuct of real and personal estate on lease or otherwise. Foreigners may not act as the guardians of minors or others. (See chap. 20, J 8 of the statute of inheritance, "Arfda Balken.") With reference to the right of foreigners to exercise trade and industry in this country : Foreigners are permitted to be part owners of vessels registered either for home or foreign trade ; but they may not possess more than one-third of the tonnage of Swed- ish vessels, nor be the managing owners. Foreigners who have obtained permission of the king to dwell in the kingdom, may, also, after special inquiry in each case, obtain permission to exercise trade, manufac- tures, mechanical employments, or any other calling. (See the royal statute of the 18th June, 1864.) It should be specially observed that the King possesses the prerogative of adopting foreigners as Swedish subjects by act of naturalization. (See § 28, sec. 2. OjE the con- stitution, " Eegerings Formen.") The manner of such naturalization and its conditions are determined by the royal statute of the 27th February, 1858, which enacts generally — That the rights of Swedish subjects may, on application to the King, be obtained by foreigners who have attained the age of 21, are of good repute, have resided in the kingdom for three years, and who possess the means of supporting themselves. That such application shall be accompanied by a certificate of the age of the candi- date, the country to which he belongs, the time when he arrived in the kingdom, his character, and the religious faith he professes. And that the candidate, provided the application be granted, shall, within the term prescribed by the King, and before the proper authorities, attest that he has ceased to be a subject of the foreign power to which he formerly belonged, or otherwise resign, in writing, all the political privileges and rights he may possess in the said foreign country ; and the candidate shall ^so take the oath of allegiance to the King as a Swedish subject. Thus naturalized foreigners enjoy the same rights and privileges as natural-bom Swedes, except in so far that they cannot be appointed members of the council of state, ("Statsrad.") In fidem, GEOEGE FEENDBEEG APGEOEGE, Sivorn Translator. Stockholm, July 30, 1868. SWITZEELAND. Berne, July 4, 1868. My Lord : In obedience to the instructions contained in your lordship's dispatch of the 16th ultimo, I have the honor to inclose herewith copy of a note dated the 26th ultimo, from the federal council, giving an account of the disabilities to which aliens residing in Switzerland are subjected by law. I have, &c. J. SAVILLE LUMLEY. To the Eight Hon. the Lord Stajsley, M. P., ^c. Bbene, U 26 Juin, 1868. En r&ponse jl la note que M. le Ministre de Sa Majest<5 britannique lui a adressfie le 19 feme courant, le conseil f^d^ral a I'honneur d'annoncer si son excellence que les stran- gers ri5sidant eu Suisse ne possfedent aucuns droits politiques, qu'ils sont exclus du ser- vice militaire, ct que, s'il n'existe pus dcs ( raitSs, ils ne peuvciit dans difKrents cantons ;icroport.v of absent lieiis is to rcociAe the same care as if it were the property of citizens — Austria, Bavaria, Hesse, Nassau, Saxony, Two Sicilies, AVurteniberg. all (lispTites rclatinp; to such real estate must be settled before the courts of the country — liavaria, Hesse, Nassau, Orange Free State, Saxony, Swiss Ccmfcderation, Two Sicilies, AViirtemberg. Reciprocal phivileges op citizexs of each nation within the tereitokies of THE other: tlie citizens of each may reside in the territories of the other, remaining subject to the laws — Argentine Confederation, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, (New Granada,) Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Great Britain, (obsolete,) Greece, Guatemala, Hanover, Hawaiia^i Islands, Hayti, Honduras, Italy, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Oldenburg, Mexico, Nicaragua, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, San Salvador, Sardinia, Sweden and Norway, Swiss Confederation, Two Sicilies, Liberia. the citizens of each may reside in the territories of the other — Borneo. vessels and effects of citizens of each in the tei-ritories of the other are to be protect- ed and defended — Sweden, (see Sweden and Norway,) Tunis. citizens of each being within the teiTitories of the other shall be exemjit from forced military service— Argentine Confederation, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, France, (obsolete,) Hawaiian Islands, Hayti, Honduras, Italy, Mexico, Nicaragua, Orange Free State, Paraguay, Switzerland, Two Sicilies. from billeting of soldiers — Two Sicilies. from contribution in kind or money for comiiensation for personal military services — Italy, Two Sicilies, [they shall not be exempt from such contribution — Orange Free State, Swiss Confederation.] from forced loans — Argentine Confederation, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Repub- lic, Hawaiian Islands, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Two Sicilies. from military exactions — Argentine Confederation, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Hayti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay. from contributions — Bolivia, Nicaragua. from contributions in time of war, in which case property is n8. My Lord : As a supplement to my dispatcli of the 27th ultimo, on the position of aliens in Denmark, I have the honor to inclose herewith, at the request of the natural- ization commission, the written opinion of Mr. Brock, a distinguished Danish lawyer, with ref erenpe — 1. To the oath required of aliens entei'ing on certain professions. 2. Whether the birth in Denmark of the son of an alien constitutes a Danish sub- ject. Your lordship will see by the inclosed document that — 1. The "Borgherskab" or Burgherbur oath was abrogated in 1858. The oath now taken by brokers, translators, &c., is non-political, and limited to the faithful per- formance of their office. 2. The son of an alien born in Denmark is considered a Dane, to all intents and purposes, so long as he remains in Deiunark. I have, &o., CHARLES LENNOX WYKE. The Lord Stanley, M. P., ^c Copenhagen, July 26, 1868. Sir: Your excellency has asked my opinion on the following questions : 1. Is the "Borgerbur" oath still required for entering on certain professions; and, if so, what professions ? 2. Does the fact of birth in Denmark constitute a son of an alien a Danish subject? Answer, 1. The "Borgerbur" oath required by the Danish law for entering on pro- fessions of different kinds has been abolished by the law of December 29, 1857. The oath still taken by brokers, translators, and such persons of public trust, that they will faithfully perform the duties imposing on their office, has no influence upon their sit- uation as subjects of the Danish Crown, and is no oath of allegiance. 2. The son of an alien born in Denmark is regarded a Dane if he remains here. I have, &o., GUSTAV BEOCK, Advocate of the Supreme Court. Sir Charles L. WYKE,iK. C. B., #c. British Legation, Copenhagen, August 17, 1868 My Lord: In reply to your circular marked of the 11th instant, instructing mo to furnish a report for the information of the naturalization commission on the state of the Danish law with regard to the nationality of childi'en bom of alien parents within the Danish dominions, I have the honor to refer your lordship to my dispatch marked of the 28th ultimo, which contains the information required by the commission with reference to this subject. I have, &c., CHAELES LENNOX WYKE. The Lord Stanley, M. P., ^c FEANCE. Code Napoleon, Civil Code, hooTc I, ch. 1. " 9. Any person bom in France, bein^ the child of a foreigner, may, in the year fol- lowing the time of his attaining his majority, claim French citizenship ; provided that, in case of his residing in France, he declare that it is his intention to fix his domicile there, and that, in case of his residing in a foreign country, he promise to fix his domi cile in Prance, and that he establish it there within one year from the date of making such promise. " 10. Any child of a Frenchman bom in a foreign country is French. Any childboru in a foreign country, whose father is a Frenchman who has lost his French citizenship, can always recover such citizenship by complying with the formalities prescribed in article 9. "C, 11, sectimi I. " 17. French citizenship shall be forfeited, first, by naturalization in a foreign coun- try ; second, by the acceptance, when not authorized by the King, of public functions 269 ^nnff/X"'^ ^^J a foieign government; tMrd, finally, by any settlement in a foreign he nn,^,W 1 *i!"*'^"*T *° '^''*';™- -i settlement for commercial pniijoses sliaU not be considered as having been made without intention to return. 18. A lYenchman who has lost his French citizenship can always recover it l.v re- l!!^ftf« fhf™ ?^7w^^^'' anthoiization of the King, and by declaring that hede«iics to settle there, and that he renounces every distinction contrary to the French law " Ihe ninth ai-ticle of the Code Napoleon was modified by a law of 18.51 • 29-29th of January and 7th February, 1851, (10th series. No. 2, 730 ; Article 9 C N > law relating to persons bom in France, and being the children of foreigners who were themselves born there, and the children of naturalized foreigners. " Article 1. Any person is R-ench who was born in France and is the child of a for- eigner who was likewise born there, unless within the year foUowing the time of his attaining his majority he claims foreign citizenship by a declaration made either be- lore the municipal authorities of his place of residence or before the diplomatic or consular agents accredited in France by the foreign government. '"Article 9 of the civil code is applicable to the children of a naturalized foreigner, although they may have been born in a foreign country, if they were minors at the tune of their father's naturalization. With regard to chil'di-en born in France or abroad who were of age at the same time, article 9 of the civil code is applicable to them in the year following the date of the aforesaid naturalization." GREECE. Athens, September 3, 1868. My Lord : With reference to your lordship's cu-cular dispatch of the 11th ultimo, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a report, drawn up by the lawyer em- ployed by this legation, on the state of the Greek law with regard to the nationality of cbildren born of alien parents within the Greek dominions. I have, &c., C. M. EESKINE. The Lord Stanley, M. P., j-c. What is the condition of children born on Greek soil of foreign parents ? As a general rule, the circumstance of a child's having been born on Greek soil does not cause him to be considered as a Greek; his origin alone does so. In order, there- fore, to settle the question whether a child is a Greek or not, a single thing is to be considered — of whom was he born ? If the child of a Greek, he is a Greek himself, in whatever country he was born. If his parents are foreigners he ia a foreigner like them, even if he was born in Greece. (Article 14, No. 1, of the civil code.) It must, however, be remarked that the circumstance of a child's having been born on Greek soil produces a double effect in his favor. 1. It enables him to acquire Greek citizenship more readily than an ordinary foreigner. He has, in fact, but to fulfill three conditions : (a.) To declare, while residing in Greece, that it is his intention to fix his domicile there, and to so establish it within one year from the date of such declaration ; (6.) To make this declaration within one year from the date of his majority; and (c.) To take the oath of allegiance as a Greek subject before the competent monarch. (Articles 19 and 17 of the civil code.) 2. It causes it to be taken for granted, when his father and mother are unknown, that he is the child of Greek parents, and that he is consequently a Greek himself. (Article 114, No. 3 of the civil code.) The principle that the origin of the child determines his nationality, independently of the place of his birth, presents no difficulty when his father and mother are both foreigners ; the child is a Greek in the first case, a foreigner in the second. What, how- ever, is to be decided upon if the one is a Greek and the other a foreigner ? Shall the child foUow the condition of his father or that of his mother ? If the child was bom in lawful wedlock this question will rarely arise, for as the wife follows the conditions of her husband, (articles 21 and 25 of the civil code,) both husband and wife will, in most cases, be both Greeks or both foreigners. Still, as the prin- ciple enunciated by these articles must be understood in this restricted sense, that the woman acquires the condition which her husband has at the time of her marriage, the contrary hypothesis may arise. Then will the child's condition be that of his father or that of his mother, the father being the head of the family ? Article 14, No. 1, decides that the nationality of the child will be that of the father. As to a child born of a foreign mother and a native Greek father, if he is legally 270 recognized by Ms iatlier alone, or by Ms father and Ms mother, his couditiou will be that of his father. (Article 14, No. 5, of the civil code.) On the other hand, it must be decided that if he has been recognized by Ms mother only, he is, like her, a for- eigner. He who is bom of a Greek mother and a foreign father is considered a Greek sub- ject if he has not been recognized by the latter. (Article 14, No. 2, of the ciyil code.) If he has been recognized by Mm, in order to obtain Greek nationality he must com- ply with the formalities already mentioned in article 17 of the civil code. (Article 19 of the same fode.) It remains to examine the question whether the child acquires the condition which his father or his mother had at the time of his conception or of Ms birth. The ques- tion is an interesting one, for the person whose condition the child is to follow may, in the interval between liis conception and Ms birth, have ceased to be a Greek by natu- ralization abroad ; or, having been a foreigner, she may have become a Greek by natu- ralization in Greece. Article 11 of the civil code proclaims the Roman maxim, Infant oonceptus pro nato Itabetur, quoties de ejus commodis agitur; and since, iu the eyes of the Greek law, it is better for the cMld to be born a Greek than a foreigner, we will say that it is sutocient, in order that a child may be born a Greek, for the person whose condition he is to fol- low to have been a Greek, either at the moment of the conception or at the moment of his birth, or even in the interval between these two dates. Children born between the two or three years required lor the naturalization of a foreigner (according as he is or is not of Greek origin) become Greeks by the natural- ization of their father. (Article 18 of the civil code.) As to children born to him be- fore the declaration required for naturalization, they will remain foreigners, as vriU also Ms wife ; but if at the time of his naturalization they were minors, they may acquire Greek nationality by manifesting their desire to do so, witMn the year follow- ing the date of their attaining their majority, before the communal magistrate of the place where they may desire to fix their domicile, by settling in Greece, and by taking the oath of allegiance as Greek subjects before the competent monarch. (Article 17 of the civil code.) Article 20 of the same code decides that a child bom of parents who had lost their Greek citizenship may always acquire such citizenship by complying with the for- malities prescribed in article 17. As the civil code of Greece, in conferring citizen- ship, considers only the origin, there is no distinction to be made if the cMld of a for- mer Greek was bom abroail or in Greece : if those whose condition he follows are foreigners he is necessarily born a foreigner like them, whatever may be the place of his birth. It must be remarked, however, that the child born of an ex-Greek is treated more favorably than a child born in Greece of an ordinary foreigner ; the one may al- ways, that is to say, at any age, provided he be of age, claim Greek citizensMp ; he can do so, on the contrary, only within the year following the date of the attainment of his majority. TMs difference is readily explained. The child bom of an ex-Greek being a Greek by nature, the law does not doubt his attachment to Greece ; at whatever time he may present himself it eagerly accepts him, convinced that the feeling wMch causes him to act can be but love for his natural country. The case is not the same with the child of a foreigner bom in Greece ; he is not at all a Greek. It may be that he feels a fond- ness for Greece since he was born there, but if he is too tardy in making known Ms desire to bear the title of a Greek, the law, being warned by his indifference, presumes, when he presents himself later, that he comes only for his own personal interest, and therefore treats him like an ordinary foreigner. Athens, August •^, 1868. D. G. KHALLY, Advocate, Doctor of Laws. HANSE TOWNS. Hamburg, September 8, 1868. My LOHD : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordsMp's circular dispatch under date of the 11th of August, instructing me to report as to the law of the Hanse Towns with respect to the nationality of children born of alien parents within their respective territories, and beg leave to report as follows : According to the law of Lubeck all legitimate children bom of alien parents within its territory take the nationality of the father, while those wMch are Ulsgitimate take that of the mother until another nationality is acquired for them. The law in force in Bremen prescribes merely that children of alien parents who are not citizens of Bremen are not to bo regarded as subjects of that state, and makes no conditions as to their being born in wedlock or not. 271 According to tte law of Hamburg the nationality of tlie parents is transmitted to tho children -without any restrictions whatever as to the place of hirth, except in the case of illegitimacy, when the children take the nationality of the mother. 1 ha^'c, &.C., GEOEGE ANTSTESLEY, Acting Consul-General. The Lord Stanley, M. P., cfc. HESSE-DAEMSTADT. No. 7.] Darmstadt, Septeniber 9, 1868. My Lord : Upon the receipt of your lordship's circular dispatch of the 11th ultimo I addressed a note to Baron Dalwigk, of which I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy, and I haA'6 now received from his excellency the answer, of which a copy is likewise herewith transmitted. Your lordship will learn from this correspondence that children horn of alien j)arent8 within the grand ducal dominions retain their "status" as aliens, unless they are ap- pointed to a public employment in the grand duchy, or are naturalized by a special act. I have, &o., E. B. D. MOEIEE. The Lord Stanley, M. P., ho has obtained it, is permitted to do so withou restriction. § 25. A subject who — (1.) Either takes public service in a foreign state, with our immediate permission; (2.) Or is it appointed in our states by a foreign power, in an office established with our permission, as, for instance, that of consul, commercial agent, &c., remaining in his quality as a Prussian. § 26. General disposition. Subjects who emigrate without having obtained their discharge, or violate, by their entering into public service in a foreign state, tire disposition of § 24, are to be punished according to the laws existing in that respect. Given under our hand and seal, Berlin, this 31st of December, 1842. PREDEEICK WILLIAM. RUSSIA. No. 181.] St. Pbtersbueg, Angmt^b, 1868. My Lord : In obedience to the instructions contained in your lordship's dispatch, marked circular, of the 11th instant, I have the honor to report that the general law of Russia in regard to aliens is, that all foreign subjects who have not taken an oath of allegiance to Russia in due form, are held to be aliens. The law of the \% February, 1864, of which an abstract was inclosed in my dispatch of the 30th June last, stipulates : " 5. The allegiance (to Russia) when sworn to (by the subject of a foreign power) is 276 merely porsoiial, and does not affect •cliildi-cii, whether of age or minors, previously Iporn. Those horn after the ndoptiou of RusMian nationality are acknowledged as Rus- sians. "Vi. Children of foreigners not Russian suli.jocts, born and educated iu Russia, or if born abroad, yet who have completed their education iu a Russian uppev or uiiddlo school, will be admitted to Russian allegiance, should they desire to ho so, a year after they shall have obtained their majority ; and, lastly, " 13. The children of foreigners wishing to become Russian subjects will be admitted to Russian allegiance on the same terms as their parents." I have, &.C., The Lord Stanley, M. P., cfc, cf-c,